[cmaster-next] RD/RT discussion from Technical Meeting Yesterday

[Donald Sharp]

During the meeting we discussed option #6 as the viable option.

Reasoning:  Closely modeled the ietf way of thinking

Here it is in a broad outline:


vrf <VRFNAME1>

 ip route …                     <---- Vrf specific Route

 router bgp XXX

   ! (address-family ipv4)

   network 1.2.3.0/24 route-map foo

   neighbor ... ! CE session

   redistribute ospf ! CE setup for OSPF

   ! no special parameters on redistribute needed; VRF name is already OK



   <here> - never RD/RT


 router ospf <INSTANCENUM>  ! (is this under vrf config?)

   redistribute bgp


...


router bgp AAA ! core instance

 address-family vpnv4 | vpnv6 | evpn

   Network <vpnv4> or <RT2/RT5> config [ rd <> ( could be used) ?]

   neighbor ... ! PE session


   vrf <VRFNAME1>

     rt {import|export|both} RTLIST

     rd {automatic|VALUE}

     network <> [<rd>]    ! <- most used hopefully



router bgp BBB ! core instance

 vrf <VRFNAME2>

   rt {import|export|both} RTLIST   ! can have value overlap

   rd {automatic|VALUE}

 address-family vpnv4 | evpn

   Network <vpnv4> or <RT2/RT5> config

   neighbor ... ! PE session



Questions asked:

For VRF's  would we extend this to MAC VRF's also?


donald