Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-bgp-attribute-announcement dead on arrival?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rob Shakir" <rjs@rob.sh>
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 2:57 AM

> Jeff,
>
> I am interested in the working group pursuing this draft. The pressure
> behind large community seems (to me) to be very short-term focused
[0].
> Operationally, I understand the requirement, but we should also be
> improving the infrastructure that we have in BGP. There are numerous
use
> cases for BGP, many of which are not Internet DFZ focused. As part of
this
> infrastructure, I believe that in the longer term, we need the ability
to
> do attribute scoping in a more robust way.
>
> The current definitions of non-transitive and transitive are overly
coarse
> for today's heterogeneous networks. It is particularly important to me
that
> we look beyond confederations as the only means of grouping autonomous
> systems.

I agree; if we had a more flexible definition, something between
transitive and non-transitive, then that could be an option for 'large'.
I also agree that 'large', while having strong consensus, is short-term
and that we could be looking for something more in a year or two.
(Which is a theme that recurs in the work of the IETF:-(

Tom Petch

> Cheers,
> r.
>
> [0]: This isn't to say that isn't required, I don't want to debate
that any
> further as I am pretty sure the horse that we're beating is little
more
> than a skeleton at this point. See
> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/idr/current/msg16051.html
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 8:54 AM Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com> wrote:
>
> Jeff:
>
> <individual contributor hat on>
>
>
>
> My reading of the list that:
>
> a) Large communities meets an "urgent/crisis level need"
>
> b) Wide communities and bgp-attribute-announcement - meet a longer
term
>
> need.
>
>
>
> Did I miss understand the list's comments?
>
>
>
> Sue
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Haas
>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 5, 2016 11:49 AM
>
> To: IETF IDR WG
>
> Subject: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-bgp-attribute-announcement dead on
arrival?
>
>
>
> In theory, by adoping draft-ietf-idr-bgp-attribute-announcement, IDR
agreed
>
> that attribute scoping was an important issue.
>
>
>
> As proven by the working group discussion on BGP large communities,
the WG
>
> seems unwilling to consider anything that adds any level of complexity
onto
>
> certain proposals.
>
>
>
> Should we simply consider this draft dead?
>
>
>
> -- Jeff
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------

> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>