IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Thu, 22 June 2017 13:10 UTC

Return-Path: <acee@cisco.com>
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 95DB7128B8F for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Jun 2017 06:10:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.522
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.522 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 jJY01gHlj1I4 for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Jun 2017 06:10:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-7.cisco.com (alln-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.142.94]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49CDC1243F3 for <rtgwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Jun 2017 06:10:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=13657; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1498137053; x=1499346653; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=dlvqiwcOuPrp6Gm2ADOVk4L8ljy5XnQAurXTf0FE2EI=; b=Llm8Q1AnUL0TNyJBfMVvHH6y1QTO4ywaV0sTLVe00JiAUgAMgHrLlAXH N+aOyuNQOORgpRsTgukTOe5973/W1vuRB229A6V71THudbYIzZRKQI18j bGUyE/a3XP/jVfKvVCRJT1avsjPQyMX0JKBeVYqYF5hg92g82E1qCoSBn o=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0DoAADwwEtZ/4gNJK1dGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBBwEBAQEBgm9pYoENB4NlihmRYIgsiCKFKoIRLIV4AhqCZT8YAQIBAQEBAQEBayiFGAEBAQEDI1YQAgEGAhEDAQIoAwICAh8RFAkIAgQOBYlITAMVEI4LnWKCJoczDYQmAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBGAWDJ4UrAYMkgleCMwaCbYJhBZ4oOwKOeYRnggmFSIo+i1+JNgEfOIEKdBWFVgEbgWZ2iFCBDQEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.39,373,1493683200"; d="scan'208,217";a="444204808"
Received: from alln-core-3.cisco.com ([173.36.13.136]) by alln-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 22 Jun 2017 13:10:52 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-011.cisco.com (xch-rtp-011.cisco.com [64.101.220.151]) by alln-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v5MDAqcB019607 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 22 Jun 2017 13:10:52 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) by XCH-RTP-011.cisco.com (64.101.220.151) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Thu, 22 Jun 2017 09:10:51 -0400
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Thu, 22 Jun 2017 09:10:51 -0400
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
CC: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>, RTGWG <rtgwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types-06.txt
Thread-Topic: I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types-06.txt
Thread-Index: AQHS6fnikS0I7ilFJE6n2lpEnZm8QqIuZSiAgAAFDoCAAV4qAIAASyqA//+/ZgCAAEPygP//wPWAgABLOgD//9kXAAAarjEAAAGLxwA=
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 13:10:51 +0000
Message-ID: <D5710C05.B6215%acee@cisco.com>
References: <149736763440.7477.10138004135435824433@ietfa.amsl.com> <20170620192616.GB2289@pfrc.org> <CA+b+ER=SnJCu+BTpPKs+oOd0sAuPKTM1NCN4h9rYWBh=aX9feA@mail.gmail.com> <20170620194357.GD2289@pfrc.org> <D5704EFC.B617C%acee@cisco.com> <CA+b+ERnpTGYzoZ_vqr=6hZy7E51tsJPLf6k+6=P-2Rmuxjesiw@mail.gmail.com> <D5705923.B61A1%acee@cisco.com> <CA+b+ERkzFJyz9_1_RYY-x+QpZbkLb7oYJFB8W4QNxeTm68Xugg@mail.gmail.com> <D5705CF3.B61B3%acee@cisco.com> <CA+b+ER=spwoY_=FFzVODgCiQM65QhoN3jx=kE_rciAJJgpE1rg@mail.gmail.com> <D5707A54.B61D3%acee@cisco.com> <CA+b+ERmEkEBPs+WDq0kn7vqA=y9ACn_kZZ_12k5k8w+zkwOjBQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+b+ERmEkEBPs+WDq0kn7vqA=y9ACn_kZZ_12k5k8w+zkwOjBQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.116.152.196]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D5710C05B6215aceeciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/I7_8qjOrNCb71HYoyvnDZExbnLM>
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: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 13:10:56 -0000

Hi Robert,

From: <rraszuk@gmail.com<mailto:rraszuk@gmail.com>> on behalf of Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net<mailto:robert@raszuk.net>>
Date: Thursday, June 22, 2017 at 4:26 AM
To: Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com<mailto:acee@cisco.com>>
Cc: Jeff Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org<mailto:jhaas@pfrc.org>>, Routing WG <rtgwg@ietf.org<mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types-06.txt

Acee,

Also isn't MD5 / TCP-AO or security certificates common across multiple routing components ?
Videre RFC 8177…


​I was under assumption that this work aims at providing a comprehensive ​reference to common (used across protocols) elements either by defining them directly or providing references if they were already defined elsewhere.

Apparently the latter part is missing from this document.

You have IPX address family and you do not have RIP one which was way more common over PE-CE then IPX :) ?
RIP is not an address family, RIPv2 advertises AFs IPv4 and IPv6 (at least that is all I’ve ever implemented)….


​Oh please ... It seemed obvious especially in this context. It is like mocking from someone who said "BGP" in the context of multi-protocol extensions rather then spelling BGPv4 each time.

Sorry – I thought it was clear that these definitions in iana-routing-types.yang corresponding directly to the IANA registries for Address Families and Subsequent Address Families. IPX is an IANA registered AF. See Normative references in the draft:


   [IANA-ADDRESS-FAMILY-REGISTRY]
              "IANA Address Family Registry",
              <https://www.iana.org/assignments/address-family-numbers/
              address-family-numbers.xhtml#address-family-numbers-2>.

   [IANA-SAFI-REGISTRY]
              "IANA Subsequent Address Family Identities (SAFI)
              Parameters Registry", <https://www.iana.org/assignments/
              safi-namespace/safi-namespace.xhtml#safi-namespace-2>.


Thanks,
Acee


Thx,
R.​

​​

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email