Re: [Idr] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-idr-large-community-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Wed, 04 January 2017 18:43 UTC

Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.com>
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 38F921296A5; Wed, 4 Jan 2017 10:43:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.622
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.622 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.1, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-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
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 Xzc3iOV-Ie2A; Wed, 4 Jan 2017 10:43:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aer-iport-4.cisco.com (aer-iport-4.cisco.com [173.38.203.54]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 940201296D1; Wed, 4 Jan 2017 10:43:27 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1656; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1483555408; x=1484765008; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=h5WHe/WMnv5mvAda6X8NPmi94yLTd2U7x1s9x2o8/II=; b=AJMMsttVEe7ONnuIQGLAmSkDApBwD/XnvaC3zy6GTEqvRUWSps4EdS1l XJXD4yaqUQaL62cbqfZhfz5/dJ9JFJtm/u26IatSAotbEkjWU1NKN+qFp ZCSSJQDPUem3HfO/a8fQksVy3FN4t+8b2ZZflEIHp+k5cdxm55Jyx5Nbq M=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0CVAgAdQW1Y/xbLJq1eGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBBwEBAQEBgzgBAQEBAYEtjyaTVZMTgg+CCIYiAoIXEgECAQEBAQEBAWMohGk?= =?us-ascii?q?BBThBEAsYLlcGDQgBARAFiFeyBYorAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEhhkWCAgiCV?= =?us-ascii?q?4opAQSIc5IWiWiHWYolhjSKSod2JQExgQgWDYQSAh8YgUc9iGYBAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.33,317,1477958400"; d="scan'208";a="651342037"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-1.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 04 Jan 2017 18:43:23 +0000
Received: from [10.60.67.87] (ams-bclaise-8916.cisco.com [10.60.67.87]) by aer-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v04IhMOl004597; Wed, 4 Jan 2017 18:43:22 GMT
To: Job Snijders <job@ntt.net>
References: <148354156226.13001.17853336045471596840.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <748483d7-df5c-e961-15f5-5aa76b784a7e@gmail.com> <af1e79a9-c188-23e4-3e45-0acacac049c8@cisco.com> <20170104161329.GD53926@Vurt.local>
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <503f746a-7530-388f-4ed7-6868e53b7ff4@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2017 19:43:23 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20170104161329.GD53926@Vurt.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/7dTlEJE_vBCthuVawWb7rv-_XLY>
Cc: idr@ietf.org, idr-chairs@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-idr-large-community@ietf.org, rick.casarez@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Idr] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-idr-large-community-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Wed, 04 Jan 2017 18:43:30 -0000

Hi Job,

So basically, you're telling me: "The attribute is suitable for use with 
ASNs.", right?
Is this what needs to be in the abstract?

Regards, B.
> Hi Benoit,
>
> On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 04:39:25PM +0100, Benoit Claise wrote:
>>> Global Administrator field is a 4 octet integer that is used to carry AS
>>> number but it is not mandatory to interpret it as an AS number only
>>> (while a typical use case is for carrying AS number) - two peers can
>>> agree on any value that has meaning between those peers. Representation
>>> on the wire is in network byte order, and 2 byte AS number will get
>>> naturally padded with two zero bytes in front. Virtually all deployments
>>> today are AS4 capable and use AS4 encoding even for AS number values
>>> that fit into 16 bit value range therefore AS number is a 4 octet entity
>>> already.
>> Then this sentence in the abstract "The attribute is suitable for use
>> with four-octet ASNs." is misleading, right? At least to me. The
>> attribute is suitable for four-octets ASNs and two-octets ASNs encoded
>> in four-octets. This would be more in line with "This field SHOULD be
>> an Autonomous System Number (ASN)" later on.
> I am under the impression that nowadays the IETF community considers all
> ASNs to be four-octet ASNs, however, some of those ASNs can be encoded
> as a two octet value. The Large Communities specification is suitable
> for usage in Autonomous Systems from all walks of life, where as rfc1997
> communities are unsuitable for all ASNs, specifically those ASNs which
> cannot be encoded as two-octet values.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Job
> .
>