Route Target Constrained Distribution of Routes with no Route Targets
draft-ietf-idr-rtc-no-rt-05

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Expired Internet-Draft (idr WG)
Last updated 2016-11-14 (latest revision 2016-05-09)
Replaces draft-rosen-idr-rtc-no-rt
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats
Expired & archived
plain text pdf html bibtex
Stream WG state WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
Other - see Comment Log
Document shepherd John Scudder
IESG IESG state Expired
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to "John Scudder" <jgs@juniper.net>

This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft can be found at
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-idr-rtc-no-rt-05.txt

Abstract

There are a variety of BGP-enabled services in which the originator of a BGP route may attach one or more "Route Targets" to the route. By means of a procedure known as "RT Constrained Distribution" (RTC), a given BGP speaker (call it "B") can announce the set of RTs in which it has interest. The implication is that if a particular route (call it "R") carries any RTs at all, BGP speaker B wants to receive route R if and only if B has announced interest in one of the RTs carried by R. However, if route R does not carry any RTs at all, prior specifications do not make it clear whether B's use of RTC implies that it does not want to receive route R. This has caused interoperability problems in the field, as some implementations of RTC do not allow B to receive R, but some services presuppose that B will receive R. This document updates RFC 4684 by clarifying the effect of the RTC mechanism on routes that do not have any RTs.

Authors

Eric Rosen (erosen@juniper.net)
Keyur Patel (keyupate@cisco.com)
Jeffrey Haas (jhaas@juniper.net)
Robert Raszuk (robert@raszuk.net)

(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)