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

[John Scudder <[e-mail]>]

Robert,

"Yes RFC1997 works like that but here we have opportunity to improve it."

When the working group accepted the draft as a work item, I think it was pretty clear from the extensive conversation at that time, that the intent was to replicate RFC 1997, not to improve it. In fact, improving it was an explicit nongoal if I remember right. One might argue that was a bad goal have, and I think you did make that argument at the time, but the working group consensus was otherwise.

Of course, consensus can shift over time, and WGLC is a good time to test whether such a shift has occurred, so I don't think it's inappropriate for you to have raised the question again. However, at this point it appears to me that consensus has not changed.

If you feel further conversation would be productive, I don't mean to foreclose on that, but I thought it might be helpful to provide an update about where it appears to me the consensus is trending at present.

--John

On Oct 22, 2016, at 9:53 AM, Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:


You are mixing SRC_ASN with TARGET_ASN in the same field.

Yes RFC1997 works like that but here we have opportunity to improve it.

Thx
R.

On Oct 22, 2016 2:27 PM, "Gert Doering" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Hi,

On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 05:42:37PM +0200, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> > Secondly, there's literally no way for the vendor to check whether an
> > ASN belongs to "the entity that defines the meaning of the rest of the
> > Large Community"
>
> Why not ?
>
> If you do not make those 4 octets configurable by spec and always fill it
> with AS number defined in your BGP instance you will have assurance it
> is ASN of the entity that defines the rest 8 octets of the LC as otherwise
> you will likely not establish any EBGP sessions to your peers.

But that is only half the intended usage of communities - one is
"I tag it with <myas>:<some meaning>" to signal something to my own
routers or my customers.

The other one is "I tag it with <jobs as>:<some meaning>", and there is
no way for my router to validate that "<jobs as>" is indeed the one
who defined "<some meaning>".

So, how exactly is the vendor to check variant B?

(And if you do not understand what people use communities for, today,
maybe you should not be argueing these points, sorry)

> So there is very easy way to enforce it today in any BGP implementation.

No.

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
--
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: [phone]           USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr