IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: Question on draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types

"Susan Hares" <shares@ndzh.com> Wed, 29 March 2017 16:02 UTC

Return-Path: <shares@ndzh.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 7AC3A1294CD for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 09:02:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.947
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.947 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX=2.845, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=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 mDsbb1ReaK8W for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 09:02:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hickoryhill-consulting.com (50-245-122-97-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [50.245.122.97]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F061E1296F3 for <rtgwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 09:02:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=loggedin (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=31.133.128.130;
From: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
To: "'Acee Lindem (acee)'" <acee@cisco.com>, rtgwg@ietf.org
References: <009201d2a8a2$2a9ac4c0$7fd04e40$@ndzh.com> <D501400D.A5382%acee@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <D501400D.A5382%acee@cisco.com>
Subject: RE: Question on draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 11:57:21 -0400
Message-ID: <00c501d2a8a5$265dfe10$7319fa30$@ndzh.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00C6_01D2A883.9F4EA800"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQDXwzi4B96BBr1TfUCFM48H2sYUSwEVR9oTo5kWroA=
Content-Language: en-us
X-Authenticated-User: skh@ndzh.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/JJpTYZvC0EMh8OFAmAbr_l4wFFQ>
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: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 16:02:09 -0000

Acee: 

 

Thank you.   Just to clarify your answer, does mean you had a discussion
with the operators (e.g. openconfig) who implement the basic BGP model as
well? 

 

Sue  

 

From: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:acee@cisco.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 11:47 AM
To: Susan Hares; rtgwg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Question on draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types

 

Hi Sue, 

We incorporated the types that were required for L3VPN/L2VPN models.
Specifically, route-distinguisher, route-target, route-target-type, and the
vpn-route-target. There was an extensive discussion with the authors of
these models. 

Thanks,

Acee

 

From: rtgwg <rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Susan Hares
<shares@ndzh.com>
Date: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 at 10:35 AM
To: Routing WG <rtgwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Question on draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types

 

RTGWG DT: 

 

Just curious, did the DT consider BGP routing types?  If so, where did you
decide BGP routing types were not common routing types?  

 

Sue

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email