Re: [Idr] draft-dong-idr-node-target-ext-comm-05.txt - WG Adoption and IPR call (9/27 to 10/11/2022)

Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Thu, 29 September 2022 15:28 UTC

Return-Path: <robert@raszuk.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 9B4D9C14CE42 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Sep 2022 08:28:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.107
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.107 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=raszuk.net
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bgBFqVIbUboR for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Sep 2022 08:28:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm1-x32e.google.com (mail-wm1-x32e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::32e]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B5612C1522DB for <idr@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Sep 2022 08:28:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm1-x32e.google.com with SMTP id e10-20020a05600c4e4a00b003b4eff4ab2cso3445526wmq.4 for <idr@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Sep 2022 08:28:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=raszuk.net; s=google; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date; bh=OMVSzm0doY0K8OR3dkZp2YMXDyYPa1gGfTGeyjP873k=; b=Lk9wOc5z7muqni+OO9gyNlIFrBeiv8j3qkvAqFcTdljx43NplB1qSuhscirED8YuSD JXqiZ9VGJEnNu/0n0TQrQpAxfmbVymrSDK5lj/gOY+gSKor7HZ3iCY/6UZzmogFrOJMO FIPZo6F3tZjXDnIZ+VOEchMQQ4zechIuB7YuJtEkPtBwBhcKh1JldoETMX2oONB/fNY4 8veOe1Lkhu8D6lQqarYyQOzithiy+wb+6CX6aO4tOiQoB1hWT5awz9rkfadVMRWalndi O8y/ttQ9nSivMxYhrbOcEGnUH7OmAaoLopUOEnQrLyBh0bpcnv0gIzCbYLgvvcrP2aTp Skww==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date; bh=OMVSzm0doY0K8OR3dkZp2YMXDyYPa1gGfTGeyjP873k=; b=NZPbXQoXDjaajw9fsGpYsYs4rUMNEd2Ah8Mt6BLAR9aHKyglLGaERF78sL/cvz8SnF +PfpNyneLQMTguFMT84r7RxJa35cZomVP0ku2LVGICTQqtrXPXpIedV4UOFAbrimKE0q l2Rp7S64GPteHbnwE9BQ4kPpC78Kssl2Zz+hPvyxEbJie5Fvg7793MfGfGX4mOgtjauE ymSNN6NBuCfMK5iKYlXVYpnY2CjVT0pxf5l/Qe1f4IjfvDphKQ3KnqHSVFKTdrpbBvLX cLLEBjFyAVg8ucbAbrvtF7BwWZ/mRwhLWvoNB5Y7Z8B5/xH5BUxvzUOOAvv/uPMKtyRe R2CQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf0fvaGmp678E3gyhHN1/rqjTvlrEC6g0RpkScRtzBn/TB1qFOUa 1EWz2Q7TPZrt89QVEtXITp5FvYcopVXxmPE2er4M/Q==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM7h6JOGx/rN6kpk3PeRoaC4wcGzakJZL/ofamVT+IG8ZVVt5CdIJWS4akER5h3UkIKuPfYxHVItnGtteTm6O2s=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:3844:b0:3b4:becc:e43 with SMTP id s4-20020a05600c384400b003b4becc0e43mr11203750wmr.33.1664465315803; Thu, 29 Sep 2022 08:28:35 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <BYAPR08MB4872EEE329BDDDCC0F387B17B3559@BYAPR08MB4872.namprd08.prod.outlook.com> <AM7PR07MB62485C05E78F6439215A3FF7A0579@AM7PR07MB6248.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <AM7PR07MB62485C05E78F6439215A3FF7A0579@AM7PR07MB6248.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2022 17:29:04 +0200
Message-ID: <CAOj+MMGeQ_7jV-0ZDbLLb1NfLjKu5XW8VMZsRK_ARkubFWzm9Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: tom petch <ietfc@btconnect.com>
Cc: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>, "Van De Velde, Gunter (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)" <gunter.van_de_velde@nokia.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e3cc3105e9d287dc"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/8wDAaoKu0q4hzhfKzpLZJA3xFDc>
Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-dong-idr-node-target-ext-comm-05.txt - WG Adoption and IPR call (9/27 to 10/11/2022)
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Thu, 29 Sep 2022 15:28:45 -0000

Hi Tom,

> Is the term ASBR well-understood in the context of BGP

It is a very well known term and widely used across many documents in the
context of BGP protocol. Sometimes you will see folks abbreviating it to
"BR", but the BGP speaker which talks EBGP is almost always
called Autonomous System Border Router (I used word "almost" as there is an
exception - confederations).

Thx,
Robert.



On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 10:23 AM tom petch <ietfc@btconnect.com> wrote:

> From: Idr <idr-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com
> >
> Sent: 27 September 2022 18:30
>
> This begins a 2 week WG adoption and IPR call for
> draft-dong-idr-node-target-ext-comm-05.txt.
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dong-idr-node-target-ext-comm/
>
> <tp>
> The protocol depends in part on whether or not a router is an ASBR.  I am
> used to seeing that term used in the context of OSPF and not of BGP.  I did
> find a usage in RFC7705 but note that that RFC felt it necessary to explain
> what an ASBR was.  Is the term ASBR well-understood in the context of BGP
> (as opposed to OSPF)?
>
> I find the IANA Considerations imprecise.  It asks for a new sub-type in a
> registry whose name is not present in IANA; there is one that is close (but
> no cigar).
>
> Likewise, it talks of 'registry of the "BGP Extended Communities"
> registry'.  This is wrong on two counts.  A registry is part of a registry
> group, not part of a registry (prior to recent discussions on the Last Call
> list I would have just said 'group').  Second, there are no BGP registry
> groups and that identifier does not appear anywhere on the IANA website
> AFAICT.
>
> Tom Petch
>
> The authors should respond to this email with an IPR statement.
>
> The WG should consider in their discussion:
> 1) Will this new  transitive extended community help
> in operational networks?
>
> 2) What conflicts does this new Extended Community have
> with other functions in general BGP route distribution or
> VPNs (EVPN, IPVPN)?
>
> 3) do you have any concern about the text in the draft?
>
> Cheerily, Sue
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>