Re: [Idr] Review of draft-ietf-large-community-06.txt

Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net> Fri, 04 November 2016 18:07 UTC

Return-Path: <gih@apnic.net>
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 D212B129604 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Nov 2016 11:07:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -108.398
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-108.398 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 QHpaJL0jfq3T for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Nov 2016 11:07:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ao-mailgw.apnic.net (ao-mailgw.apnic.net [IPv6:2001:dd8:8:701::25]) (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 7D5841294E1 for <idr@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Nov 2016 11:07:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from iamda3.org.apnic.net (unknown [2001:dd8:9:2::101:249]) by ao-mailgw.apnic.net (Halon) with ESMTPS id 9441502b-a2b9-11e6-b8ce-005056b6ee6f; Sat, 05 Nov 2016 04:07:42 +1000 (AEST)
Received: from dhcp150.potaroo.net (203.119.101.249) by iamda3.org.apnic.net (203.119.111.31) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.123.3; Sat, 5 Nov 2016 04:07:44 +1000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.1 \(3251\))
From: Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net>
In-Reply-To: <C85C0950-8D91-4695-A28A-FC17B9E5AFDC@pfrc.org>
Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2016 05:07:42 +1100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <FA852AF3-50CE-4DF5-9D08-E98F46813857@apnic.net>
References: <112dc01d235fd$57f9c370$07ed4a50$@ndzh.com> <C2DABF02-D3CB-4646-B869-FBCE5F05FDA1@apnic.net> <117ea01d23611$a28513e0$e78f3ba0$@ndzh.com> <CED07D95-A426-469C-85B4-DB2FBE52D14A@apnic.net> <4080cfba032744f590fcbbb710f0d618@XCH-ALN-014.cisco.com> <08C97932-4E8B-4EBC-B780-3A2F54A1EEF2@apnic.net> <C85C0950-8D91-4695-A28A-FC17B9E5AFDC@pfrc.org>
To: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3251)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/NLirQynxSp3fBv8N7SKdlBjOHQA>
Cc: IETF IDR WG <idr@ietf.org>, Sue Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, "rtg-dir@ietf.org" <rtg-dir@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Review of draft-ietf-large-community-06.txt
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Fri, 04 Nov 2016 18:07:51 -0000

> On 4 Nov. 2016, at 9:34 pm, Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Nov 4, 2016, at 4:59 AM, Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net> wrote:
>> 
>> I just noted that RFC1997 and RFC4360 had these constraints.
>> 
>> It seems strange to me that an implementation would handle aggregation differently, treating communities and extended communities one way and large communities in a subtly different manner.
>> 
>> Frankly I would prefer to see a consistent treatment of communities in the case of aggregation, and reproducxing the RFC4360 text kinda makes that clear (at least to me)
>> 
>> Omitting it invites different handling and that would be not good
> 
> The relevant point from the thread is that the atomic-aggregate attribute is largely protocol noise.  It's a vestigial organ from the BGP-3 to BGP-4 transition, and a poorly specified one at that.  We shouldn't include its use in specifications, particularly where discussing aggregation.
> 
> The only place its discussion would be relevant is as part of *de-*aggregation of a prefix.
> 

I have to disagree with this position. I am more than happy if you want to push out a spec that updates RFC1997 and RFC4360 and drops the atomic-aggregation conditions and applies the same considerations to this document as well. But having current specs that say “do <this> with communities and extended communities and do <that> with large communities” is bonkers! We should be consistent here and not just deliberately generate inconsistencies here - that is not doing anyone a favour.