2nd reply .. Hi Paul,
We think of RT as characteristic of a VPN not a service within VPN. So why would you want to break a VPN services apart for a given customer site/vrf ? Said this there was proposal http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dong-idr-vpn-route-constrain-02 which did not got much traction and sort of expired on it's own. Besides if you really want to have separated services you can always allocate new RT per service and not per VPN/vrf. Best regards, R. On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 7:07 AM, Santanu Paul <[email protected]> wrote: > 2nd Try > > > > From: Santanu Paul > Sent: 17 April 2013 17:50 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Query regarding rfc4684 Constrained Route Distribution > > > > Hi, > > > > This spec says “This mechanism is applicable to any BGP NLRI > that controls the distribution of routing information by using Route > Targets, such as VPLS [9].” I have a question regarding this. If same RT is > used for some L3VPN routes (AFI/SAFI= /128) and some L2VPN routes > (AFI/SAFI=25/65) and a PE is providing both IP VPN and VPLS service, how it > will distinguish which VPN service these RTs are meant for? Should not there > be a AFI/SAFI element for the RTs in “Route Target Membership NLRI”? > > > > Regards, > > Santanu.
