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

["Acee Lindem (acee)" <[e-mail]>]

I’m a co-author on some of these geo-location drafts but they are not yet WG documents. However, we did get a lot of people involved in the definitions and feel they are stable. I would not be opposed to adding them at the risk they could change after publication.

Thanks,
Acee

From: <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> on behalf of Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 5:18 PM
To: Acee Lindem <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: Jeff Haas <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Routing WG <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types-06.txt


In addition to already discussed typedefs how about unified GPS coordinates which is common across number of working groups for starter ?

Have Routing Design Team considered it ?

Best,
RR.


On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 11:15 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Hi Robert,

Feel free to suggest validated common YANG typedefs for consideration by the Routing Design Team…. I’m not worried about adding needed types for a few more weeks. It is the few more quarters that I’m worried about. This is also consistent with the direction we are receiving from the ADs.
Thanks,
Acee

From: <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> on behalf of Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 5:06 PM
To: Acee Lindem <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: Jeff Haas <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Routing WG <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types-06.txt

Hi Acee,

Progressing it quickly and incomplete will result in each independent routing model coming with their own likely creating pretty massive conflicts and confusion.

So IMHO we should really make sure all necessary and common between different protocols elements are defined here even if as result it would get delayed few more weeks.

Cheers,
R,

On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 10:37 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
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"
<[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> on behalf of [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> 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 <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
>> Date: Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 12:34 PM
>> Subject: Re: Draft-rtgyangdt-rtgwg-routing-types
>> To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
>> Cc: "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>
>> 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
>[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg