[karp] karp-ops-model: VRFs

Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu> Fri, 22 February 2013 18:00 UTC

Return-Path: <hartmans@mit.edu>
X-Original-To: karp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: karp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EC7F21F87C5 for <karp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Feb 2013 10:00:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.821
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.821 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.222, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CeX+b2MDcEqH for <karp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Feb 2013 10:00:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.painless-security.com (mail.painless-security.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 212B821F87B1 for <karp@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Feb 2013 10:00:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org (c-98-216-0-82.hsd1.ma.comcast.net []) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "laptop", Issuer "laptop" (not verified)) by mail.painless-security.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DDC1520161 for <karp@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Feb 2013 12:55:46 -0500 (EST)
Received: by carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org (Postfix, from userid 8042) id BE0D5447B; Fri, 22 Feb 2013 13:00:28 -0500 (EST)
From: Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>
To: karp@ietf.org
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 13:00:28 -0500
Message-ID: <tsl621kfcub.fsf@mit.edu>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.110009 (No Gnus v0.9) Emacs/22.3 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Subject: [karp] karp-ops-model: VRFs
X-BeenThere: karp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for key management for routing and transport protocols <karp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/karp>, <mailto:karp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/karp>
List-Post: <mailto:karp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:karp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/karp>, <mailto:karp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 18:00:33 -0000

dacheng and I are working through karp-ops-model updates.
Section 3.4 of draft-ietf-karp-ops-model discusses VRFs and the key
It says that probably the right answer is that each VRF should have a
key table but more analysis is required.

When i wrote that more analysis might be required I was mostly thinking
about inter-VRF routing.
I've thought more about this, but it seems like most of the use cases I
can think of fall into two categories:

1) A routing peering relationship within a VRF. There you want the VRF's
key table

2) A service provider routing peering that exchanges routes for multiple
VRFs. There you want a key from the non-virtual VRF used by the service

I've convinced myself if that in the vast majority of cases it's fine to
model the key table as per-VRF.
So, unless there are objections I'll update the text to make this as a
conceptual recommendation.
Obviously the specific details are left up to the implementation and
this text will not be stating any normative requirements.