Re: [Idr] Adoption call for draft-heitz-idr-wklc-02 (3/9 to 3/23)

Aijun Wang <> Fri, 12 March 2021 07:15 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADCCE3A0C84 for <>; Thu, 11 Mar 2021 23:15:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.918
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.918 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3iGqU3p724wC for <>; Thu, 11 Mar 2021 23:15:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 654F13A0C81 for <>; Thu, 11 Mar 2021 23:15:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from DESKTOP2IOH5QC (unknown []) by (Hmail) with ESMTPA id DBB1B1C00EB; Fri, 12 Mar 2021 15:15:34 +0800 (CST)
From: Aijun Wang <>
To: "'Jakob Heitz (jheitz)'" <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2021 15:15:34 +0800
Message-ID: <012b01d7170f$7ec90310$7c5b0930$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_012C_01D71752.8CEDF0C0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQNN+BKM7DZoc4nruS59P2v8seAnrAIrgVqYp4DM4uA=
Content-Language: zh-cn
X-HM-Tid: 0a78254a61c1d993kuwsdbb1b1c00eb
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Adoption call for draft-heitz-idr-wklc-02 (3/9 to 3/23)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2021 07:15:45 -0000

Hi, Jakob:


More questions for your draft:

1.     Do we need to reserve such huge range(4093640704 (0xF4000000) to 4160749567 (0xF7FFFFFF) as you described in for the countable well-known large communities?
2.     There is some inaccurate description for the current reserved AS number space in  You can check it at The unallocated AS range is 401309-4199999999, not at described in your draft “The range of AS numbers currently unallocated by IANA is 399,261 to 4,199,999,999.”
3.     What’s the necessary to group such WKLC via the WKLC ID? 


Best Regards


Aijun Wang

China Telecom


From: <> On Behalf Of Aijun Wang
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2021 9:38 PM
To: Jakob Heitz (jheitz) <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Adoption call for draft-heitz-idr-wklc-02 (3/9 to 3/23)


Yes, if we reserve some 4-bytes AS range, then your concerns will not happen.

The well-known large community need just be allocated from this reserved range. That’s all.

Do we need other definitions in your draft then?

Aijun Wang

China Telecom

On Mar 10, 2021, at 21:18, Jakob Heitz (jheitz) < <> > wrote:


Consider if there is a real AS that uses 4,093,640,704 as its ASN.

And if this AS were to send a large community of its own.

It would put its ASN into the Global Administrator field of the LC.

This ASN is 11110100000000000000000000000000 in binary.

Then another AS sends a WKLC with WKLC ID 0, Transitivity 0 and Data 1 = 0.

This has the same bit pattern.

To avoid the clash, we need to reserve the ASNs that would clash.





From: Aijun Wang < <> > 
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2021 12:11 AM
To: Jakob Heitz (jheitz) < <> >; 'Susan Hares' < <> >; <> 
Subject: RE: [Idr] Adoption call for draft-heitz-idr-wklc-02 (3/9 to 3/23)


And, what the reason to assign the “111101”value in the first 6bit your encoding? It is not conformed to general definition of large community, in which the first 4-bytes is to identify the Global Administrator.