From: Susan Hares <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 at 10:57 AM To: Acee Lindem <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Routing WG <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: RE: Question on draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types
Acee: Thank you. Just to clarify your answer, does mean you had a discussion with the operators (e.g. openconfig) who implement the basic BGP model as well? If you have looked OpenConfig models in Github, they have their own factoring of types. The bigger question of OpenConfig and IETF models is certainly not addressed by this model. Acee Sue From: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 11:47 AM To: Susan Hares; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: Question on draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types Hi Sue, We incorporated the types that were required for L3VPN/L2VPN models. Specifically, route-distinguisher, route-target, route-target-type, and the vpn-route-target. There was an extensive discussion with the authors of these models. Thanks, Acee From: rtgwg <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of Susan Hares <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 at 10:35 AM To: Routing WG <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Question on draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types RTGWG DT: Just curious, did the DT consider BGP routing types? If so, where did you decide BGP routing types were not common routing types? Sue
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
