> On Jul 20, 2015, at 1:35 PM, <[email protected]> > <[email protected]> wrote: > > - Regarding tags, as pointed today, I would like to have “tag” to be > a generic local identifier rather than pointing only to IS-IS and OSPF. Any > route within a RIB may have a local tag (this local tag can be learned from > the routing protocol or set by configuration or policy). So setting a tag > does not refer to any igp-action.
I believe we do wish to keep this field used for IGP route tagging since that's a protocol component. (Fascinating issue, while researching ISIS implementations I found that the protocol permits 64bit tagging, but didn't find anyone that implemented them.) I do realize that there is also a need to do general route mark-up so that policy engines can operate off of that. I know that for certain route types, the "tag" field might be able to be used for this purpose; e.g it has no semantics in a given BGP implementation unless the route is redistributed in the IGP. (And I'm not even sure that field survives export, I'd have to check the code.) Perhaps more appropriate would be to have a new mark-up field, name TBD, to cover this purpose. It could then be implemented as appropriate for a given route type and vendor implementation? -- Jeff
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
