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

Robert Raszuk <> Fri, 21 October 2016 19:51 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E706129959 for <>; Fri, 21 Oct 2016 12:51:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.597
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.597 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id P-uIq4_gkJp5 for <>; Fri, 21 Oct 2016 12:51:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A2B5F129500 for <>; Fri, 21 Oct 2016 12:51:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id f193so3980039wmg.0 for <>; Fri, 21 Oct 2016 12:51:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=hv6vJViWDayENjsqs+nFeXHx5QzV5WYL8QYODm0K3x4=; b=SdcA+ijGFef0d86+vdXaTcRr60a/ViOoDQf9mvwCWlLL/Dk8YXB5hQMCjmmVTQTcJX JKp9HDp8/o2UAYIhGq+F/n2j8KIO3wDE/UPbYtSFfeHGq9PDKRHzpkS2nzryk41qfjD2 woITDdbIfZSi8wvq8ZCnp8yNfrU66JNaNVdGz9FdVNsX643sEDuQtDTTn3HwxcqbcMjn E8gZt61j+OSaZtd4FrPPw2xNIdNkwAc1r0xU2OMOaqLGHdk+Mu3XFNMkBbySrPiiKrOS LcZ3qP8/QQLWiewTvQa/5dgYKCmtK2X/Yd2ftR2bgGcPt/QdePGgIwjkZ9Ue2oElZzLZ 14Lg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=hv6vJViWDayENjsqs+nFeXHx5QzV5WYL8QYODm0K3x4=; b=m1ioPeYbdQJGqG2aEvCcK8YNIH53O7Z4+z7WDGF8QnH8mWZzb11ky2io1A0WjJMl+I RZB9Q1Sy8DubUOtgBF613iIE/71rdt1kFIjnGdqDCG3Xuaf5sFrZxO+zH8VSl/rf6BO9 VTmrbSN7jD8BqG1k1K0LP21fV/AQRxTas/+exuj3xSS44H/4jF9y7ksTApkPD//zLrV+ 7pkU+74AnAZn/tgCdxEWrGeLjpWquUS4SPbWp1Q8m81vS/xLn1U+O+6FlZ3XQxTDx6JV KaoETRCfBUIpwVwRo3Z4ZbnkLFVsDqyI5PRJPtk6hnPkFdkjn32kJ7ZihlIUP6bYr79t Xv2A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9RkNdx4Gdce2oZaIm4aQlbDf4/fhPOSFYsJHQQ5lDdvyGclL8f7Qbr6bEDSeaN3IRtxBEqAYXC09SYl7ew==
X-Received: by with SMTP id j131mr4248204wmf.73.1477079469205; Fri, 21 Oct 2016 12:51:09 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Fri, 21 Oct 2016 12:51:07 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <20161018191521.GT95811@Vurt.local> <> <20161020215938.GE1074@Vurt.local> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <20161021164241.GC32387@Vurt.local> <> <> <> <>
From: Robert Raszuk <>
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 21:51:07 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: SLUu520a0zQKyzWh22bGDlGjz94
Message-ID: <>
To: " - Martijn Schmidt" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1148e560113263053f655d69"
Archived-At: <>
Cc: idr wg <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-large-community-03.txt (10/17/2016 to 10/31/2016)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 19:51:12 -0000

> Please let operators worry about their own filtering policies (or lack
> thereof) and leave such recommendations to the BCP/GROW document.
​This is IETF WG and I find such comment inappropriate. This discussion is
about extending BGP protocol and we all should be worried how to apply
effective policy on something which is being defined here.

So triggered by the above let me ask a very simple question. You and others
expressed very clearly that LCs should traverse N-ASes and be executed
somewhere remotely. Great.

Let's also assume that you talk to everyone in the path and convince them
to let your LC go through.


If you choose to inject LC in the format TARGET_ASN:ACTION:PARAMETER based
on what field is anyone in the BGP propagation path supposed to let's your
LCs go and stop all other 1000s of LCs injected by anyone else ?

Today RFC1997 don't go far as they have no way to apply per their
originator permit or deny statements.