Re: WG LAST CALL on draft-ietf-ppvpn-rfc2547bis-03.txt

At 12:23 AM 5/17/2003 -0400, Mark Duffy wrote:
>>Mark> Sect 4.1(?)  There have been some inconclusive discussions on the list
>>Mark> as to whether it is advisable to  use the same RD or different RDs for
>>Mark> VRFs in  a given VPN  that are in  different PEs.  The  question seems
>>Mark> especially  important in  the case  where a  site is  multihomed  to 2
>>Mark> different PEs.  If a route from  the CE is advertised by both PEs with
>>Mark> the same  RD, BGP path selection  on the VPN-IPv4 routes  can be used.
>>Mark> If a route  from the CE is advertised by both  PEs with different RDs,
>>Mark> then the  conflict needs to be  resolved in another way  at remote PEs
>>Mark> when the  RDs are stripped and the  2 IPv4 routes for  the same prefix
>>Mark> would be placed in a VRF.  It would be good if the draft gave guidance
>>Mark> on this issue.
>>
>>This seems like a deployment issue.
>
>That was the answer I expected :-)
>But I'm not sure I agree that it's only a deployment issue, or that if it 
>is it is out of the scope of the doc.  Does the scheme work if routes to 
>the same subnet are advertised from VRFs in 2 PEs, using different RDs?

It is certainly (empirically) possible for an implementation to handle that 
case.

I'd have said that it was an implementation issue, and therefore beyond the 
scope of the document.