Hi,
As I recall this thread the way even route targets are described there is
incorrect.
Text says:
A Route Target consists of two
or three fields: a 2-octet Type field, an administrator
field, and, optionally, an assigned number field.
According to the data formats for types 0, 1, 2, and 6 as
defined in RFC 4360
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4360>, RFC 5668
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5668>, and RFC 7432
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7432>, the encoding
pattern is defined as:
0:2-octet-asn:4-octet-number
1:4-octet-ipv4addr:2-octet-number
2:4-octet-asn:2-octet-number
6:6-octet-mac-address
Additionally, a generic pattern is defined for future
Route Target types:
2-octet-other-hex-number:6-octet-hex-number
Some valid examples are 0:100:100, 1:1.1.1.1:100,
2:1234567890:203, and 6:26:00:08:92:78:00.";
Well to me only the first sentence there is correct. Rest requires
correction as it completely misses low order type octet. To be valid it
should be corrected like below:
A Route Target consists of two
or three fields: a 2-octet Type field, an administrator
field, and, optionally, an assigned number field.
According to the data formats for types 0, 1, 2, and 6 as
defined in RFC 4360
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4360>, RFC 5668
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5668>, and RFC 7432
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7432>, the encoding
pattern is defined as:
0x00:0x02:2-octet-asn:4-octet-number
0x01:0x02:4-octet-ipv4addr:2-octet-number
0x02:0x02:4-octet-asn:2-octet-number
0x06:0x02:6-octet-mac-address
Additionally, a generic pattern is defined for future
Route Target types:
1-octet-high type:1-octet-low type:6-octet-hex-number
Some valid examples are 0:02:100:100, 1:02:1.1.1.1:100,
2:02:1234567890:203, and 6:02:26:00:08:92:78:00.";
That also has serious consequences in how regex syntax is provided all over
the document for other data structures.
Kind regards,
Robert
On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 9:15 PM Acee Lindem <[email protected]> wrote:
> I agree it should be held for update. It is was too long an ago to
> remember where the type 6 came from. I guess type 6 is valid for
> route-target and it was probably mistakenly added for route-distinguisher
> and route-origin.
>
> Thanks,
> Acee
>
> > On Feb 13, 2023, at 2:06 PM, RFC Errata System <
> [email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > The following errata report has been held for document update
> > for RFC8294, "Common YANG Data Types for the Routing Area".
> >
> > --------------------------------------
> > You may review the report below and at:
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7255
> >
> > --------------------------------------
> > Status: Held for Document Update
> > Type: Technical
> >
> > Reported by: Jeffrey Haas <[email protected]>
> > Date Reported: 2022-11-18
> > Held by: Alvaro Retana (IESG)
> >
> > Section: 3
> >
> > Original Text
> > -------------
> > typedef route-distinguisher {
> > type string {
> > pattern
> > '(0:(6553[0-5]|655[0-2][0-9]|65[0-4][0-9]{2}|'
> > + '6[0-4][0-9]{3}|'
> > + '[1-5][0-9]{4}|[1-9][0-9]{0,3}|0):(429496729[0-5]|'
> > + '42949672[0-8][0-9]|'
> > + '4294967[01][0-9]{2}|429496[0-6][0-9]{3}|'
> > + '42949[0-5][0-9]{4}|'
> > + '4294[0-8][0-9]{5}|429[0-3][0-9]{6}|'
> > + '42[0-8][0-9]{7}|4[01][0-9]{8}|'
> > + '[1-3][0-9]{9}|[1-9][0-9]{0,8}|0))|'
> > + '(1:((([0-9]|[1-9][0-9]|1[0-9]{2}|2[0-4][0-9]|'
> > + '25[0-5])\.){3}([0-9]|[1-9][0-9]|'
> > + '1[0-9]{2}|2[0-4][0-9]|25[0-5])):(6553[0-5]|'
> > + '655[0-2][0-9]|'
> > + '65[0-4][0-9]{2}|6[0-4][0-9]{3}|'
> > + '[1-5][0-9]{4}|[1-9][0-9]{0,3}|0))|'
> > + '(2:(429496729[0-5]|42949672[0-8][0-9]|'
> > + '4294967[01][0-9]{2}|'
> > + '429496[0-6][0-9]{3}|42949[0-5][0-9]{4}|'
> > + '4294[0-8][0-9]{5}|'
> > + '429[0-3][0-9]{6}|42[0-8][0-9]{7}|4[01][0-9]{8}|'
> > + '[1-3][0-9]{9}|[1-9][0-9]{0,8}|0):'
> > + '(6553[0-5]|655[0-2][0-9]|65[0-4][0-9]{2}|'
> > + '6[0-4][0-9]{3}|'
> > + '[1-5][0-9]{4}|[1-9][0-9]{0,3}|0))|'
> > + '(6(:[a-fA-F0-9]{2}){6})|'
> > + '(([3-57-9a-fA-F]|[1-9a-fA-F][0-9a-fA-F]{1,3}):'
> > + '[0-9a-fA-F]{1,12})';
> > }
> >
> > Corrected Text
> > --------------
> > typedef route-distinguisher {
> > type string {
> > pattern
> > '(0:(6553[0-5]|655[0-2][0-9]|65[0-4][0-9]{2}|'
> > + '6[0-4][0-9]{3}|'
> > + '[1-5][0-9]{4}|[1-9][0-9]{0,3}|0):(429496729[0-5]|'
> > + '42949672[0-8][0-9]|'
> > + '4294967[01][0-9]{2}|429496[0-6][0-9]{3}|'
> > + '42949[0-5][0-9]{4}|'
> > + '4294[0-8][0-9]{5}|429[0-3][0-9]{6}|'
> > + '42[0-8][0-9]{7}|4[01][0-9]{8}|'
> > + '[1-3][0-9]{9}|[1-9][0-9]{0,8}|0))|'
> > + '(1:((([0-9]|[1-9][0-9]|1[0-9]{2}|2[0-4][0-9]|'
> > + '25[0-5])\.){3}([0-9]|[1-9][0-9]|'
> > + '1[0-9]{2}|2[0-4][0-9]|25[0-5])):(6553[0-5]|'
> > + '655[0-2][0-9]|'
> > + '65[0-4][0-9]{2}|6[0-4][0-9]{3}|'
> > + '[1-5][0-9]{4}|[1-9][0-9]{0,3}|0))|'
> > + '(2:(429496729[0-5]|42949672[0-8][0-9]|'
> > + '4294967[01][0-9]{2}|'
> > + '429496[0-6][0-9]{3}|42949[0-5][0-9]{4}|'
> > + '4294[0-8][0-9]{5}|'
> > + '429[0-3][0-9]{6}|42[0-8][0-9]{7}|4[01][0-9]{8}|'
> > + '[1-3][0-9]{9}|[1-9][0-9]{0,8}|0):'
> > + '(6553[0-5]|655[0-2][0-9]|65[0-4][0-9]{2}|'
> > + '6[0-4][0-9]{3}|'
> > + '[1-5][0-9]{4}|[1-9][0-9]{0,3}|0))';
> > }
> >
> > Notes
> > -----
> > Type 6 route-distinguishers are not defined. See the registry at IANA:
> >
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/route-distinguisher-types/route-distinguisher-types.xhtml
> >
> > === AD Notes (Alvaro Retana) ===
> > The WG discussed this report:
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/o536w2kGqGO-PULTSNTfxyO96ZQ/
> >
> > There is agreement that the report is correct, but the document needs to
> be updated.
> >
> > Also, a similar error in the string related to the route-origin needs to
> also be corrected.
> >
> > --------------------------------------
> > RFC8294 (draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types-17)
> > --------------------------------------
> > Title : Common YANG Data Types for the Routing Area
> > Publication Date : December 2017
> > Author(s) : X. Liu, Y. Qu, A. Lindem, C. Hopps, L. Berger
> > Category : PROPOSED STANDARD
> > Source : Routing Area Working Group
> > Area : Routing
> > Stream : IETF
> > Verifying Party : IESG
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rtgwg mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtgwg mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
>
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
