Subject: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-legacy-rtc-07.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2016 15:02:02 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Inter-Domain Routing of the IETF.

        Title           : Automatic Route Target Filtering for legacy PEs 
        Authors         : Pradosh Mohapatra
                          Arjun Sreekantiah
                          Keyur Patel
                          Burjiz Pithawala
                          Alton Lo
	Filename        : draft-ietf-idr-legacy-rtc-07.txt
	Pages           : 10
	Date            : 2016-10-03

Abstract:
   This document describes a simple procedure that allows "legacy" BGP
   speakers to exchange route target membership information in BGP
   without using mechanisms specified in [RFC4684].  The intention of
   the proposed technique is to help in partial deployment scenarios and
   is not meant to replace [RFC4684].

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-legacy-rtc/

There's also a htmlized version available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-legacy-rtc-07

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-idr-legacy-rtc-07

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 16:34:30 +0000

October 4, 2016 12:02 AM, [email-masked] wrote:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-legacy-rtc
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr

Dear Authors,

At bullet 3.2.1 your draft says:

  The RR MAY also translate the received extended communities from
  legacy clients into route target membership NLRIs as if it had
  received those NLRIs from the client itself. 

I'd suggest to turn that MAY to MUST as it would help to keep consistent behavior in the AS with the BGP speakers that support RFC4684.

Last i wonder why we need different communities.
Wouldn't be simpler to reuse the same AFI/SAFI of the prefix?

Thank you