Hi,
Thanks for your reply. So does this mean, to support this spec,
different VPNs even if service type is different (e.g. L2/L3) have to have
different RT though from L2VPN and L3VPN specs two VPNs one providing L2
service other L3 service can share same RT without any problem and if such
configured, the configuration need to be changed in all PEs/RRs. I am trying to
understand VPN technologies, and don't know if there are general
practise/guidelines to use them unless it is spelled out in spec.
Santanu.
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Raszuk [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 23 April 2013 10:41
To: Santanu Paul
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: Query regarding rfc4684 Constrained Route Distribution
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.
