Subject: Re: draft-marques-ppvpn-rt-constrain-01

From: Jeff Helmer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 15:03:10 -0800 (PST)

Is it conceivable that the route targets used for controlling import of routes into a VRF are expressed using wildcards or a regular expression? For example, to permit all route targets from 1700:100 through 1700:105, one could write a regular expression like "1700:10[0-5]" or something like that. If this is plausible, how does the draft support it?
 
- Jeff

Ross Callon <[email-masked]> wrote:
At 10:50 PM 3/16/2004 -0500, Ronald Bonica wrote:
>Folks,
>
>I would like to propose that the working group adopt
>draft-marques-ppvpn-rt-constrain-01 as a WG item. I feel that it fits within
>the current charter because it contributes to the scaling properties of the
>BGP/MPLS VPN solution.
>
>/speaking as individual contributor
>
>----------------
>Ronald P. Bonica
>----------------

Speaking as an individual contributor...

I agree. I think that this is a useful document that addresses an 
issue which will be important as BGP/MPLS IP VPNs continue 
to be deployed. 

I am assuming that the references to "RFC2547bis" at some point
will need to be updated to refer to "BGP/MPLS IP VPNs". Also, it is
not clear to me whether this approach applies equally well to "Using 
BGP as an Auto-Discovery Mechanism for Provider-provisioned VPNs" 
draft-ietf-l3vpn-bgpvpn-auto-01.txt. 

However, I think that these two points can be clarified in the future and 
should not prevent us from accepting this document in its current form
as a working group draft.

Thanks, Ross

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway - Enter today

---

From: Pedro Roque Marques <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 11:07:13 -0700 (PDT)

Jeff Helmer writes:

> Is it conceivable that the route targets used for controlling import
> of routes into a VRF are expressed using wildcards or a regular
> expression? For example, to permit all route targets from 1700:100
> through 1700:105, one could write a regular expression like
> "1700:10[0-5]" or something like that. If this is plausible, how
> does the draft support it?  - Jeff

The draft supports prefixes. i.e. '1700/16'. It treats RTs as
addresses and follows the usual conventions to deal w/ addresses.