The numbers are a trade off. How would you divide the numbers? Thanks, Jakob.
On Feb 4, 2020, at 2:19 PM, Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net> wrote: And you think 255 such known large communities will be sufficient ? Thx, R. On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 9:45 PM Jakob Heitz (jheitz) <jhe...@cisco.com<mailto:jhe...@cisco.com>> wrote: A set of well known large communities could be useful. I have a draft that I never submitted attached to this email. Does anyone want to co-author and suggest changes? Regards, Jakob. From: Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed) <kotikalapudi.sri...@nist.gov<mailto:kotikalapudi.sri...@nist.gov>> Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2020 10:22 AM To: Jakob Heitz (jheitz) <jhe...@cisco.com<mailto:jhe...@cisco.com>>; Job Snijders <j...@ntt.net<mailto:j...@ntt.net>>; Nick Hilliard <n...@foobar.org<mailto:n...@foobar.org>>; John Heasly <h...@shrubbery.net<mailto:h...@shrubbery.net>> Cc: i...@ietf.org<mailto:i...@ietf.org>; grow@ietf.org<mailto:grow@ietf.org>; idr-cha...@ietf.org<mailto:idr-cha...@ietf.org>; grow-cha...@ietf.org<mailto:grow-cha...@ietf.org>; a.e.azi...@gmail.com<mailto:a.e.azi...@gmail.com>; Brian Dickson <brian.peter.dick...@gmail.com<mailto:brian.peter.dick...@gmail.com>> Subject: Question about BGP Large Communities 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<mailto:GROW@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
_______________________________________________ GROW mailing list GROW@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
