IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Wed, 21 June 2017 20:37 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 88BA7129449 for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 13:37:20 -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, 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 Wxeih98pyrwP for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 13:37:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.86.78]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9760A129410 for <rtgwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 13:37:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3294; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1498077438; x=1499287038; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=15fbF+chWfm6rv9FRt6yjiLLQLvDs08hBNqWkSeMaLA=; b=IZculF2pDrNWKAJUNWSauQYZioYZFQup1UAIQaIlJFd4qt2SXasg7lQq KwqVRmLanql9upli8Dl+KmGrl+iUvhoq49WYAQuTKMCt3kVOWTmsGjcB/ ywEq+IWy42Xg/7PeMFUuxtlWH8sO5WUn5gtQ8rRID+l+qOp8zYQ59DZlA s=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0DxAAAP2EpZ/5JdJa1dGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBBwEBAQEBg1higQ0Hg2WKGZFdc5UFghEhC4V4AhqCXD8YAQIBAQEBAQEBayiFGAEBAQEDAQEhEToLEAIBCA4DAwECAQICJgICAiULFQgIAgQBDQWKLBCqcIImi14BAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEYBYELh0KCcDSHfIJhBYcagjiVEAKOLoUykg6QWoQ2AR84gQp0FUmHD3aIXYENAQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.39,370,1493683200"; d="scan'208";a="259001233"
Received: from rcdn-core-10.cisco.com ([173.37.93.146]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 21 Jun 2017 20:37:17 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com (xch-rtp-015.cisco.com [64.101.220.155]) by rcdn-core-10.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v5LKbHZZ018062 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 21 Jun 2017 20:37:17 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 16:37:16 -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; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 16:37:16 -0400
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
CC: 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: AQHS6fnikS0I7ilFJE6n2lpEnZm8QqIuZSiAgAAFDoCAAV4qAA==
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 20:37:16 +0000
Message-ID: <D5704EFC.B617C%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>
In-Reply-To: <20170620194357.GD2289@pfrc.org>
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: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <ED23F58D401A654DB880DDB83B4D6DBA@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/UzwJ05ZLHItbtDRyNkwD2N_lx4k>
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, 21 Jun 2017 20:37:20 -0000

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"
<rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of jhaas@pfrc.org> 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 <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.
>
>_______________________________________________
>rtgwg mailing list
>rtgwg@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email