Re: [Idr] Vendor Defaults (was Re: Review of draft-ietf-large-community-06.txt)

Isn't the main motivation of LC to avoid overloading the target ASN with
private ASN values to embed the action ?

Besides both are applicable to their directly connected customers so really
regardless of the default those should be dropped by policy after
execution/application.

Thanks,
R.

On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 1:04 AM, Jakob Heitz (jheitz) <jheitz@cisco.com>
wrote:

> An example of unintended routing:
> Both AS2914 and AS49544 use the private ASN 65501 to prepend one time.
> If a route using 65501 in the community traverses both these ASes, then
> each AS will prepend, resulting in (likely unintended) double prepending.
> https://onestep.net/communities/as2914/
> https://onestep.net/communities/as49544/
>
> Thanks,
> Jakob.
>
>
> On Nov 6, 2016, at 3:30 PM, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> wrote:
>
> Hi Jakob,
>
> Very fair and good summary !
>
> One question: What is "unintended routing" ? Are you alluding to "churn"
> If so pls see my reply to previous post.
>
> Just to reiterate ... I do recommend that whatever option gets more
> support it should be spelled out in the Large Community RFC such that all
> implementations can be consistent.
>
> Best,
> Robert
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 12:25 AM, Jakob Heitz (jheitz) <jheitz@cisco.com>
> wrote:
>
>> The question:
>> Should Large Communities be transmitted across EBGP by default?
>>
>> Note: there is a knob to change the default, so the discussion is how to
>> act with the knob unconfigured.
>>
>> Arguments to block:
>> 1. Principle of least surprise: Do same as 1997.
>> 2. Accidental leakage of internally used communities will cause
>> unintended routing.
>>
>> Arguments to pass:
>> 1. Legacy code will pass it, because the attribute is transitive. Upgrade
>> to LC aware code should do the same by default.
>> 2. It is convenient to pass a community through your first level transit
>> to fix a problem further upstream. A default block frustrates this effort.
>>
>> The problem of accidental leakage is greater with 1997 communities,
>> because many ISPs use private ASNs. This is as problem if a community
>> intended for a distant ISP is interpreted by a near ISP when they use the
>> same private ASN. This problem SHOULD disappear with Large Communities,
>> because the need to use private ASNs no longer exists.
>>
>> I would like to hear other arguments and gauge support for each case.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Jakob.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>