Re: [Idr] BGP Attribute for Large communities (Attribute 30) was squatted on - Let's get a new attribute number (1 week WG call (10/18 to 10/25)

[Peter Hessler <[e-mail]>]

On 2016 Oct 18 (Tue) at 17:49:03 +0200 (+0200), Kristian Larsson wrote:
:On 2016-10-18 17:44, Michael H Lambert wrote:
:>Would the same course of action be recommended if it were an
:>open-source project (eg bird or quagga), rather than a commercial
:>router vendor, squatting on attribute 30?  If the answer is an
:>unequivocal yes, then I agree with the proposed course of action.
:>Otherwise, I think the burden falls on the vendor to fix their (with
:>respect to standards) broken implementation.
:
:I think the issue is that we might have a lot of XXXX routers deployed
:on the Internet with this code so in practical terms it's probably 12-18
:months away to have all of them upgraded to a version where they will
:not drop prefixes with large BGP communities.

This is a bad justification, imho.

The number of routers deployed is not relevant.  That the code shipped
to non-testers in a general release is relevent.  _And_ that the failure
case is Withdraw, as opposed to Crash.  If this was just a crasher for
vendor Y, I would oppose a renumber.

I reluctantly support a renumber.

(I'm an open source dev, working on OpenBGPD)

-- 
Jacquin's Postulate on Democratic Government:
	No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the
	legislature is in session.