Robert,
On Sat, Nov 19, 2022 at 02:26:27PM +0100, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> So the -09 version is adding non-existent type 6 not only to RD, but also
> to Route-Target - there is no such thing.
>
> typedef route-target {
> type string {
> pattern
> '(0:(6553[0-5]|655[0-2][0-9]|65[0-4][0-9]{2}|'
>
> ......
>
> and RFC7432, the encoding
> pattern is defined as:
>
> 0:2-octet-asn:4-octet-number
> 1:4-octet-ipv4addr:2-octet-number
> 2:4-octet-asn:2-octet-number.
> 6:6-octet-mac-address.
Type 6 is the ESI-import route-target specified in RFC 7432.
> The new type 6 was then copy and pasted into RD
That is the error being reported.
> But this is not the end :)
>
> The copy and paste continues and we now see addition of type 6 also to
> route-origin extended community ... which again does not exist.
I missed that one. Probably worth a different errata.
> Finally the definitions of RT says:
>
> A route target consists of two or three fields:
> a 2-octet type field, an administrator field,
> and, optionally, an assigned number field.
>
>
> 2 octet type fields are not really the case neither for Route Target nor
> Route Origin Extended communities. So really even types 0, 1 or 2 there do
> not really exist.
>
> It looks to me like this RFC8294 requires to be "suspended" and new major
> surgery done on it with -bis posting replacing all text against all
> definitions of extended communities present in it.
I'll respond to this in more detail to Acee's comments, but this was likely
going to be minimally a presentation to rtgwg and likely new work.
Working on the BGP YANG model was educational about some of our fun in this
space. Some of that feedback will be relevant for WGLC for the BGP YANG
work.
-- Jeff
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
