[Idr] clarification sought on rfc4360 non-transitive extended communities
Job Snijders <job@instituut.net> Fri, 14 April 2017 13:44 UTC
Return-Path: <job@instituut.net>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0AAB12F253 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Apr 2017 06:44:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=instituut-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 V7ArE3UhYDd7 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Apr 2017 06:44:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr0-x22e.google.com (mail-wr0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c0c::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2A2E912EE46 for <idr@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Apr 2017 06:44:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id l28so51206349wre.0 for <idr@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Apr 2017 06:44:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=instituut-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:mime-version:content-disposition :user-agent; bh=/JT7yF+S/SrOl8fkr8dbEcQvK5ml5KsDqEfvWxUqCRo=; b=tUfI7cNq1CumlE2EZOnexLcgM2/9/TlkpwwVArBQENtZQ/kszPjNWNm1lJlKbCpX/2 QgXwRO9QdEEuca8GtSGzI1Ha1WKxv5qOM10QILJ0muA7kRk66o/FqMtTeR9wGyBO4yz5 XJsiC1GmmC6HKGzoIlRVZskOflIRfougj50E61PbWxBVR2yPM9bMSjyZ7308vfl4Sqi1 iMEXxn5KOhX6ql8+WdULekm3C/Dhx2P7WH1Mi41OpTKj+YYQJYRerstK2ZYXIEMyp6hY LjezkXXEVvMcRtcwx4P5KOhQjl/1p/qkhrb+lNeVZ44kVoKn/13EbKb7nunQMxfFh5fT wMag==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:subject:message-id:mime-version :content-disposition:user-agent; bh=/JT7yF+S/SrOl8fkr8dbEcQvK5ml5KsDqEfvWxUqCRo=; b=kYMEkFYX1ySg1ybOj08ibZQ2pEUMckqYvHpW694U45+Ero4nAD4p9wFMU3mtkyD2X2 jLCWD23zem3bk1W7sZuNaypvpmH6ecS5zCYkV7bF6cqkj0cQOmHzA5gsQObMeVW9rRdX xADySvvB6nBYFkQCrdDju7bWBhZG1NHS4hwhj9MAqZ28XS8so+iHsi9Uu63KW3J+TKeX en/KbB626M3wxTm0Jx7ifHkyIu8hiKk0kiEmMNJvmZ+f2jZlJ/vv5MzzB9Y6NJ3TQu6Z uGNG8QpWEcB8x36pgV/KUouSesburHs1cMhcVqwb3rtnIieHvaHqkmJCAd74Ljv2JvHR 8zwg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/7JBM3YyfHq1f2JxchLKDyGg/Z4h1DqE2/82CpSMPRj6oBsPald k9xOWDfzOIxUnjgvEH0=
X-Received: by 10.223.136.201 with SMTP id g9mr8280271wrg.97.1492177479414; Fri, 14 Apr 2017 06:44:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([185.78.129.1]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d10sm2434682wrd.54.2017.04.14.06.44.38 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 14 Apr 2017 06:44:38 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 16:44:35 +0300
From: Job Snijders <job@instituut.net>
To: idr@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20170414134435.tpocpyuappmbcam4@Vurt.local>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170306 (1.8.0)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/63BznVv5Di2o4nm_EWwcoprE3jI>
Subject: [Idr] clarification sought on rfc4360 non-transitive extended communities
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 13:44:43 -0000
Hi IDR,
RFC 4360 states:
"""
If a route has a non-transitivity extended community, then before
advertising the route across the Autonomous System boundary the
community SHOULD be removed from the route. However, the community
SHOULD NOT be removed when advertising the route across the BGP
Confederation boundary.
"""
For my edification, I have two questions:
o Why was nothing specified for the behaviour of receivers?
o why is it a "SHOULD" and not a "MUST"?
Is it a "SHOULD" because Extended Communities are wrapped in an optional
transitive path attribute, so strictly speaking, the non-transivity can't
be enforced anyway, since a middle-box might not understand the Extended
Community?
Kind regards,
Job
- [Idr] clarification sought on rfc4360 non-transit… Job Snijders
- Re: [Idr] clarification sought on rfc4360 non-tra… Eric C Rosen
- Re: [Idr] clarification sought on rfc4360 non-tra… li zhenqiang
- Re: [Idr] clarification sought on rfc4360 non-tra… Jeffrey Haas