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

[Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>]

You still could do that.

You overload last octet with exact action you need just like you do today
with 1997.

Three sets of 4 octets with no semantics still requires curret way to
advertise what action given community means at any target ASN.

Best,
R

Ps. Besides adding 4 more octets to leave current LC as is just to be able
to avoid anonymous injections seems to me like very little price as
compared with befit. But I guess am alone with that point of view here.

On Oct 24, 2016 2:08 PM, "heasley" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 03:53:05PM +0200, Robert Raszuk:
> > You are mixing SRC_ASN with TARGET_ASN in the same field.
>
> I want to point-out that by forcing the first field to be "src_asn" as
> you are suggesting, would make one intended use of -large- not possible,
> for ASN1 to tell ASN2 to do something with a route as it applies to ASN3.
> eg: ASN2:ASN3:action, ie: apply "action" (such as prepend) defined by ASN2
> to ASN1's route when advertised to ASN3.
>
> > Yes RFC1997 works like that but here we have opportunity to improve it.
>
> We have improved it.
>