Re: [Idr] Review of draft-ietf-large-community-06.txt

"Jakob Heitz (jheitz)" <jheitz@cisco.com> Fri, 04 November 2016 22:52 UTC

Return-Path: <jheitz@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 17EA6129952 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Nov 2016 15:52:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -16.018
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-16.018 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_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=unavailable 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 1wlMPjCdFtmy for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Nov 2016 15:52:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.86.79]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C8B6712986D for <idr@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Nov 2016 15:44:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2197; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1478299498; x=1479509098; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=G0l7dkEZrMNWQ822k9N0gUYOeL17MXs6f5ncGYc5n3o=; b=AiYbDqORuDe7doJvNmDsHua9mVjl+2heJyumBqmvw2jQdc44ak9199zz /0df6Rw+mw/QtjbynmFvBTVtJFGeDvPUFce97e2qUN+YHkGf2ygYHfnBM YF7M6WXpfZ8uGEnVkPUZs186+N7spA9Nl2wHFLGLIWK4F5uHOkQ8RMlAK o=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AUAQCVDh1Y/4cNJK1cGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBBwEBAQEBgy4BAQEBAR+BVAeNMZcAlEaCCIYjAoIYPxQBAgEBAQEBAQFiKIR?= =?us-ascii?q?hAQEBBDo/DAQCAQgRBAEBAR4JBzIUCQgCBA4FCAyIRLw/AQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQEBAQEBHIY/hFWKJwWaIwGJPoZ6gXWOHIcphXiEAwEeN2yFIXKFCAaBKoE?= =?us-ascii?q?MAQEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.31,445,1473120000"; d="scan'208";a="165759022"
Received: from alln-core-2.cisco.com ([173.36.13.135]) by rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 04 Nov 2016 22:44:57 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-015.cisco.com (xch-rcd-015.cisco.com [173.37.102.25]) by alln-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id uA4MivMw024231 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 4 Nov 2016 22:44:57 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-014.cisco.com (173.36.7.24) by XCH-RCD-015.cisco.com (173.37.102.25) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Fri, 4 Nov 2016 17:44:57 -0500
Received: from xch-aln-014.cisco.com ([173.36.7.24]) by XCH-ALN-014.cisco.com ([173.36.7.24]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Fri, 4 Nov 2016 17:44:57 -0500
From: "Jakob Heitz (jheitz)" <jheitz@cisco.com>
To: Job Snijders <job@ntt.net>
Thread-Topic: [Idr] Review of draft-ietf-large-community-06.txt
Thread-Index: AQHSNjBz6sRcMeSZxEiIR579im5tsaDIY72wgAB9DlKAAK2JAIAAA2sAgAAGW4D//8SNUIAAW0wA//+1BgA=
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 22:44:57 +0000
Message-ID: <0919e676e12d49d1a2ba30f4acc3b273@XCH-ALN-014.cisco.com>
References: <112dc01d235fd$57f9c370$07ed4a50$@ndzh.com> <C2DABF02-D3CB-4646-B869-FBCE5F05FDA1@apnic.net> <117ea01d23611$a28513e0$e78f3ba0$@ndzh.com> <CED07D95-A426-469C-85B4-DB2FBE52D14A@apnic.net> <6c5d83aa1d6a4a04b651b8f14f4b445b@XCH-ALN-014.cisco.com> <40D942F5-0710-46D1-BF09-76C827377479@cisco.com> <95F42982-7DCF-46A9-A26C-71EF70DB3C59@apnic.net> <20161104195346.GK961@Vurt.local> <20161104201631.GA35942@Vurt.lan> <8a293ce4fc134657aa98134b5017d92e@XCH-ALN-014.cisco.com> <20161104221030.GD37681@Vurt.lan>
In-Reply-To: <20161104221030.GD37681@Vurt.lan>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.32.152.140]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/8wy9kHSeBhUxjFXI8si1OThJ3Os>
Cc: "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Review of draft-ietf-large-community-06.txt
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: Fri, 04 Nov 2016 22:52:52 -0000

There has been enough confusion about whether it's the value or the attribute.
Change this:

   Duplicate BGP Large Community values SHOULD NOT be transmitted.  A
   receiving speaker SHOULD ignore duplicate BGP Large Community values
   from a BGP UPDATE message.

to this:

   Duplicate BGP Large Community values SHOULD NOT be transmitted.  A
   receiving speaker SHOULD silently remove duplicate BGP Large Community
   values from a BGP Large Community attribute.

Thanks,
Jakob.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Job Snijders [mailto:job@ntt.net]
> Sent: Friday, November 04, 2016 3:11 PM
> To: Jakob Heitz (jheitz) <jheitz@cisco.com>
> Cc: Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net>et>; idr@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Idr] Review of draft-ietf-large-community-06.txt
> 
> On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 09:55:49PM +0000, Jakob Heitz (jheitz) wrote:
> > All good, except one. You added:
> >
> >    There is no significance to the order
> >    ...
> >    of the BGP Large Communities attributes if two or more such
> >    attributes are encoded in the BGP path attribute payload of a single
> >    BGP Update message.
> >
> > This is in conflict with RFC 7606:
> >
> >        If any other attribute (whether
> >        recognized or unrecognized) appears more than once in an UPDATE
> >        message, then all the occurrences of the attribute other than the
> >        first one SHALL be discarded and the UPDATE message will continue
> >        to be processed.
> >
> > I would leave out any mention of multiple attributes.  What this is
> > meant to say is that the order of community values within the
> > attribute is irrelevant. I put that in, because it has caused
> > confusion in the past. I was thinking to add that "a router may
> > reorder the community values when forwarding to the next router",
> > because this point was the actual source of confusion in more than one
> > instance.
> 
> Good catch, Ignas provided text to fix it. Attached are rfcdiff & txt.
> 
> Can you double check if that confirms your understanding too with regard
> to duplicate attributes & duplicate attribute values.
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Job