Hi, It is ok to use same RT. And usually for a given VPN which requires L2 and L3 same RT makes sense. Likewise you need both L2 and L3 VPN routes so RTC will request routes for both of those services in the same time.
Best regards, R. On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 7:00 AM, Santanu Paul <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. > >
