Disagree, we want something deployed (large) and deployable (requiring only IANA action, no vendor activity) immediately. IMHO, any special handling or new code points or upgrades are non-starters. This particularly applies to wide and extended Brian
On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 5:41 PM Dongjie (Jimmy) <jie.d...@huawei.com> wrote: > Agree that for this case it may be more convenient to just use extended > community with a new type, this could avoid any possible collision with > existing deployments, and save the effort of assigning a set of ASNs. Wide > community may be too powerful for this:) > > > > Best regards, > > Jie > > > > *From:* Robert Raszuk [mailto:rob...@raszuk.net] > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 5, 2020 6:38 AM > *To:* Jakob Heitz (jheitz) <jhe...@cisco.com> > *Cc:* Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed) <kotikalapudi.sri...@nist.gov>; Job > Snijders <j...@ntt.net>; Nick Hilliard <n...@foobar.org>; John Heasly < > h...@shrubbery.net>; i...@ietf.org; grow-cha...@ietf.org; > idr-cha...@ietf.org; grow@ietf.org > *Subject:* Re: [GROW] Question about BGP Large Communities > > > > > > > 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 >
_______________________________________________ GROW mailing list GROW@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
