Subject: RE: draft-kulmala-l3vpn-interas-option-d-02

From: "Martin Halstead" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 11:33:02 +0100

Ron

You make a good point - I think that 'draft-ietf-l3vpn-rt-constrain'
does play well with 'option d' as a means to restrict VPN route updates
to interested parties only. This could apply when a single ASBR is
peered with more than one ASBR (in my opinion a very good thing). The
distribution graphs (and associated policies) would then sit between
peered ASBRs, rather than across ASes as described in the 'constrain'
draft.

BTW - I think that in the case of L3 VPN, the 'constrain' draft should
add that the option is only applicable to multi-AS options 'b' and 'c'
and by implication will not work with option 'a'.

Regards

Martin
[email-masked]

-----Original Message-----
From: Ron Bonica [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: 18 April 2006 19:37
To: Martin Halstead
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: draft-kulmala-l3vpn-interas-option-d-02

Martin,

BTW, would Option D play well with Constrained VPN Route Distribution (
                draft-ietf-l3vpn-rt-constrain)?

                                Ron

---

From: Yakov Rekhter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 17:42:30 -0700

Martin,

> peered ASBRs, rather than across ASes as described in the 'constrain'

Could you please elaborate on "does play well". Specifically, would
option d require to rewrite NLRI carried in RT constrains ?

Yakov.