Re: [Idr] Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-pmohapat-idr-acceptown-community-01.txt

"John G. Scudder" <jgs@juniper.net> Tue, 06 May 2008 20:14 UTC

Return-Path: <idr-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: idr-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-idr-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD82D3A694D; Tue, 6 May 2008 13:14:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: idr@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F1F53A67A8 for <idr@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 May 2008 13:14:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6qTq+0qsDdik for <idr@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 May 2008 13:14:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from chip3og55.obsmtp.com (chip3og55.obsmtp.com [64.18.14.175]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01B5728C4A2 for <idr@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 May 2008 13:13:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from source ([66.129.224.36]) by chip3ob55.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP; Tue, 06 May 2008 13:13:30 PDT
Received: from magenta.juniper.net ([172.17.27.123]) by emailsmtp56.jnpr.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 6 May 2008 13:08:27 -0700
Received: from [172.16.13.201] ([172.16.13.201]) by magenta.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id m46K8Qx57412; Tue, 6 May 2008 13:08:26 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jgs@juniper.net)
Message-Id: <42F67934-71FE-4D36-B793-91A9B7122096@juniper.net>
From: "John G. Scudder" <jgs@juniper.net>
To: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
In-Reply-To: <20080506194653.GA8171@scc.mi.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v919.2)
Date: Tue, 06 May 2008 16:08:25 -0400
References: <20080506180029.GA26405@scc.mi.org> <9A3A6AC97A8CF44DACD99DC00BEC235A02F132D4@xmb-rtp-203.amer.cisco.com> <20080506194653.GA8171@scc.mi.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.919.2)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 May 2008 20:08:27.0093 (UTC) FILETIME=[F21BA050:01C8AFB4]
Cc: idr@ietf.org, "RAMSAROOP, JEEWAN P, ATTLABS" <jramsaroop@att.com>, "NGUYEN, HAN Q, ATTLABS" <hnguyen@att.com>, "LONGHITANO, ANTHONY C, ATTLABS" <aclonghitano@att.com>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-pmohapat-idr-acceptown-community-01.txt
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org

Jeff,

On May 6, 2008, at 3:46 PM, Jeffrey Haas wrote:

> I still recommend to the authors that they don't consider a well-known
> standard community.  Please consider either using a new extended
> community

That would be your earlier suggestion:

> 2. A new version of the route-target extended community that has the
> "accept this with your own originator" semantics.

That would work and I don't have a huge problem with it, but I don't  
see how it's semantically different from the current proposal.  In the  
current proposal, we decompose things orthogonally into the routing  
table context of the route (the route target) and the handling of the  
route (the ACCEPT_OWN community).  What you describe above combines  
those two semantics into a single new-type route target, but otherwise  
would seem to be the same.

> or adding a configuration knob for the existing route-target
> community.

And that would be:

> 1. Add a configuration knob that says "accept this route with
> route-target and ignore originator".

If you mean "add a configuration knob on the PE" then that wouldn't  
satisfy the use case requirements, which is exactly to avoid  
configuration on PEs.  Maybe you could describe in a few more words  
exactly what the knob you're imagining would do.

> I think that would serve your requirements without otherwise
> complicating existing non-VPN situations.

I don't think non-VPN situations are complicated at all since you  
wouldn't turn the feature on -- modulo the comment others have made  
that there would necessarily some code introduced to support this  
feature even if it wasn't configured.  But some code would be  
introduced in either of the approaches you suggest as well, so that  
can't be what you mean.

By the way -- you specifically say "don't consider a well-known  
standard community".  Does that mean you wouldn't have a problem with  
a well-known *extended* community (without RT semantics of its own)?   
If so, how come?

Thanks,

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