IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Wed, 29 March 2017 16:12 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 0F491129864 for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 09:12:01 -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 QfvLbUlOdi_j for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 09:11:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.86.72]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 502CA1297AA for <rtgwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 09:11:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=10169; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1490803918; x=1492013518; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=KmRP34X+dDeTH060PzCJjyK0fE1TFuoLI81XzSwU3nA=; b=elFugU32Cr2vw02lsS4RtJeZh4we9KKE4elQ2li4WcCMLBhnjwRN29Rp gtJUeH1BYKcILnDGXca6OFDtZX1AYJgAHoGTyCfEWWGqCUHqWPq0KltLL zSPB35OiVNSJf+JK8hjXi8yIAhCMehdz/Ibugot7ylgxOXlX7rsSMI8Dd I=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0AXAQD229tY/4QNJK1cGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBBwEBAQEBgm5nYYELB41skVGQHYUxgg6GIgKDQz8YAQIBAQEBAQEBayiFFQEBAQEDLVwCAQgOAwMBAQEoBzIUCQgBAQQBEooKsB6KRAEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAR2LPYR0FoUvBZxgAZJPkTOTaQEfOIEEWRWFGQUYgWN1iCmBDQEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.36,241,1486425600"; d="scan'208,217";a="229918708"
Received: from alln-core-10.cisco.com ([173.36.13.132]) by rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 29 Mar 2017 16:11:57 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com (xch-rtp-015.cisco.com [64.101.220.155]) by alln-core-10.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v2TGBv6j015449 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 29 Mar 2017 16:11:57 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, 29 Mar 2017 12:11:56 -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, 29 Mar 2017 12:11:56 -0400
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, "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: AdKonyE6FQw1FFh9RqeyVcySd3MfCP//+DkAgABW3oD//7A2AA==
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 16:11:56 +0000
Message-ID: <D5014649.A539F%acee@cisco.com>
References: <009201d2a8a2$2a9ac4c0$7fd04e40$@ndzh.com> <D501400D.A5382%acee@cisco.com> <00c501d2a8a5$265dfe10$7319fa30$@ndzh.com>
In-Reply-To: <00c501d2a8a5$265dfe10$7319fa30$@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: [10.24.96.129]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D5014649A539Faceeciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/rqbeOqMvWi1QcvSqBtGtGT1NmhU>
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 16:12:01 -0000


From: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com<mailto:shares@ndzh.com>>
Date: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 at 10:57 AM
To: Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com<mailto:acee@cisco.com>>, Routing WG <rtgwg@ietf.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org>> on behalf of Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com<mailto:shares@ndzh.com>>
Date: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 at 10:35 AM
To: Routing WG <rtgwg@ietf.org<mailto: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