Re: [Idr] [GROW] Question about BGP Large Communities

Brian Dickson <brian.peter.dickson@gmail.com> Wed, 05 February 2020 01:45 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.peter.dickson@gmail.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 8DBE41200E7; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 17:45:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.987
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.987 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, BODY_ENHANCEMENT=0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 mjj-uchf2fTt; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 17:45:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ua1-x935.google.com (mail-ua1-x935.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::935]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 76A4B12006E; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 17:45:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ua1-x935.google.com with SMTP id c7so270163uaf.5; Tue, 04 Feb 2020 17:45:03 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=JHJ8cNsVGo/8tydYvLsCT+OzwLT2Q9jx58D5nPSCwh4=; b=DuaIW8XzqP9L14ZSXZsaFlTwN5jEIr07t87XyWDrJysnEliC67xIbDvXXzJpJuK74s RRYKf9BUvXdbvUv9sOjMaJphXA/pWZPCniIoSB1OunbLHTMx0P+OVvqHFeOhN+oJ0TAk Wv/ATSsQgjOuVkH+XIkg8oMBqvLlkQzZbrIaogu6dV6Wgk1zHfcnPJZwVYo7SmK5upId q/v/2cCOYPln7QkeDqikAZQiRV0l2gmmqSZggXMtDD3ZY8kptfkZW3c53zFBQMdLrWrZ pDXT/tIixqctwrmw2TiwIVvhyTxcgxaMOeavTvXs23LV4g5cD2k9mTWas7b6hKIgWuPT 0pHA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=JHJ8cNsVGo/8tydYvLsCT+OzwLT2Q9jx58D5nPSCwh4=; b=CP64CXE2QODlJWMScko6SRY9SA6vJEoVDUnRquABPWSdkIWABs68Q4dLuwXp/ZU+Qc m2wOFaRMBmImcbaEf3I/tEc+WU/+5o7iuqC/VpUuewvihupbNnMBmv/nHL5MTZjPlGOS 60LBIMJNmqBJYNvT1YcNx5sI+PL6TsXG+TJhrVgLvQ+JO9h11y0PZ5GBnILlaZaAeYvn B4ebtfscF1PdnkHJkQCIQ2gTOO9GKwMOif18YAEimv2GU/Q4NBVMCjf1TS/Vj3r4PrvV iq5BitkixA42YVlnPGxKEy4/Sj35W6c1fdbyGWByKZ7NptlJQop5s8w8J7BqKbFsQQIz Azaw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVkHBsEu7mtO8qUVr3D9362pWvqp5EHrxgk9TIXtimQopY8oPu4 w8sv0Z7V/ZDJBjWhdcEGTpFmv9DyH+EXGgIHfuk=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxEvPRil03YFFDtK52/V87suqhgUXNa8yFwmoPxMvW38zSmKAbLsQEvl+5Q7YKCxdXJSplqaTHxMPXGh0umD8E=
X-Received: by 2002:ab0:74c8:: with SMTP id f8mr18432339uaq.114.1580867102592; Tue, 04 Feb 2020 17:45:02 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <DM6PR09MB54489301E52DD711E031400984030@DM6PR09MB5448.namprd09.prod.outlook.com> <BN6PR11MB1890AA431F63030DFE310902C0030@BN6PR11MB1890.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <CAOj+MMH-xff0VUBy5UZZp7FH7_ES5A5ZCcUqFin2UP0hOnpjug@mail.gmail.com> <5603F4C9-7ECD-4A9C-AF81-49AE292CEE83@cisco.com> <CAOj+MMF3K6jCp+CDg92ua7qH5hkQ1V+g0JoFt_zf+zCogwVZ7g@mail.gmail.com> <90fab3d5ec794e95be0d86cae2d4a235@huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <90fab3d5ec794e95be0d86cae2d4a235@huawei.com>
From: Brian Dickson <brian.peter.dickson@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2020 17:44:51 -0800
Message-ID: <CAH1iCirCG8vXXRJPJgaYbCCvsxNtFvBha39Hs2a3xVYkCV=SEQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Dongjie (Jimmy)" <jie.dong@huawei.com>
Cc: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>, "Jakob Heitz (jheitz)" <jheitz@cisco.com>, "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>, "grow-chairs@ietf.org" <grow-chairs@ietf.org>, "idr-chairs@ietf.org" <idr-chairs@ietf.org>, "grow@ietf.org" <grow@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000165362059dca4eb5"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/J8wV3VQP5SfhHwnq4OZozrMp3kU>
Subject: Re: [Idr] [GROW] Question about BGP Large Communities
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Wed, 05 Feb 2020 01:45:05 -0000

Disagree, we want something deployed (large) and deployable (requiring only
IANA action, no vendor activity) immediately.
IMHO, any special handling or new code points or upgrades are non-starters.
This particularly applies to wide and extended
Brian

On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 5:41 PM Dongjie (Jimmy) <jie.dong@huawei.com> wrote:

> Agree that for this case it may be more convenient to just use extended
> community with a new type, this could avoid any possible collision with
> existing deployments, and save the effort of assigning a set of ASNs. Wide
> community may be too powerful for this:)
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Jie
>
>
>
> *From:* Robert Raszuk [mailto:robert@raszuk.net]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 5, 2020 6:38 AM
> *To:* Jakob Heitz (jheitz) <jheitz@cisco.com>
> *Cc:* Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed) <kotikalapudi.sriram@nist.gov>ov>; Job
> Snijders <job@ntt.net>et>; Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>rg>; John Heasly <
> heas@shrubbery.net>gt;; idr@ietf.org; grow-chairs@ietf.org;
> idr-chairs@ietf.org; grow@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [GROW] Question about BGP Large Communities
>
>
>
>
>
> > How would you divide the numbers?
>
>
>
> I would not divide them at all in LCs. I would either define new type in
> extended communities or use wide communities.
>
>
>
> But I am a bit biased here ;-)
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> R,
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 11:34 PM Jakob Heitz (jheitz) <jheitz@cisco.com>
> wrote:
>
> The numbers are a trade off. How would you divide the numbers?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jakob.
>
>
>
> On Feb 4, 2020, at 2:19 PM, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> wrote:
>
> 
>
> And you think 255 such known large communities will be sufficient ?
>
>
>
> Thx,
>
> R.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 9:45 PM Jakob Heitz (jheitz) <jheitz@cisco.com>
> wrote:
>
> A set of well known large communities could be useful.
>
> I have a draft that I never submitted attached to this email.
>
> Does anyone want to co-author and suggest changes?
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Jakob.
>
>
>
> *From:* Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed) <kotikalapudi.sriram@nist.gov>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 4, 2020 10:22 AM
> *To:* Jakob Heitz (jheitz) <jheitz@cisco.com>om>; Job Snijders <job@ntt.net>et>;
> Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>rg>; John Heasly <heas@shrubbery.net>
> *Cc:* idr@ietf.org; grow@ietf.org; idr-chairs@ietf.org;
> grow-chairs@ietf.org; a.e.azimov@gmail.com; Brian Dickson <
> brian.peter.dickson@gmail.com>
> *Subject:* Question about BGP Large Communities
>
>
>
> In the route leaks solution draft,
>
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-grow-route-leak-detection-mitigation-02
>
> we (the authors) have proposed using BGP Large Community.
>
> We specify this to be a "well-known transitive Large Community".
>
>
>
> Question:
>
> Can the draft simply make an IANA request for
>
> a Global Administrator ASN value for Route Leaks Protection (RLP) type
>
> and request that it be published in IANA registry
>
> as a "well-known Transitive Large Community"?
>
>
>
> There is no IANA registry for Large Communities yet;
>
> we have requested IDR and GROW Chairs to facilitate that.
>
>
>
> ----------------
>
> Details/background:
>
>
>
> We've read the following RFCs related to Large Communities:
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8092
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8195
>
>
>
> RFC 8195 has this table:
>
>
>                  +-------------------------------+-------------------------+
>
>                  |       RFC8092                    | RFC
> 8195                |
>
>
> +-------------------------------+--------------------------+
>
>                  | Global Administrator    |      ASN                     |
>
>                  |  Local Data Part 1           |    Function
> |
>
>                  |  Local Data Part 2           |   Parameter            |
>
>
> +--------------------------------+-------------------------+
>
> which is instructive. In the examples that RFC 8195 offers,
>
> it appears it is *assumed* that the Large Communities are transitive.
>
>
>
> For comparison, in Extended Communities (RFC 7153), there are
>
> explicit Type values assigned for Transitive, Non-transitive, etc.
>
>
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-extended-communities/bgp-extended-communities.xhtml
>
> However, there is no such explicit Type specification
>
> for Large Communities (in RFC 8092 or elsewhere).
>
>
>
> Thank you.
>
> Sriram
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GROW mailing list
> GROW@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
>
> _______________________________________________
> GROW mailing list
> GROW@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
>