IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org> Sun, 02 April 2017 13:27 UTC

Return-Path: <jhaas@pfrc.org>
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 069E81293DB for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 2 Apr 2017 06:27:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 Ghp_f-aTpGlQ for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 2 Apr 2017 06:26:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from slice.pfrc.org (slice.pfrc.org [67.207.130.108]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C7C812704B for <rtgwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 2 Apr 2017 06:26:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dresden.attlocal.net (99-59-193-67.lightspeed.livnmi.sbcglobal.net [99.59.193.67]) by slice.pfrc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3D1271E1D3; Sun, 2 Apr 2017 09:33:38 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_1B5C8211-5BEF-4017-A329-E2B12B268E87"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
Subject: Re: Question on draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types
From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
In-Reply-To: <009201d2a8a2$2a9ac4c0$7fd04e40$@ndzh.com>
Date: Sun, 02 Apr 2017 09:26:55 -0400
Cc: rtgwg@ietf.org
Message-Id: <A50B6D9A-D6E7-4393-B61E-098D282BDCEE@pfrc.org>
References: <009201d2a8a2$2a9ac4c0$7fd04e40$@ndzh.com>
To: Sue Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/qnt9jSxD6aotdc0sbt4gMs8KcXs>
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: Sun, 02 Apr 2017 13:27:01 -0000

> On Mar 29, 2017, at 11:35 AM, Susan Hares <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?  

FWIW, I had already flagged to a few members of the design team that the route-target types are not sufficiently general.

I owe them an email about the details, which I'll do when I have a pause in my travels.

-- Jeff

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email