Re: [Idr] AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-large-community-09

[heasley <[e-mail]>]

Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 06:28:28PM +0100, Job Snijders:
> On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 05:14:53PM +0000, heasley wrote:
> > 0 and 4294967295 are reserved ASNs, as is 65535 and 65535 is used by
> > RFC 1997 communities for well-known communities.  It is the intention
> > to use 65535 if in the future it is desirable to define large
> > well-known communities.  The other two should not be used because they
> > are invalid ASNs and could lead to collision.  This all seems prudent
> > to me.
> > 
> > > Assuming that you would prefer the operators NOT to use 0, 65535,
> > > and 4294967295, then here’s my suggestion:
> > > 
> > > OLD> (Section 2)
> > > 
> > >    The Global Administrator field is intended to allow different
> > >    Autonomous Systems to define BGP Large Communities without collision.
> > >    This field SHOULD either be one of the reserved values as defined
> > >    below, or an Autonomous System Number (ASN).  If it is a reserved
> > >    value, then the Local Data Parts are as defined by the reserved
> > >    value.  If it is an ASN then the Local Data Parts are to be
> > >    interpreted as defined by the owner of the ASN.
> > > 
> > > NEW>
> > > 
> > >    The Global Administrator field is intended to allow different
> > >    Autonomous Systems to define BGP Large Communities without collision.
> > >    This field SHOULD be an Autonomous System Number (ASN).  The use of
> > >    Reserved ASNs (0 [RFC7607], 65535 and 4294967295 [RFC7300]) is NOT
> > >    RECOMMENDED.
> > > 
> > > …and then eliminate Section 5…
> > 
> > no, do not eliminate section 5.
> 
> The text that used to be section 5 is better served through a separate
> document I think. Jon Mitchell and myself are working on a document to
> assist in that matter. This document is not published yet.

seems silly to spread it across 2 documents.  it is not a complex subject
and its already been expressed that there is no desire to specify any
well-knowns at this time.

> The first sentence of section 5 was moved into the section 2. The second
> sentence says what the document is _not_, and a forward looking
> statement of what could happen. There is no cost to removing that if we
> carry that torch over into a new document. Let me know if you want to
> help work on draft-mitchell-idr-large-communities-registry.
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Job