Hi, I think this is a pretty useful draft.
I see that you did not even request an adoption call so hard to say that it did not go through. I only see a single email Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 12:34 AM from Melchior on it. In fact if it would be adopted and perhaps by now published there would be no need for draft-ietf-grow-ixp-ext-comms :) Cheers, R. On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 3:48 PM Stavros Konstantaras < stavros.konstanta...@ams-ix.net> wrote: > Hi Robert, > > > > I do agree with the other colleagues that setting a list of WKLC for IXP > purposes should stay outside of this draft. > > > > However back on September 2019 we did try to set up a draft in GROW group ( > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-adkp-grow-ixpcommunities-00) > where we try to define some Large Communities for IXP purposes with the aim > to unify operations. The draft unfortunately didn’t go through but if the > community believes it is relevant, I am happy to resurrect it and go > further with that. > > > > > > Kind Regards > > Stavros > > > > *From: *Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net> > *Date: *Saturday, 8 June 2024 at 01:05 > *To: *Jeffrey Haas <jh...@pfrc.org> > *Cc: *grow@ietf.org <grow@ietf.org> > *Subject: *[GROW]Re: well known large communities > > Nick, > > > > > [moving this to a new thread as it's unrelated to > draft-ietf-grow-ixp-ext-comms] > > > > Well IMO it is very much related as that draft recommends a move from > ExtComms to LargeComms. > > > > For anyone taking it seriously a new encoding should be provided as a > hint. > > > > Jeff, > > > > Actually what seems to be sort of lost in translation from what I intended > to say was not so much well known large communities .. but well know IXP > large communities. > > > > I think we all agree that IXPs (especially IXP RS policies) are creating > their own universe and IMO it is worth to a bit unify that space. > > > > Many thx, > R. > > > > PS. But if GROW WG thinks otherwise I rest my case. It was just light > suggestion - no more. > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jun 8, 2024 at 12:58 AM Jeffrey Haas <jh...@pfrc.org> wrote: > > [Not a specific gripe at you, Nick.] > > > On Jun 7, 2024, at 6:45 PM, Nick Hilliard <n...@foobar.org> wrote: > > > > [moving this to a new thread as it's unrelated to > draft-ietf-grow-ixp-ext-comms] > > > > Robert Raszuk wrote on 07/06/2024 22:29: > >> True. But we there is clear opportunity to define those scoped for IXP > use case. > >> > >> This is BCP so IMO good place to encourage using common encoding for > most common needs. > > > > I'm not convinced this is a good plan. The semantics of the existing > WKCs have turned out to be unexpectedly complex in production environments, > and the semantics for candidate route server WKCs that have been discussed > by RS operators are a good deal more so. There have been proposals in the > past about this, but none have ended up with rigorous definitions or sample > code. > > Far more importantly, "well known" needed to have the semantics baked into > the spec at the beginning. > > The torches and pitchforks operator crowd that rammed through large > communities in the current form weren't interested in slowing down and > discussing how that'd work. > > Thus, there is no such thing and the term should simply stop being used in > this fashion. > > At best, a registry could be set aside for entries from a specifically > allocated AS number and implementors can get special semantics added to > their code for the specs over time. Not so much "well known" (and generally > supported) as it becomes registered. > > When it finally gets around to happening, I find it likely that either AS > 65535 or 4294967295 get used. > > -- Jeff (I assert no IPR over this.) > >
_______________________________________________ GROW mailing list -- grow@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to grow-le...@ietf.org
