Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-large-community-01.txt

Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org> Wed, 12 October 2016 13:43 UTC

Return-Path: <jhaas@slice.pfrc.org>
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 E1C3212950B for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 06:43:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.996, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 Xf9qhcly1yQl for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 06:43:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from slice.pfrc.org (slice.pfrc.org [67.207.130.108]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 648E312950D for <idr@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 06:43:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by slice.pfrc.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id DDF3B1E32B; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 09:45:52 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 09:45:52 -0400
From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
To: heasley <heas@shrubbery.net>
Message-ID: <20161012134552.GE22695@pfrc.org>
References: <333030E6-0422-4A34-B07B-90D5F8E9F116@gmail.com> <57F92043.20301@foobar.org> <A9BBA442-361F-444F-9AFC-33FAAF5F6061@gmail.com> <00ff01d22214$a9832440$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <57FAD3EA.6070800@foobar.org> <020b01d223a1$f0e34a20$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <57FCC876.5090109@foobar.org> <52AF3F60-BC0F-44AC-89D7-8E108617162F@pfrc.org> <552160CC-1000-42B1-95E3-6F6B9E1DC2F8@gmail.com> <20161011221544.GG12806@shrubbery.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20161011221544.GG12806@shrubbery.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/OAbD0ltlgrguKmjh1aIqh4rPG8M>
Cc: idr <idr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-large-community-01.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: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 13:43:56 -0000

On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 10:15:44PM +0000, heasley wrote:
> Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 03:02:57PM -0700, Brian Dickson:
> > - there IS a difference in what operators are able to do if/when collisions occur 
> 
> which is nothing.  there is no enforcement.
> 
> leave it alone.

This is one I have to agree with.  With respect, Brian, this is a point
where your desire is to encode operational (if not contractual) practice in
the protocol RFC.  I don't think that helps anyone.

Somewhat to Gert D.'s point later in-thread, part of the issue with
communities is that that are in-practice heavily scrubbed and tend not to be
transitive.  Part of this is the difficulty in determining who may have
injected something more than a single AS-hop away.

Arguably this was one of the motivations for doing scoping of attributes or
communities themselves: If the effective operational behavior is almost
always going to be AS-non-transitive, it'd be nice if the cleanup just
happens automagically.  Unfortunately people are rather enamored with their
existing cleanup mechanisms.

-- Jeff