Re: [Idr] [GROW] Question about BGP Large Communities

["Dongjie (Jimmy)" <[e-mail]>]

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:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2020 6:38 AM
To: Jakob Heitz (jheitz) <[e-mail]>
Cc: Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed) <[e-mail]>; Job Snijders <[e-mail]>; Nick Hilliard <[e-mail]>; John Heasly <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
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) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> 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 <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> 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) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> 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) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2020 10:22 AM
To: Jakob Heitz (jheitz) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Job Snijders <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Nick Hilliard <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; John Heasly <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; Brian Dickson <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
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
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow