IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Comments on draft-shaikh-rtgwg-policy-model

Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org> Mon, 20 July 2015 14:05 UTC

Return-Path: <jhaas@pfrc.org>
X-Original-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FC101A88D6 for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Jul 2015 07:05:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.577
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.577 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=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 L4cYXO6QcQM3 for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Jul 2015 07:05:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from slice.pfrc.org (slice.pfrc.org [67.207.130.108]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E9C11A886F for <rtgwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Jul 2015 07:05:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.29.64.66] (jplon-nat11.juniper.net [193.110.55.11]) by slice.pfrc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 52DD91E36F; Mon, 20 Jul 2015 10:07:07 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Comments on draft-shaikh-rtgwg-policy-model
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2102\))
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_2E494442-E1FB-4816-A8EA-4E59A265BC4E"
From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
In-Reply-To: <2188_1437400730_55ACFE9A_2188_4362_1_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF92166A0CC7@OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 16:05:04 +0200
Message-Id: <23933303-B805-495D-AF0E-9305AED39F0A@pfrc.org>
References: <6148_1437392115_55ACDCF3_6148_2234_11_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF92166A0AC1@OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <E4CCDE37-90A5-4ED5-8E85-3DAD595347C0@pfrc.org> <18735_1437394871_55ACE7B7_18735_2268_1_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF92166A0BB9@OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <AE597A9E-B8D5-4E7B-A292-6E1671BD5862@pfrc.org> <2188_1437400730_55ACFE9A_2188_4362_1_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF92166A0CC7@OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
To: "stephane.litkowski@orange.com" <stephane.litkowski@orange.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2102)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/BpMdG_Htuop-2iJn4QpeVcVPPcc>
Cc: "rtgwg@ietf.org" <rtgwg@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 14:05:09 -0000

> On Jul 20, 2015, at 3:58 PM, stephane.litkowski@orange.com wrote:
> 
> Right, each protocol has its own constraint, but do you think creating an additional generic marker will solve those constraints ? We would expect to be able to have the generic marker to protocol tag and also two protocol tags with different constraints to interact between each other (I mean for example, learning a RIP tag and copying it to ISIS or OSPF).

My thought is that by not using an element that has protocol semantics, we can free the user from worrying about them when they don't care about whether the route will or will not get redistributed into a protocol that might use it.  This is mostly to deal with your "local" property noted earlier.



-- Jeff

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email