On Nov 4, 2015, at 2:56 PM, John G. Scudder <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Oct 19, 2015, at 5:46 AM, Rob Shakir <[email protected]> wrote:
>> [0]: This might raise the question of what happens when we have multiple
>> VRFs without RDs, but overlapping addressing in the BMP spec.
>
> I think for practical purposes this can currently be addressed by running a
> separate BMP session that binds to the "VRF" in question, quoted because I
> think an L3VPN VRF always would have an RD so the issue would not arise. (See
> also Jeff's comment about virtual routers.) If we wanted to address this some
> nicer way, we could add a new Peer Type whose Peer Distinguisher is an
> arbitrary integer. See also my reply to Alia.
Update: after some off-line discussions, I've added this to my working copy:
* Peer Type = 2: Local Instance Peer
...
If the peer is a "Local Instance Peer", it is set to a
unique, locally-defined value. In all cases, the effect is that
the combination of the Peer Type and Peer Distinguisher is
sufficient to disambiguate peers for which other identifying
information might overlap.
Thanks,
--John
_______________________________________________
GROW mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
