Re: [IETFMIBS] Extending InetAddress(Type) for BGP Multicast VPNs

[Brian Haberman <[e-mail]>]

Hi Juergen,

On 1/10/12 5:54 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 09, 2012 at 04:05:55PM -0800, Jeff Haas wrote:
>> Juergen,
>>
>> On Jan 9, 2012, at 6:40 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
>>> I have no clue what change you think is needed. Please excuse my
>>> ignorance of BGP Multicast VPNs - but for me it is easier to
>>> understand what you propose to change if there is a more concrete
>>> description of the change you envision.
>>
>> Reference:
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-bgp-08
>>
>> BGP MVPN routes are basically 7 types of routing information distributed in BGP as prefixes.  Some of these routes are effectively fixed length but that's a minor detail.  Please refer to section 4 for the different route formats to avoid significant copy and paste.
>>
>> My proposal is that 7 code points are allocated for MVPN routes for InetAddressType for these 7 types of information.  Textual conventions would be defined to cover each of the appropriate types.
>>
>> One small annoyance is that the DISPLAY-HINT syntax isn't quite flexible enough to cover the variable-length types in a fully pleasing format.  There's not much we can do about that.
>>
>> If this proposal seems to have merit and would be likely to get traction, we'll submit some text for the MIB.
> 
> What I see in section 4 of draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-bgp-08 does
> not seem to be Internet addresses. There are quite a number of MIB
> modules using InetAddressType and InetAddress and pretty much for all
> of them these additions likely do not make sense. So either I do not
> understand the proposal yet or if I understand it correctly, I tend to
> not like it.

I suspect that Jeff wants to introduce 7 new values for InetAddressType
that allows him to represent these seven types of routes:

     + 1 - Intra-AS I-PMSI A-D route;
     + 2 - Inter-AS I-PMSI A-D route;
     + 3 - S-PMSI A-D route;
     + 4 - Leaf A-D route;
     + 5 - Source Active A-D route.
     + 6 - Shared Tree Join route;
     + 7 - Source Tree Join route;

I would have to see a more concrete proposal, but it seems a unwieldy
given that each of the above types could occur for both IPv4 and IPv6
addresses.  So that would require more than seven new values for
InetAddressType.  Unless I am not understanding the referenced draft
correctly...

Regards,
Brian