Jakob,
>Private ASNs are 4,200,000,000 upwards.
>I am requesting a block just below that > 4,000,000,000.
That sounds reasonable.
We can discuss trading off some bits between WKLC ID and Data 1
to possibly give room for more than 256 WKLCs.
Sriram
_
9 AM
> To: John Heasly ; Jakob Heitz (jheitz)
> Cc: i...@ietf.org; grow@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [GROW] Question about BGP Large Communities
>
> > > Does anyone want to co-author and suggest changes?
> I would also be glad to participate in that effort.
>
> I have looked
Zhuangshunwan wrote on 05/02/2020 09:00:
In my opinion, when we apply a new function from IANA, we will have to
deploy some extra route policies to set and parse the specific function
as your suggested way.
With the increase of new functions, the route policies deployed will
become more and m
Just to clarify one subtle point.
In wide communities types are either operator assigned or IANA driven - no
new code from vendor is required in contrast to extended community. That
along with variable length is what makes wide communities universal.
Sure that some vendors or individuals are scar
,
Shunwan
From: GROW [mailto:grow-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian Dickson
Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2020 9:45 AM
To: Dongjie (Jimmy)
Cc: i...@ietf.org; grow-cha...@ietf.org; idr-cha...@ietf.org; grow@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [GROW] Question about BGP Large Communities
Disagree, we want something
Private ASNs are 4,200,000,000 upwards.
I am requesting a block just below that > 4,000,000,000.
Regards,
Jakob.
From: Brian Dickson
Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2020 5:43 PM
To: Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed)
Cc: John Heasly ; Jakob Heitz (jheitz) ;
i...@ietf.org; grow@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Questio
rubbery.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
I'm asking for 67 million AS numbers, after which there will still be over 4
billion AS numbers,
not including the nearly 95 million private AS numbers.
That's not much more than your 1024.
Regards,
Jakob.
-Original Message-
From: Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed)
Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2
On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 5:28 PM Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed) <
kotikalapudi.sri...@nist.gov> wrote:
> > > Does anyone want to co-author and suggest changes?
> I would also be glad to participate in that effort.
>
> I have looked at the proposals in the two drafts (Jacob and John H).
> There are a few
Raszuk [mailto:rob...@raszuk.net]
Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2020 6:38 AM
To: Jakob Heitz (jheitz)
Cc: Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed) ; Job Snijders
; Nick Hilliard ; John Heasly
; i...@ietf.org; grow-cha...@ietf.org; idr-cha...@ietf.org;
grow@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [GROW] Question about BGP Large
> > Does anyone want to co-author and suggest changes?
I would also be glad to participate in that effort.
I have looked at the proposals in the two drafts (Jacob and John H).
There are a few observations I would like to share.
As Alvaro pointed out, RFC 8092 says:
This document defines the
Hi, Jakob,
I'm interested/willing to co-author and/or review as needed.
(FYI: it looks like your bit field is mis-aligned, there should be 6 bits
above the 2-bit T value, then 8 bits of WKC.)
I agree that 256 (0-255) is more than enough WKC values, given that like 3
or 4 have been used in old comm
Tue, Feb 04, 2020 at 08:45:40PM +, Jakob Heitz (jheitz):
> 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?
Hey Jacob,
I'd work on that with you. Job, Morrow and I also s
> 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)
wrote:
> The numbers are a trade off. How wou
The numbers are a trade off. How would you divide the numbers?
Thanks,
Jakob.
On Feb 4, 2020, at 2:19 PM, Robert Raszuk 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)
mailto:jhe...@cisco.com>> wrote:
A
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)
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
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)
Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2020 10:22 AM
To: Jakob Heitz (jheitz) ; Job Snijder
On February 4, 2020 at 1:22:11 PM, Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed) wrote:
[Speaking as a WG participant.]
Sriram:
Hi!
...
> 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 IAN
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
19 matches
Mail list logo
