IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [GROW] Question about BGP Large Communities

"Jakob Heitz (jheitz)" <jheitz@cisco.com> Tue, 04 February 2020 22:34 UTC

Return-Path: <jheitz@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: grow@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: grow@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FC9D12001E; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 14:34:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.486
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.486 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, BODY_ENHANCEMENT=0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=M9deWVHn; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=b6+eIRjX
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uuLkvgu-CV6O; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 14:34:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.86.75]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 954D412003F; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 14:34:24 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=16763; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1580855664; x=1582065264; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=kbfrVR2mTykF0DmN0RTqdWlv/vWcTWEXuwZo4BEx4Fk=; b=M9deWVHn+cnpsr0OhZ8BKHM0u7+dpcREbUuT8bLkfmO9yIN4OtjCnjOe CiOGLBf8L7fOmQjwlWiGoITU5WyXS28xrV+xqv2fr/Oii2df7qh0LWJja UoSuH7KJ4Y2xi3VeIZzpbofthXxVR5P3HtVv/3C8y/TVek3c2NtHigqbp g=;
IronPort-PHdr: 9a23:5zXl2R9El6is8/9uRHGN82YQeigqvan1NQcJ650hzqhDabmn44+/bR7E/fs4iljPUM2b8P9Ch+fM+4HYEW0bqdfk0jgZdYBUERoMiMEYhQslVcyFBEznPtbhbjcxG4JJU1o2t3w=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0D1EAD18Dle/5pdJa1lHAEBAQEBBwEBEQEEBAEBgXuBJS9QBWxYIAQLKgqECoNGA4sCToIRgQGIYIlMhGKBQoEQA1QJAQEBDAEBGAEMCAIBAYRAAheCICQ4EwIDDQEBBAEBAQIBBQRthTcMhWYBAQEBAwEBEBEdAQEsCwEPAgEIEQQBASgDAgICHwYLFAkIAQEEDgUUBweDBAGBfU0DLgEOohQCgTmIYnWBMoJ/AQEFgTMCg3gNC4IMAwaBOIwiGoFBP4ERJyCCFzU+ghtJAQEDgS0BEgFOCYJaMoIsjVASgjo7hWGJeY5yRAqCO4dJilCEKhuCSIxWhUCGKpdIgiiQCwIEAgQFAg4BAQWBaSJncXAVOyoBgkFQGA2OHQeDbIUUhT90AoEninKBIgGBDwEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.70,403,1574121600"; d="scan'208,217";a="716686635"
Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 04 Feb 2020 22:34:23 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com (xch-aln-003.cisco.com [173.36.7.13]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 014MYN8D020136 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 4 Feb 2020 22:34:23 GMT
Received: from xhs-rcd-003.cisco.com (173.37.227.248) by XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com (173.36.7.13) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 16:34:22 -0600
Received: from xhs-aln-003.cisco.com (173.37.135.120) by xhs-rcd-003.cisco.com (173.37.227.248) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 16:34:22 -0600
Received: from NAM10-MW2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (173.37.151.57) by xhs-aln-003.cisco.com (173.37.135.120) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3 via Frontend Transport; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 16:34:22 -0600
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=f04t++/ylwJLmxeu8FK2Z6PUJUpg9Xx9+/NPG6AibZUiZarGIVZ9wki/71cAcB6N5oqW6qYtIM5+1LsET3odEA+1qIf1xfnGYL9+wzqtSX1afHOhEHhlsFCNEUfi4F4T1HT/7pV/qliD6yq9LhljOKGqw5W+iWL+ZgnfeRyMVkHnwoZmUkRqV0lFfnpWDSGo+verjV7iSMZosnT68QpFF5yhvGpUzmO0oVKdsIpJmeQKbD4SUMxpr7JibLsHVeP0gacdtrQin5jmuenJqLOT99XhwUC9vL2uCBeDdlxunlvhzCx/d2NiwmULkXs3evM4B2s+3BI51IP1zG98SFWW4g==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=kbfrVR2mTykF0DmN0RTqdWlv/vWcTWEXuwZo4BEx4Fk=; b=iYjnMcIcyeSh313p01OpU8BvEsVs679p5gYZfVaU+mD0H0z0TM63EhV/LHvIN1/7c4zyDbSOFTsfjTsTlA9dJliyAo4FtsUzeb7hDOeaCk/0o5NCHMnZXPjxor9meIg5PP4RX7qf28tyz44Eu8N8dZ8yfQzM7Ufws+yOlYd9XrgEPxFglzF81eVDyPzhXHQ1lArGZ6IZ0QV+bKw7KrqGgMHx5m+SX44sONuTlUHft+392l40UIuBUMQqjbiRNnbtkEYGMG9ZyUn0KN/GYBxbKTHzTDxjmSD12CFg4sCeJN+Rec0DhvOf/Mtjjq9gPDy/UpZn8p5o7YzUlVlrA5YQrA==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cisco.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=cisco.com; dkim=pass header.d=cisco.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=kbfrVR2mTykF0DmN0RTqdWlv/vWcTWEXuwZo4BEx4Fk=; b=b6+eIRjXC8cHxg35y1nMQ9baH7mSzFL9MLMvONsLL65so570+jO2CZiO/v9ooEmoB0cKEtEfbagCBlzYjGedEoGLEpO+8sF1t23KRC4QWBNMtcnXK+kNgWfPWJaFwuSO5O6DgZuj5X40PsM3tPod6LphAVxQhretR+I1tXu48rc=
Received: from MWHPR11MB1901.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (10.175.54.12) by MWHPR11MB1790.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (10.175.53.17) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2707.21; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 22:31:34 +0000
Received: from MWHPR11MB1901.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::5109:65e6:5d:db41]) by MWHPR11MB1901.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::5109:65e6:5d:db41%3]) with mapi id 15.20.2707.020; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 22:31:32 +0000
From: "Jakob Heitz (jheitz)" <jheitz@cisco.com>
To: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
CC: "Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed)" <kotikalapudi.sriram@nist.gov>, Job Snijders <job@ntt.net>, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>, John Heasly <heas@shrubbery.net>, "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>, "grow-chairs@ietf.org" <grow-chairs@ietf.org>, "idr-chairs@ietf.org" <idr-chairs@ietf.org>, "grow@ietf.org" <grow@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [GROW] Question about BGP Large Communities
Thread-Index: AdXbeNI4t0SppYFnSky8PqLGmuct1gAIu5NAAANSzYAAAHMiyg==
Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2020 22:31:32 +0000
Message-ID: <5603F4C9-7ECD-4A9C-AF81-49AE292CEE83@cisco.com>
References: <DM6PR09MB54489301E52DD711E031400984030@DM6PR09MB5448.namprd09.prod.outlook.com> <BN6PR11MB1890AA431F63030DFE310902C0030@BN6PR11MB1890.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>, <CAOj+MMH-xff0VUBy5UZZp7FH7_ES5A5ZCcUqFin2UP0hOnpjug@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOj+MMH-xff0VUBy5UZZp7FH7_ES5A5ZCcUqFin2UP0hOnpjug@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=jheitz@cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [128.107.241.180]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 4526c5ea-8fb7-4924-6e21-08d7a9c1fca7
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: MWHPR11MB1790:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <MWHPR11MB17908332F5B8687B76D10682C0030@MWHPR11MB1790.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:9508;
x-forefront-prvs: 03030B9493
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(4636009)(366004)(199004)(189003)(2906002)(186003)(2616005)(8936002)(8676002)(6486002)(81156014)(81166006)(76116006)(91956017)(66946007)(64756008)(66446008)(66476007)(66556008)(6512007)(966005)(26005)(498600001)(71200400001)(5660300002)(6506007)(53546011)(6916009)(4326008)(33656002)(86362001)(36756003)(54906003); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:MWHPR11MB1790; H:MWHPR11MB1901.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: cisco.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 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
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: BMlT3vuislrOHRWubFpzcLf7YQ47foIeyVGTeejCU92ZszHaoB6fwFqdgIc38MnCH4HigcnSp1dnXEsutkyxl58KTbNSqt2L8VwpvTnOxiHZzL+ssFRHkNFAexsulYktQTcgeoAsa61U31dZFo7hlw==
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_5603F4C97ECD4A9CAF8149AE292CEE83ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 4526c5ea-8fb7-4924-6e21-08d7a9c1fca7
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 04 Feb 2020 22:31:32.0341 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: tY1KygRoj2HruKYAtfqotvgqiAAId7GXNWHqmyu1ywCEOI5W6zzBF9NkPpRpnZIDvpYecn0MwE+fhcWbFr/Rcg==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: MWHPR11MB1790
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.36.7.13, xch-aln-003.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-3.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/grow/dOKOoOLcvsp19IPMmi3UFOBfrYw>
Subject: Re: [GROW] Question about BGP Large Communities
X-BeenThere: grow@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Grow Working Group Mailing List <grow.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/grow>, <mailto:grow-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/grow/>
List-Post: <mailto:grow@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:grow-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow>, <mailto:grow-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2020 22:34:28 -0000

The numbers are a trade off. How would you divide the numbers?

Thanks,
Jakob.

On Feb 4, 2020, at 2:19 PM, Robert Raszuk <robert@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) <jheitz@cisco.com<mailto:jheitz@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.sriram@nist.gov<mailto:kotikalapudi.sriram@nist.gov>>
Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2020 10:22 AM
To: Jakob Heitz (jheitz) <jheitz@cisco.com<mailto:jheitz@cisco.com>>; Job Snijders <job@ntt.net<mailto:job@ntt.net>>; Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org<mailto:nick@foobar.org>>; John Heasly <heas@shrubbery.net<mailto:heas@shrubbery.net>>
Cc: idr@ietf.org<mailto:idr@ietf.org>; grow@ietf.org<mailto:grow@ietf.org>; idr-chairs@ietf.org<mailto:idr-chairs@ietf.org>; grow-chairs@ietf.org<mailto:grow-chairs@ietf.org>; a.e.azimov@gmail.com<mailto:a.e.azimov@gmail.com>; Brian Dickson <brian.peter.dickson@gmail.com<mailto:brian.peter.dickson@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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email