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

Zhuangshunwan <zhuangshunwan@huawei.com> Wed, 05 February 2020 09:01 UTC

Return-Path: <zhuangshunwan@huawei.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 CB217120288; Wed, 5 Feb 2020 01:01:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.189
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.189 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, BODY_ENHANCEMENT=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01] 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 idh3fqBL1CHG; Wed, 5 Feb 2020 01:00:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2C20F12026E; Wed, 5 Feb 2020 01:00:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhreml701-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.108]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id CD9F3675DE6966935DD4; Wed, 5 Feb 2020 09:00:55 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from NKGEML413-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.74) by lhreml701-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.42) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Wed, 5 Feb 2020 09:00:54 +0000
Received: from NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com ([fe80::a54a:89d2:c471:ff]) by NKGEML413-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.74]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Wed, 5 Feb 2020 17:00:36 +0800
From: Zhuangshunwan <zhuangshunwan@huawei.com>
To: Brian Dickson <brian.peter.dickson@gmail.com>, "Dongjie (Jimmy)" <jie.dong@huawei.com>
CC: "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>
Thread-Topic: [GROW] Question about BGP Large Communities
Thread-Index: AdXbeNI4t0SppYFnSky8PqLGmuct1gAIu5NA//+UeoCAAAOcAIAAAbeA//9KBuCAAOpGgP//BMRg
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2020 09:00:35 +0000
Message-ID: <19AB2A007F56DB4E8257F949A2FB9858E5FFFD27@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com>
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> <CAH1iCirCG8vXXRJPJgaYbCCvsxNtFvBha39Hs2a3xVYkCV=SEQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAH1iCirCG8vXXRJPJgaYbCCvsxNtFvBha39Hs2a3xVYkCV=SEQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.108.202.109]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_19AB2A007F56DB4E8257F949A2FB9858E5FFFD27NKGEML515MBXchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Kg4ORKJcOWHvvslva-Gr9Uiq-X4>
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 09:01:02 -0000

Hi,

In my opinion, when we apply a new function from IANA, we will have to deploy some extra route policies to set and parse the specific function as your suggested way.
With the increase of new functions, the route policies deployed will become more and more complicated.

Best regards,
Shunwan

From: GROW [mailto:grow-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian Dickson
Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2020 9:45 AM
To: Dongjie (Jimmy) <jie.dong@huawei.com>
Cc: idr@ietf.org; grow-chairs@ietf.org; idr-chairs@ietf.org; grow@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [GROW] Question about BGP Large Communities

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<mailto: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<mailto:robert@raszuk.net>]
Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2020 6:38 AM
To: Jakob Heitz (jheitz) <jheitz@cisco.com<mailto:jheitz@cisco.com>>
Cc: Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed) <kotikalapudi.sriram@nist.gov<mailto:kotikalapudi.sriram@nist.gov>>; Job Snijders <job@ntt.net<mailto:job@ntt.net>>; Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org<mailto:nick@foobar.org>>; John Heasly <heas@shrubbery.net<mailto:heas@shrubbery.net>>; idr@ietf.org<mailto:idr@ietf.org>; grow-chairs@ietf.org<mailto:grow-chairs@ietf.org>; idr-chairs@ietf.org<mailto:idr-chairs@ietf.org>; grow@ietf.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:kotikalapudi.sriram@nist.gov>>
Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2020 10:22 AM
To: Jakob Heitz (jheitz) <jheitz@cisco.com<mailto:jheitz@cisco.com>>; Job Snijders <job@ntt.net<mailto:job@ntt.net>>; Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org<mailto:nick@foobar.org>>; John Heasly <heas@shrubbery.net<mailto:heas@shrubbery.net>>
Cc: idr@ietf.org<mailto:idr@ietf.org>; grow@ietf.org<mailto:grow@ietf.org>; idr-chairs@ietf.org<mailto:idr-chairs@ietf.org>; grow-chairs@ietf.org<mailto:grow-chairs@ietf.org>; a.e.azimov@gmail.com<mailto:a.e.azimov@gmail.com>; Brian Dickson <brian.peter.dickson@gmail.com<mailto: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<mailto:GROW@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
_______________________________________________
GROW mailing list
GROW@ietf.org<mailto:GROW@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow