Re: [Idr] Adoption call for draft-heitz-idr-wklc-02 (3/9 to 3/23)

Robert Raszuk <> Tue, 23 March 2021 16:01 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 071333A137D for <>; Tue, 23 Mar 2021 09:01:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WvD54iITsFUt for <>; Tue, 23 Mar 2021 09:00:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::131]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 369023A132D for <>; Tue, 23 Mar 2021 09:00:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id 75so27383607lfa.2 for <>; Tue, 23 Mar 2021 09:00:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=NXJbovE2v3nny+onyJ92YP5FgJPPXSBS6BcGm12s+Fo=; b=Q5jHLAfWF2wwSA9/5kOHzFBOmVYBWI2XTrcDVm0U2R+WVYMKz1LYun3sFCjWrlVhxU Z0W0zPW9RmAGkLI8tEaxCWGyLyDBsEnX2V03RQemGlScQqknJnXNGK5OH7lZl5yodVjl xGEe8jLbkT/D2HrS3p+5sXxze6r05Ui+gCmoatEZw6QOW+tw0HMwtxUiZ4YrdOVGKGLA xZof55ZCyd0zCNdWASoTWQybCpzpICoXx2CbEcFpcQiKlHjxt9jhsV6caKL4H488XX0S ZJjRIITyhCv5yRNlG4WFV7ZKph8oTkNB7Twn90m0li+okma2NXYcX4OR+Ksw3FsNZYpM eDuQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=NXJbovE2v3nny+onyJ92YP5FgJPPXSBS6BcGm12s+Fo=; b=Gz+dCB3ANkvLLGXCVdNzuk8N3flpf2H+UTa1dzKgwXftNHYh80nPjm8YZt7jKTnlC5 sxw46eRxeLsYE1KCeAqO/4oo7eui/xQU/LGnhbIhngwoYL9lzTgcH1pYIxIp8QcH7Qjx jY1FYJkaKiPGOVjRLV8SYnBZdsKvlCYXiLVlsSemfNKoth5KlNh3krgKdBUcDdhmza30 UznoYfkG0ttRMH9AoIevHlq3GXJWhtNLdqgI9HRsO9pdrksfGJHixzWMrWeeruTHqcqT hOnXc/9xpuiZa/yrP6DtiJ02HKl0LsvxnaPMn4c4ASl4l+BGTuBuPgWcxjRZEvZsmH4n 2Z6w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532yVjGVHE+nAY87EfzL3Aj1z+bn7bXCFKcZw8VZeOF8P276Hd8B 5NbgIUQBnv6IinTa66Pxp3TWfOPbf0BhgbsKQX6RpHPJAGBDZw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwPEOHJ+NiWZkr6FRfeVyORuIB6mcJu8H1JZJQ4j86vQSH20lDG+0SEg1pxDEIArtXxeep93UBRujctVPSoplU=
X-Received: by 2002:ac2:46db:: with SMTP id p27mr2945835lfo.396.1616515254074; Tue, 23 Mar 2021 09:00:54 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <012b01d7170f$7ec90310$7c5b0930$> <> <015601d7171a$036be470$0a43ad50$> <> <000501d71940$e9b87420$bd295c60$> <> <002901d71971$ed947f90$c8bd7eb0$> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Robert Raszuk <>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2021 17:00:43 +0100
Message-ID: <>
To: Nick Hilliard <>
Cc: "Jakob Heitz (jheitz)" <>, IETF IDR <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000007e537a05be36494a"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Adoption call for draft-heitz-idr-wklc-02 (3/9 to 3/23)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2021 16:01:06 -0000

I must agree with Nick point of view in 100% here.

Indeed when discussions on LC were going on there was strong support from
operators stating this is what we want and it is good enough. Let's keep it

For more advanced including well known actions let's focus on wide
communities as they have public and private use of communities build in
from day one.

Many thx,

On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 4:01 PM Nick Hilliard <> wrote:

> Jakob Heitz (jheitz) wrote on 16/03/2021 00:03:
> > This draft is a proposal to use large communities to make a better
> > extended community.
> the original LC RFC specifies a global administrator field.  This draft
> attempts to retrofit semantics into various bits in that field.  I can
> see why it's tempting to attempt this, but it introduces a significant
> degree of interpretation semantics and, more importantly, backwards
> incompatibility.
> At the time when we were still discussing
> draft-heitz-idr-large-community, the issue of future flexibility and
> semantic interpretation was extensively discussed, and the consensus of
> the authors + working group was that it was more important to get a
> draft out there which implemented "deployed + simple" rather than going
> for a slightly more complex design which would have allowed future
> extensibility.
> The opportunity to use a more flexible structure was not taken at the
> time, for good reasons, and we knew at the time what those long term
> consequences of those decisions would be.
> Retrofitting this complexity into rfc8092 reopens these arguments, but
> from the point of view of watching the ship after it's sailing past the
> horizon.
> If we need a better asn32-compatible extended community, then we should
> define a better, asn32-compatible extended community and do the job
> properly.  We should not try to claim that rfc8092 provides an
> appropriate framework for this, because it doesn't and because if we try
> to bend LCs in this way, it will leave us with a legacy of perpetual
> dysfunction.
> Nick
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list