Re: [Idr] WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-large-community-03.txt (10/17/2016 to 10/31/2016)

Job Snijders <> Thu, 20 October 2016 22:50 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04BCA129455 for <>; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 15:50:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.366
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.366 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.431, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XGg86oQzukHS for <>; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 15:50:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:418:3ff:3::22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ACE5C127A90 for <>; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 15:50:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <>) id 1bxMAC-0004WK-9H (; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 22:50:17 +0000
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 17:50:04 -0500
From: Job Snijders <>
To: "Jakob Heitz (jheitz)" <>
Message-ID: <20161020225004.GG1074@Vurt.local>
References: <01f301d228b4$e3319ef0$a994dcd0$> <> <> <20161018191521.GT95811@Vurt.local> <> <20161020215938.GE1074@Vurt.local> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.0 (2016-08-17)
Archived-At: <>
Cc: heasley <>, Sue Hares <>, IETF IDR WG <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-large-community-03.txt (10/17/2016 to 10/31/2016)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 22:50:21 -0000

Hi Jakob,

I am not sure what issue this replacement resolves. With the replacement
text in the document I feel I have more questions than answers.

Usually a community is intended to be sent to one AS to trigger an
action, and to multiple ASes if the community is of informative nature.
We know we can attach multiple Large BGP Communities to a route, because
of the variable length of the attribute.

In an earlier response I pointed at text that addresses this specific
feature already in the current text:

Kind regards,


On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 10:13:41PM +0000, Jakob Heitz (jheitz) wrote:
> In addition, to deal with the values for the GA field, we will replace
>    The Global Administrator field is intended to allow different
>    Autonomous Systems to define Large BGP Communities without collision.
> with
>   A Large Community that is intended to be sent to multiple ASes
>   SHOULD contain an ASN in the Global Administrator field. The ASN
>   SHOULD be one that is assigned to the entity that defines the
>   meaning of the rest of the Large Community.  This allows a route to
>   carry multiple Large Communities, the meaning of each being defined
>   by different independent entities.