IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Question on draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types

Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org> Sun, 02 April 2017 13:15 UTC

Return-Path: <chopps@chopps.org>
X-Original-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C723E128CB9 for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 2 Apr 2017 06:15:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id U9m3AZOup8ut for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 2 Apr 2017 06:15:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.chopps.org (smtp.chopps.org [54.88.81.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB35C128DE5 for <rtgwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 2 Apr 2017 06:15:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tops.chopps.org (47-50-69-38.static.klmz.mi.charter.com [47.50.69.38]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by smtp.chopps.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E592061832; Sun, 2 Apr 2017 13:15:36 +0000 (UTC)
References: <009201d2a8a2$2a9ac4c0$7fd04e40$@ndzh.com> <D501400D.A5382%acee@cisco.com> <00c501d2a8a5$265dfe10$7319fa30$@ndzh.com> <D5014649.A539F%acee@cisco.com> <002001d2a8a8$2f2dd2b0$8d897810$@ndzh.com>
User-agent: mu4e 0.9.19; emacs 25.1.1
From: Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>
To: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
Cc: "'Acee Lindem (acee)'" <acee@cisco.com>, rtgwg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Question on draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types
In-reply-to: <002001d2a8a8$2f2dd2b0$8d897810$@ndzh.com>
Date: Sun, 02 Apr 2017 09:15:35 -0400
Message-ID: <878tnj54so.fsf@chopps.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/-qka714yHku-4tCR9fxpbxmi2D4>
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Working Group <rtgwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtgwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 02 Apr 2017 13:15:40 -0000

Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com> writes:

> Acee:
>
> I was querying about operational experience with draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types as input for IDR. IDR has adopted BGP model that predates this work.

Hi Sue,

There are a few openconfig folks on the design team although there are
differing levels of participation so something may have been missed in
the initial revisions. Please feel free to suggest types from the
OpenConfig BGP model that would be useful for other routing modules. :)

Thanks,
Chris.

> Sue
>
> From: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:acee@cisco.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 12:12 PM
> To: Susan Hares; rtgwg@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Question on draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types
>
> From: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
> Date: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 at 10:57 AM
> To: Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com>, Routing WG <rtgwg@ietf.org>
> Subject: RE: Question on draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types
>
>  Acee:
>
>  Thank you. Just to clarify your answer, does mean you had a discussion with the operators (e.g. openconfig) who implement the basic BGP model as well?
>
> If you have looked OpenConfig models in Github, they have their own factoring of types. The bigger question of OpenConfig and IETF models is certainly not addressed by this model.
>
> Acee
>
>  Sue
>
>  From: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:acee@cisco.com]
>  Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 11:47 AM
>  To: Susan Hares; rtgwg@ietf.org
>  Subject: Re: Question on draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types
>
>  Hi Sue,
>
>  We incorporated the types that were required for L3VPN/L2VPN models. Specifically, route-distinguisher, route-target, route-target-type, and the vpn-route-target. There was an extensive discussion with the authors of these models.
>
>  Thanks,
>
>  Acee
>
>  From: rtgwg <rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
>  Date: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 at 10:35 AM
>  To: Routing WG <rtgwg@ietf.org>
>  Subject: Question on draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types
>
>  RTGWG DT:
>
>  Just curious, did the DT consider BGP routing types? If so, where did you decide BGP routing types were not common routing types?
>
>  Sue

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email