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

Jeff,

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 :(.

FWD of my msg follows:

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Date: Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 12:34 PM
Subject: Re: Draft-rtgyangdt-rtgwg-routing-types
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
Cc: "rtgwg@ietf.org" <rtgwg@ietf.org>

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.

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 9:26 PM, Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org> wrote:

> I had a chance to followup on my email of April 2 regarding the
> route-target
> type.  I am including a paste of it from the draft below for reference.
>
> The type covers core RFC 4360 route-target types and this is needed.  In
> particular, it does a nice job in covering the common expressions of the
> typed route-targets in that RFC.
>
> There are other extended communities that have over time picked up
> semantics
> of route targets.  The ES-Import route target type is an example of this,
> and would not be covered by the type described in the draft.
>
> It's my recommendation that while accommodating the well known types is
> laudible, some accommodation should be made for future types.
>
> A final note is that RFC 5701 defines an IPv6 specific route target type.
> I
> don't believe this is currently implemented, but will likely be a cause to
> update this module when it is.  I believe is structurally problematic for
> the vpn-route-targets grouping, which only includes the route-target type
> as
> a leaf.
>
> :      typedef route-target {
> :        type string {
> :          pattern
> :            '(0:(6553[0-5]|655[0-2]\d|65[0-4]\d{2}|6[0-4]\d{3}|'
> :          + '[0-5]?\d{0,3}\d):(429496729[0-5]|42949672[0-8]\d|'
> :          + '4294967[01]\d{2}|429496[0-6]\d{3}|42949[0-5]\d{4}|'
> :          + '4294[0-8]\d{5}|429[0-3]\d{6}|42[0-8]\d{7}|4[01]\d{8}|'
> :          + '[0-3]?\d{0,8}\d))|'
> :          + '(1:(((\d|[1-9]\d|1\d{2}|2[0-4]\d|25[0-5])\.){3}(\d|[1-9]\d|'
> :          + '1\d{2}|2[0-4]\d|25[0-5])):(6553[0-5]|655[0-2]\d|'
> :          + '65[0-4]\d{2}|6[0-4]\d{3}|[0-5]?\d{0,3}\d))|'
> :          + '(2:(429496729[0-5]|42949672[0-8]\d|4294967[01]\d{2}|'
> :          + '429496[0-6]\d{3}|42949[0-5]\d{4}|4294[0-8]\d{5}|'
> :          + '429[0-3]\d{6}|42[0-8]\d{7}|4[01]\d{8}|[0-3]?\d{0,8}\d):'
> :          + '(6553[0-5]|655[0-2]\d|65[0-4]\d{2}|6[0-4]\d{3}|'
> :          + '[0-5]?\d{0,3}\d))';
> :        }
> :        description
> :          "A route target is an 8-octet BGP extended community
> :           initially identifying a set of sites in a BGP
> :           VPN (RFC 4364). However, it has since taken on a more
> :           general role in BGP route filtering.
> :           A route target consists of three fields:
> :           a 2-octet type field, an administrator field,
> :           and an assigned number field.
> :           According to the data formats for type 0, 1, and 2 defined in
> :           RFC4360 and RFC5668, the encoding pattern is defined as:
> :
> :           0:2-octet-asn:4-octet-number
> :           1:4-octet-ipv4addr:2-octet-number
> :           2:4-octet-asn:2-octet-number.
> :
> :           Some valid examples are: 0:100:100, 1:1.1.1.1:100, and
> :           2:1234567890:203.";
> :        reference
> :          "RFC4360: BGP Extended Communities Attribute.
> :           RFC5668: 4-Octet AS Specific BGP Extended Community.";
> :      }
>
> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 08:27:14AM -0700, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote:
> > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
> > This draft is a work item of the Routing Area Working Group of the IETF.
> >
> >         Title           : Routing Area Common YANG Data Types
> >         Authors         : Xufeng Liu
> >                           Yingzhen Qu
> >                           Acee Lindem
> >                           Christian Hopps
> >                           Lou Berger
> >       Filename        : draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types-06.txt
> >       Pages           : 33
> >       Date            : 2017-06-13
> >
> > Abstract:
> >    This document defines a collection of common data types using the
> >    YANG data modeling language.  These derived common types are designed
> >    to be imported by other modules defined in the routing area.
> >
> >
> > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types/
> >
> > There are also htmlized versions available at:
> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types-06
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types-06
> >
> > A diff from the previous version is available at:
> > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types-06
> >
> >
> > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
> submission
> > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
> >
> > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rtgwg mailing list
> > rtgwg@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtgwg mailing list
> rtgwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
>