In the route leaks solution draft, https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-grow-route-leak-detection-mitigation-02
we (the authors) have proposed using BGP Large Community. We specify this to be a "well-known transitive Large Community". Question: Can the draft simply make an IANA request for a Global Administrator ASN value for Route Leaks Protection (RLP) type and request that it be published in IANA registry as a "well-known Transitive Large Community"? There is no IANA registry for Large Communities yet; we have requested IDR and GROW Chairs to facilitate that. ---------------- Details/background: We've read the following RFCs related to Large Communities: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8092 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8195 RFC 8195 has this table: +-------------------------------+-------------------------+ | RFC8092 | RFC 8195 | +-------------------------------+--------------------------+ | Global Administrator | ASN | | Local Data Part 1 | Function | | Local Data Part 2 | Parameter | +--------------------------------+-------------------------+ which is instructive. In the examples that RFC 8195 offers, it appears it is *assumed* that the Large Communities are transitive. For comparison, in Extended Communities (RFC 7153), there are explicit Type values assigned for Transitive, Non-transitive, etc. https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-extended-communities/bgp-extended-communities.xhtml However, there is no such explicit Type specification for Large Communities (in RFC 8092 or elsewhere). Thank you. Sriram
_______________________________________________ GROW mailing list GROW@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
