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

<bruno.decraene@orange.com> Thu, 20 October 2016 11:59 UTC

Return-Path: <bruno.decraene@orange.com>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D168F1298CC for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 04:59:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.619
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.619 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TfdJ780ODmEP for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 04:59:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias91.francetelecom.com [193.251.215.91]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EFA081298CE for <idr@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 04:59:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omfedm05.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.1]) by omfedm11.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 1DECE3B4D9D; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 13:59:27 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme2.itn.ftgroup (unknown [10.114.31.43]) by omfedm05.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id ED91635C613; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 13:59:26 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from OPEXCLILM21.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::e92a:c932:907e:8f06]) by OPEXCLILM5F.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::e172:f13e:8be6:71cc%18]) with mapi id 14.03.0319.002; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 13:59:26 +0200
From: <bruno.decraene@orange.com>
To: t.petch <ietfc@btconnect.com>, IETF IDR WG <idr@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Idr] WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-large-community-03.txt (10/17/2016 to 10/31/2016)
Thread-Index: AQHSKrKNzLSsMUoHk0O3f9XrQlByO6CxOq5g
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 11:59:26 +0000
Message-ID: <515_1476964767_5808B19F_515_1079_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A0FA0799F@OPEXCLILM21.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <01f301d228b4$e3319ef0$a994dcd0$@ndzh.com> <20161017215134.GA464@pfrc.org> <20161018190851.GC15392@shrubbery.net> <20161018191521.GT95811@Vurt.local> <9EFC9BAA-F917-4C70-A139-1F69CAECF9C0@pfrc.org> <007201d229f6$b4ae9680$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <20161019185405.GA12214@puck.nether.net> <01ab01d22ab2$2b54f8e0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
In-Reply-To: <01ab01d22ab2$2b54f8e0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.168.234.3]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-PMX-Version: 6.2.1.2478543, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409, Antispam-Data: 2016.6.17.114517
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/FlA4MKhoCKtAz4na0A9bpVVD4us>
Cc: Sue Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-large-community-03.txt (10/17/2016 to 10/31/2016)
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 11:59:31 -0000

May be one suggestion, trying to address Tom's comment, and inspired by RFC 4360:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4360#section-3.1

OLD:
   Local Data Part 1:  A four-octet operator-defined value.
   Local Data Part 2:  A four-octet operator-defined value

NEW:
   Local Data Part 1:  A four-octet value. The format and meaning is defined by the Autonomous System set in the Global Administrator field.
   Local Data Part 2:  A four-octet value. The format and meaning is defined by the Autonomous System set in the Global Administrator field.

Or some other wording, but I think the point is that "operator-defined" means the operator of the AS set in the Global Administrator field.

--Bruno

 > -----Original Message-----
 > From: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of t.petch
 > Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2016 10:38 AM
 > To: Jared Mauch
 > Cc: IETF IDR WG; Sue Hares
 > Subject: Re: [Idr] WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-large-community-03.txt (10/17/2016 to
 > 10/31/2016)
 > 
 > Jared
 > 
 > As Brian has pointed out, it was the use of 'usually' that I was
 > concerned with, as watering down the recommended use of an ASN by
 > RFC1997.  Excise 'usually' and that part of my concern goes away.
 > 
 > Tom Petch
 > 
 > 
 > ----- Original Message -----
 > From: "Jared Mauch" <jared@puck.Nether.net>;
 > Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2016 7:54 PM
 > 
 > 
 > > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 11:47:05AM +0100, t.petch wrote:
 > > > I remain unhappy with this I-D.
 > > >
 > > > I find it ironic that the messages for this Last Call should be
 > > > interspersed with those relating to what goes wrong when someone
 > > > somewhere else in the world uses a field in an unexpected way.  This
 > > > reinforces my belief that this I-D should be more forceful in
 > calling
 > > > out the dangers (eg MUST instead of SHOULD).
 > > >
 > > > I think that this I-D is factually incorrect, or at least open to
 > > > misinterpretation,  when it says
 > > > '[RFC1997] BGP Communities attributes are four-octet values split
 > into
 > > >    two two-octet words.  The most significant word is usually
 > > >    interpreted as an Autonomous System Number (ASN) '
 > >
 > > rfc1998: section 4 gives you the slice + dice bits:
 > >
 > > -- snip -- rfc 1998 --
 > >    To make use of the BGP community attribute, several community
 > values
 > >    (MCI's AS number: 3561 = 0x0DE9) have been defined that can be used
 > >    by customers to tag routes so that the appropriate "LOCAL_PREF"
 > >    values are configured. Table 2 lists the appropriate community
 > >    attribute values (and the mappings of community to LOCAL_PREF):
 > > -- snip -- rfc 1998 --
 > >
 > > This is the segmenting, and most customers have
 > > "ip bgp community new-format" configured.
 > >
 > > If your issue is about printf %ull vs %d:%d:%d we operators
 > > can solve this by ensuring our vendors do the right thing, which
 > > we have already done 20 years ago via rfc1998.
 > >
 > > This nit is imo not worth picking.
 > >
 > > - Jared
 > >
 > > --
 > > Jared Mauch  | pgp key available via finger from jared@puck.nether.net
 > > clue++;      | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/  My statements are only
 > mine.
 > 
 > _______________________________________________
 > Idr mailing list
 > Idr@ietf.org
 > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.