Subject: [Idr] IETF-78 IDR minutes

From: John Scudder <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 13:54:33 -0700

FYI minutes from our last meeting are available at http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/78/minutes/idr.txt

Please send any corrections to the list & chairs.

Thanks,

--John and Sue

---

From: Jie Dong <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2010 10:29:02 +0800

Hi all, 

Some supplements for discussion of draft-dong-idr-vpn-route-constrain-01.txt
in the meeting: 

1. Answers to Robert's first question:

One PE (say PE1) can connect to two or more VPN sites, some of them support
IPv4, and some others support IPv6, or both v4 and v6, thus PE1 would
establish BGP session for both VPNv4 and VPNv6. Then peers can advertise
both VPNv4 and VPNv6 routes to PE1. 

In this scenario, if the same RT is used for both VPNv4 and VPNv6, based on
current RT-Constrain, the peers cannot tell which kind of route is requested
by PE1, thus they may send undesired VPN routes to it. For some VPNs the
amount of undesired routes can be large.

2. Reply to Robert's second question (configuring different RTs to solve the
problem)

Based on normal BGP procedures, using the same RT for different AFI/SAFIs is
permitted, as routes of different AFI/SAFIs would be processed
independently. But using the same RT along with current RT-Constrain can
cause the problem of receiving undesired VPN routes. Thus we just try to
make RT-Constrain compliant with normal BGP.

Any further comments on draft-dong-idr-vpn-route-constrain-01 are welcome.

Best regards,
Jie

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of John
> Scudder
> Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 4:55 AM
> To: [email-masked] List
> Subject: [Idr] IETF-78 IDR minutes
> 
> FYI minutes from our last meeting are available at
> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/78/minutes/idr.txt
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr

---

From: Robert Raszuk <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2010 07:53:05 +0200

Hi Jie,

Let me clarify ...

> Thus we just try to make RT-Constrain compliant with normal BGP.

Let me observe that RT-Constrain as documented in RFC 4684 is very 
complaint with normal BGP (modulo your definition of "normal BGP").

It needs to be pointed out that vast majority of customers would
have valid requirement for congruent IPv4 and IPv6 topologies. So using 
the same value for those VPNs is not only possible, but also highly 
encouraged. Authors of RFC4684 looked at route-target as marker 
identifying a customer VPN of any address family.

For possible migrations scenarios yes PE would be receiving both v4 and 
v6 VPN routes if the same RT is configured on both address families. If 
this turns to be an issue for some VPNs using during migration or even 
long term configuration of different RT values solves the issue.

So I really do not think that we need to incorporate any protocol 
modifications here.

Many thx,
R.