Re: [Idr] RFC 4684 pedantry - routes with no Route Target

[Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 11:21:44AM -0400, Eric Rosen wrote:
> Jeff> The broader question I'd put to the working group is whether any NLRI
> Jeff> not  having RTs isn't really a "VPN NLRI" for purposes of RT-C
> Jeff> filtering
> 
> I don't think RFC4684 really intends to restrict its applicability to "VPN
> routes".  It does say in section 1: "This mechanism is applicable to any BGP
> NLRI that controls the distribution of routing information by using Route
> Targets".

(And Jakob also raised the same point.)

It should be noted that we leveraged the same thing for the
draft-ietf-idr-mdcs proposal. :-)

> The problem arises because, on some NLRIs, the use of RTs is
> optional.  What you're suggesting is that RT-C should never filter out
> routes that don't have any RTs.  That does seem right.

I think that's 3 people that are in agreement.  I'd like to leave the
discussion open for a little bit to get additional consensus in the WG.

Chairs, presuming that we do end up with that sort of behavioral consensus
about no RT's, is an errata against RFC 4684 sufficient or would you want to
see something more?

-- Jeff