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 <> Tue, 18 October 2016 16:03 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 612341296CF for <>; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 09:03:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.332
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.332 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.431, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id maAXT9NRJBtW for <>; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 09:03:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EA3AC1296D0 for <>; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 09:03:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 (256/0 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) (Authenticated sender: phessler) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A7F20788F1 for <>; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 18:03:28 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2016 18:03:27 +0200
From: Peter Hessler <>
Message-ID: <>
References: <01f401d22950$7f988470$7ec98d50$> <20161018153047.GJ95811@Vurt.local> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: 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)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2016 16:03:31 -0000

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.