IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Fri, 21 April 2017 15:30 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 AFFCA12954A for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Apr 2017 08:30:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.521
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.521 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, 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 OkwDAasIjW9l for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Apr 2017 08:30:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com [173.37.86.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F14B212954B for <rtgwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Apr 2017 08:30:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=13111; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1492788607; x=1493998207; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=ET4NkbVcZnhj8VS/4WKD/+2tpRnTh69im4Gs4np6SlU=; b=XSsplyO4lld/R/VCSmA1C2cqK6Lp1UZADNw2kvhvwApgGyvqPIUnfQ/R FQrSy9xX5ztnf3NrvH0PlhXfQZ28kNhOpMELFq6HB17MEBHqlDscDFgPX SGz9Pj8bUsk70d4HVasrkcAuXjNPnqRC0839D6yOy0Qw7fVpbNQJjKoW9 8=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0ARAQAVJfpY/5tdJa1cGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBBwEBAQEBgm47K2GBDAeDYIoVkWmQL4U1gg8hAQqFeAIag3E/GAECAQEBAQEBAWsohRUBAQEBAwEBIQpBGwIBCA4DAwEBASgDAgICJQsUCQgBAQQBEoocDqlEgiaLIQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAR2LFTSEbgkWglCCXwWdQQGHFotvggBVjwKIb4spAR84gQZjFUSEaRyBY3WIKYENAQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.37,230,1488844800"; d="scan'208,217";a="233651060"
Received: from rcdn-core-4.cisco.com ([173.37.93.155]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 21 Apr 2017 15:30:06 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-011.cisco.com (xch-rtp-011.cisco.com [64.101.220.151]) by rcdn-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v3LFU6L8018178 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 21 Apr 2017 15:30:06 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; Fri, 21 Apr 2017 11:30:05 -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; Fri, 21 Apr 2017 11:30:05 -0400
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, 'Lou Berger' <lberger@labn.net>, "rtgwg@ietf.org" <rtgwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Question on draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types
Thread-Topic: Question on draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types
Thread-Index: AdKonyE6FQw1FFh9RqeyVcySd3MfCA==
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 15:30:05 +0000
Message-ID: <D51F9D15.AA568%acee@cisco.com>
References: <009201d2a8a2$2a9ac4c0$7fd04e40$@ndzh.com> <15b2f3d76e8.27d3.9b4188e636579690ba6c69f2c8a0f1fd@labn.net> <00bd01d2ae0e$b9fb1220$2df13660$@ndzh.com>
In-Reply-To: <00bd01d2ae0e$b9fb1220$2df13660$@ndzh.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: [10.116.152.197]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D51F9D15AA568aceeciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/W1jUWeU7BrNaTuQAQpFBVSQwD0Y>
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: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 15:30:12 -0000

Hi Sue,

Since you are referring to RFC 4760, is it the SAFIs that you would like to see defined here? One thing that is different from the IETF style is that if I add these they will not be all upper case like they are in the OC BGP types model.

BTW, what is the target timeframe for an update of the BGP YANG model? I know you had mentioned it was in the works in the IDR meeting.

Thanks,
Acee

From: rtgwg <rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org>> on behalf of Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com<mailto:shares@ndzh.com>>
Date: Wednesday, April 5, 2017 at 9:15 AM
To: 'Lou Berger' <lberger@labn.net<mailto:lberger@labn.net>>, Routing WG <rtgwg@ietf.org<mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>>
Subject: RE: Question on draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types

Lou:

Let me recheck.  I thought there was something relating to the MP-BGP that was not covered.   I’ll get back to you by Thursday am.

Sue

From: Lou Berger [mailto:lberger@labn.net]
Sent: Sunday, April 2, 2017 11:17 AM
To: Susan Hares; rtgwg@ietf.org<mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Question on draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types


Hi Sue,

I took another look at bgp types and the only thing that jumps out at me as common that isn't already covered is enumeration of protocols  (for potential use in route redistribution and interface config).  We can certainly consider this if this what you were thinking about.

Are there are types you think we overlooked?

Lou

On March 29, 2017 11:41:25 AM "Susan Hares" <shares@ndzh.com<mailto:shares@ndzh.com>> wrote:
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


_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
rtgwg@ietf.org<mailto:rtgwg%40ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email