> How would you divide the numbers? I would not divide them at all in LCs. I would either define new type in extended communities or use wide communities.
But I am a bit biased here ;-) Best, R, On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 11:34 PM Jakob Heitz (jheitz) <jhe...@cisco.com> wrote: > 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> > 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> >> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 4, 2020 10:22 AM >> *To:* Jakob Heitz (jheitz) <jhe...@cisco.com>; Job Snijders <j...@ntt.net>; >> Nick Hilliard <n...@foobar.org>; John Heasly <h...@shrubbery.net> >> *Cc:* i...@ietf.org; grow@ietf.org; idr-cha...@ietf.org; >> grow-cha...@ietf.org; a.e.azi...@gmail.com; Brian Dickson < >> 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 >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow >> >
_______________________________________________ GROW mailing list GROW@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
