Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types-06.txt

[Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>]

Hi Acee,

Progressing it quickly and incomplete will result in each independent
routing model coming with their own likely creating pretty massive
conflicts and confusion.

So IMHO we should really make sure all necessary and common between
different protocols elements are defined here even if as result it would
get delayed few more weeks.

Cheers,
R,

On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 10:37 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Jeff, Robert,
>
> We weren’t sure that SOO would be used beyond the BGP model. I can add
> typedef site-of-origin with format <4-octet-asn:2-octet-number>.
>
> As far as RFC 5701 is concerned, we could add types ipv6-route-target and
> ipv6-site-of-origin with format <ipv6-address:2-octet-number>.
>
> Note that the intent is to progress this quickly so that usage doesn’t
> block other models. It is not to get every present and future common
> routing type that might be useful prior to progression.
>
> Thanks,
> Acee
>
>
> On 6/20/17, 3:43 PM, "rtgwg on behalf of Jeffrey Haas"
> <[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:
>
> >Robert,
> >
> >On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 09:25:51PM +0200, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> >> Let's note that I had similar concerns on RT definition and more
> >>expressed
> >> to the list in Nov 2016 however they were not considered :(.
> >
> >I'm in my typical far behind on list mode, so I may have missed this. :-)
> >
> >I agree the other structured formats are worth considering.
> >
> >A challenge the authors of the draft have is canonical formatting for new
> >structured formats while at the same time providing access to the opaquely
> >until they have been thus defined.
> >
> >I would urge the chairs to request attention from IDR and BESS as part of
> >the WGLC on this document.  Sue Hares responded earlier in the thread, so
> >it
> >at least has her attention.
> >
> >-- Jeff
> >
> >> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >> From: Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>
> >> Date: Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 12:34 PM
> >> Subject: Re: Draft-rtgyangdt-rtgwg-routing-types
> >> To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[e-mail]>
> >> Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> >>
> >> Hi Acee,
> >>
> >> SOO has similar format to RT however RT is defined only partially.
> >>There is
> >> existing extension to RFC4360 in the form of RFC5668 which defines new
> >> structure of both RT and SOO (Route Origin).
> >>
> >> Also I think there important this draft needs to define type for VRF as
> >>VRF
> >> as such is used across a lot of different applications way beyond
> >>original
> >> L3VPN use intention.
> >>
> >> And I think there is many more common elements ... just think of recent
> >>geo
> >> coordinates shred by 4 WGs (if not more ...).
> >>
> >> Thx,
> >> R.
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >rtgwg mailing list
> >[e-mail]
> >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
>
>