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

[Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>]

In addition to already discussed typedefs how about unified GPS coordinates
which is common across number of working groups for starter ?

Have Routing Design Team considered it ?

Best,
RR.


On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 11:15 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Robert,
>
> Feel free to suggest validated common YANG typedefs for consideration by
> the Routing Design Team…. I’m not worried about adding needed types for a
> few more weeks. It is the few more quarters that I’m worried about. This is
> also consistent with the direction we are receiving from the ADs.
> Thanks,
> Acee
>
> From: <[e-mail]> on behalf of Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>
> Date: Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 5:06 PM
> To: Acee Lindem <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Jeff Haas <[e-mail]>, Routing WG <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types-06.txt
>
> 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
>>
>>
>