Re: [Idr] Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-pmohapat-idr-acceptown-community-01.txt

"Jim Guichard (jguichar)" <> Tue, 06 May 2008 18:07 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13DD53A6B8C; Tue, 6 May 2008 11:07:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D4AC3A6C3B for <>; Tue, 6 May 2008 11:07:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.299
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IafItF7M9Xrg for <>; Tue, 6 May 2008 11:07:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94AD43A6B8C for <>; Tue, 6 May 2008 11:07:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,444,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="7483844"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 06 May 2008 14:07:11 -0400
Received: from ( []) by (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m46I7BAE010784; Tue, 6 May 2008 14:07:11 -0400
Received: from ( []) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m46I7B0x015867; Tue, 6 May 2008 18:07:11 GMT
Received: from ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 6 May 2008 14:07:10 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Tue, 06 May 2008 14:07:09 -0400
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Thread-Topic: [Idr] Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-pmohapat-idr-acceptown-community-01.txt
Thread-Index: Acivox4TaTD37VIdRUi9hkrFK7DLlQAAFf1g
From: "Jim Guichard (jguichar)" <>
To: Jeffrey Haas <>, "John G. Scudder" <>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 May 2008 18:07:10.0969 (UTC) FILETIME=[01333690:01C8AFA4]
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1374; t=1210097231; x=1210961231; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim2001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version;;; z=From:=20=22Jim=20Guichard=20(jguichar)=22=20<jguichar@cisc> |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[Idr]=20Fwd=3A=20I-D=20ACTION=3Adraft-p mohapat-idr-acceptown-community-01.txt |Sender:=20 |To:=20=22Jeffrey=20Haas=22=20<>,=20=22John=2 0G.=20Scudder=22=20<>; bh=LR0zF8swMq+ih07HXv2z+2Wf910jMrjxtWHo6om7F0s=; b=qaXWceYZ2iHoNXIlCiezCduTIGfTMPSDVbpT2g2MyFaO10KizstZO85FKd IeMxMaZw9zB6dnvvw29mLr4nombYuYiZIEkB/EW/idEhoYmFO95KwX0H/cMy KDi9NFjHY8;
Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-2;; dkim=pass ( sig from verified; );
Subject: Re: [Idr] Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-pmohapat-idr-acceptown-community-01.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> Typical VRF configuration is import-route-target A and
> export-route-target B.  If A == B for some A and B in the extended
> community set they're in the same VPN.

I would say that the typical VRF configuration is
import-route-target/export-route-target are the same value.

> I'm curious as to the configuration of the route targets that would
> require this to be done.  I hadn't thought about the case where the RR
> is actively manipulating the route-targets.  If the goal is to stitch
> together a single set of VRFs, you have the additional problem of
> needing to constrain where the route is reflected.

Lets say VPN-a uses RT 100:1 and VPN-b uses RT 100:2. In order to create
an extranet you need to import RT 100:2 into VPN-a and RT 100:1 into
VPN-b. This is an additional import statement. However, if you change
the VPN-b route RT values at the RR then VPN-a can import based on RT

> If it's across multiple PEs, this implies something along the lines of
> RT A and RT B are distinct on a per VRF basis.  This seems somewhat
> unlikely (at least on the completely distinct basis) since it wouldn't
> scale well for many VRFs being in the same VPN.

It is 100% likely and indeed necessary should you want different VPNs.

> Could you clarify on the likely setup for this feature?
> -- Jeff
Idr mailing list