Re: [Idr] Early allocations and other ways to avoid squatting on code points

Job Snijders <job@instituut.net> Tue, 01 November 2016 17:07 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 26025129575 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Nov 2016 10:07:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] 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 NYtD5JNk-112 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Nov 2016 10:07:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm0-x22c.google.com (mail-wm0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22c]) (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 C5571129569 for <idr@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Nov 2016 10:07:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id p190so217601332wmp.1 for <idr@ietf.org>; Tue, 01 Nov 2016 10:07:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=instituut-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to :user-agent; bh=ihapLgGqv7qavDjUjHglGagcqMqoEsohd4pSyPMVasg=; b=VwXOEEzNZG35AMesRKJoBPeUbWSymM2paKg5hdBTvPNvQ1OPtgn35rmSBtgCckX71U oWS1NPr8XoRv5Re+jUaARClmr35gLH0mJnBggBJJE24GIx4wES4A6xs+kO3agIu5ypQY KCYee3eUvZkLdmg6zVlm9mz3mu4mdqEn2RjWieTCb9V+eLGFl2E+WcPTtflHcu/v/uN2 8BFf6QO6trG5vi827qx6TITXxeqnUBegHwfiC2JaxCNFKrSbK73d7JTIeee/+CIH7T6X Sapgv7sZ0roKTpJHvj7v1XooD9y50XMHRCmvV8MRwKUCYxVjsm4dNZnOokTfdGRBeTEw dQ0g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding :in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=ihapLgGqv7qavDjUjHglGagcqMqoEsohd4pSyPMVasg=; b=GBMXf4kQn6nbH52+G5w4u6Pi2YNiophm7BGfxX+ueVLx/dZW1uoGZvIJk7WlaeSrjA jtCNNIlt/axXlO5waCqSkqAvRbra3sZ6alyDw+/gkP2ByMhKVRa20rWNq8W6liQOqLal wSjH7zP9sLOnEQd7qNDQ5Fudw/tavGWNUOfwNAt2QQQXue9U5g/udoW2zodB6nWVqhuW EozCiCq5jpkmVQKNKTeUg/cpqsdQIs6vGbEOsPILwk7ETnI56M0a3OTpSjLEYHxBKZWA azz3oVb30QlalgC0pZr4ICtQz7RqoqN5B4+qP8ADpeLenn0mBJ2GZaXj9qvvNOJTl+V2 k7+w==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngveA/koT8dzbF2OGINkXbDEcX7geLQa3Ym+pU2ZkUPLrJisE4D1Dqf1UjTRZ9nZFvA==
X-Received: by 10.28.58.14 with SMTP id h14mr2298361wma.7.1478020037298; Tue, 01 Nov 2016 10:07:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([2001:67c:208c:10:bdbd:6a1d:622a:537a]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id u64sm31399141wmd.6.2016.11.01.10.07.15 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 01 Nov 2016 10:07:16 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 18:07:13 +0100
From: Job Snijders <job@instituut.net>
To: Keyur Patel <keyur@arrcus.com>
Message-ID: <20161101170713.GP19772@Vurt.local>
References: <169A4C1A-302E-4FE0-841A-ADA63E812E1F@juniper.net> <20161101133240.GK1581@hanna.meerval.net> <CA+b+ERnh8MMDgCoviLDRvOxbOky=8pBtHC8Z-WCQr6xFF_ZzGQ@mail.gmail.com> <20161101141229.GK1589@hanna.meerval.net> <CA+b+ERmfW0vVXgqrxqNajZhJS3aDXD6kG7xzMFjsuk4bBNLvnQ@mail.gmail.com> <20161101142807.GL1589@hanna.meerval.net> <CA+b+ERkKicRi2qAcm=t3LHyVcqe5J1=Ba=QLsFuCGUv+oMRwFg@mail.gmail.com> <89B7215E-505D-4EEF-94E6-DB9B7CC23A8D@juniper.net> <c10ad1e738a442eba50440803befbc8c@XCH-ALN-014.cisco.com> <960A93B5-2D91-4247-B8BD-51BA7B38A9C6@arrcus.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <960A93B5-2D91-4247-B8BD-51BA7B38A9C6@arrcus.com>
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.0 (2016-08-17)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/BrY4nD2qhS6cS_dMSIa3uQurdWw>
Cc: IETF IDR Working Group <idr@ietf.org>, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Early allocations and other ways to avoid squatting on code points
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: Tue, 01 Nov 2016 17:07:21 -0000

Keyur, Patel, this is not a thread about -wide- early allocation...


On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 05:03:22PM +0000, Keyur Patel wrote:
> +1. 
> 
> Regards,
> Keyur
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> > On Nov 1, 2016, at 9:44 AM, Jakob Heitz (jheitz) <jheitz@cisco.com> wrote:
> > 
> > I support an early attribute code allocation for wide communities.
> > I'm happy for it to have 129 if that's what it's been using.
> > Of course, it's not my call to make, just my opinion.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Jakob.
> > 
> > 
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of John G. Scudder
> >> Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2016 8:05 AM
> >> To: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
> >> Cc: IETF IDR Working Group <idr@ietf.org>
> >> Subject: [Idr] Early allocations and other ways to avoid squatting on code points
> >> 
> >> I have changed the subject line to reflect the fact we are off on a tangent and no longer relevant to adoption of
> >> the draft in question.
> >> 
> >>> On Nov 1, 2016, at 10:41 AM, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> wrote:
> >>> ​Few days back You and others complained that Wide was not implemented by anyone for so many years. Now when we see
> >> it actually was implemented at least by few BGP code basis ​it is again bad.
> >> 
> >> I'm not sure what you mean by "it is again bad" but see the message I just sent -- we were not asked for an
> >> allocation for the code base in question (not sure what other code bases you are including in "few", I think one was
> >> reported).
> >> 
> >> When the question of early allocation for wide came up recently (I don't recall if it was on the list, in private
> >> email, in conversation or what, sorry) my feedback was to ask whether wide satisfies the stability requirement given
> >> in RFC 7120 Section 2 (c). Certainly if there is need for an allocation for wide and it can satisfy the RFC 7120
> >> requirements, let's do it. If it can't satisfy the requirements, read on:
> >> 
> >>> So to me the problem we need to solve is how to allow early implementations for any proposal on the table
> >> especially now when we have no two but at least 8 production BGP implementations (and growing). Forbidding it does
> >> not seems to me like a solution to the main problem.
> >> 
> >> I expect we will be discussing this at our upcoming meeting, although that's no reason not to continue the
> >> conversation on the list right now, on the contrary. Jeff has also written a draft that tries to address the problem,
> >> he posted a pointer to it yesterday, https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-haas-idr-extended-experimental/
> >> 
> >> Thanks,
> >> 
> >> --John
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Idr mailing list
> >> Idr@ietf.org
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
> > _______________________________________________
> > Idr mailing list
> > Idr@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr