IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Susan Hares" <shares@ndzh.com> Wed, 29 March 2017 16:23 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 2F8FC12943A for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 09:23:56 -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 1M6gur_MAQYB for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 09:23:55 -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 28663129665 for <rtgwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 09:23:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=forwardok (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> <00c501d2a8a5$265dfe10$7319fa30$@ndzh.com> <D5014649.A539F%acee@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <D5014649.A539F%acee@cisco.com>
Subject: RE: Question on draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 12:19:04 -0400
Message-ID: <002001d2a8a8$2f2dd2b0$8d897810$@ndzh.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0021_01D2A886.A81D6B30"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQDXwzi4B96BBr1TfUCFM48H2sYUSwEVR9oTAlJPj/UCsDzEmaNxCVNg
Content-Language: en-us
X-Authenticated-User: skh@ndzh.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/Qc9rFazIDd2b59RMiJWZ3WEf4gg>
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 16:23:56 -0000

Acee: 

 

I was querying about operational experience with
draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types as input for IDR.  IDR has adopted BGP model
that predates this work. 

 

Sue 

 

From: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:acee@cisco.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 12:12 PM
To: Susan Hares; rtgwg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Question on draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types

 

 

 

From: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
Date: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 at 10:57 AM
To: Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com>, Routing WG <rtgwg@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: Question on draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types

 

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?

 

If you have looked OpenConfig models in Github, they have their own
factoring of types. The bigger question of OpenConfig and IETF models is
certainly not addressed by this model. 

 

Acee 

 

 

 

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