IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Wed, 29 March 2017 15:46 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 27CB212942F for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 08:46:42 -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 AXnVhJxYUThw for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 08:46:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 30083129801 for <rtgwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 08:46:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4799; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1490802394; x=1492011994; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=r/yYrAYp9igOLugc4bediKkh8WjMA+VxUJ3pvteF404=; b=V3JHTT9JDu74h7oLA6s2PN0pjVgp2M7Wg4H88CsB16z7MWB/M64ElORq NHBlbsjMniFnRxhEXKDE6pLZu9KryzKZ1JdK6UgHq+Z+lL1vcm6NOXm1e pIJy1q2Ek7HSkLIqJy+SjauJvbuIU86absh4rRXMdD6VP4lnnihyuVifM s=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0AXAQDg1dtY/4kNJK1dGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBBwEBAQEBgm5nYYELB41skVGQHYUxgg6GIgKDQT8YAQIBAQEBAQEBayiFFQEBAQEDLVwCAQgOAwMBAigHMhQJCAEBBAESigqwFopEAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBHYs9hHSFRQWcYAGST5Ezk2kBHziBBFkVhRkFGIFjdYgpgQ0BAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.36,241,1486425600"; d="scan'208,217";a="8316565"
Received: from alln-core-4.cisco.com ([173.36.13.137]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 29 Mar 2017 15:46:33 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-014.cisco.com (xch-rtp-014.cisco.com [64.101.220.154]) by alln-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v2TFkX21030811 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 29 Mar 2017 15:46:33 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) by XCH-RTP-014.cisco.com (64.101.220.154) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 11:46:32 -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 11:46:32 -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//+DkA
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 15:46:32 +0000
Message-ID: <D501400D.A5382%acee@cisco.com>
References: <009201d2a8a2$2a9ac4c0$7fd04e40$@ndzh.com>
In-Reply-To: <009201d2a8a2$2a9ac4c0$7fd04e40$@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_D501400DA5382aceeciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/uaAqEBgdV7lXmwagGAt77eGY0cA>
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 15:46:42 -0000

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