Re: [Idr] Request to adopt draft-heitz-idr-large-community - Working Group Adoption call (9/6 to 9/20)

Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net> Thu, 22 September 2016 16:56 UTC

Return-Path: <jared@puck.nether.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 1804412B37B for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Sep 2016 09:56:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.518
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.518 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.316, 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 2lmOueh_GfuF for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Sep 2016 09:56:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from puck.nether.net (puck.nether.net [204.42.254.5]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28C4112B177 for <idr@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Sep 2016 09:53:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2601:401:4:3000:a537:648a:7d2f:a503] (unknown [IPv6:2601:401:4:3000:a537:648a:7d2f:a503]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by puck.nether.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5FF29540F67; Thu, 22 Sep 2016 12:53:39 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.0 \(3226\))
From: Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net>
In-Reply-To: <667EE86A-E83F-4D46-97EE-7ADAE9BCEBF3@on.nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 12:53:41 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <DE3B1209-0479-4A64-8449-DDFDDFE399FB@puck.nether.net>
References: <CA+b+ERm82jJPzHJGgmwKWY-T+q97D8tRUWW3rh6hYr3iV4BKag@mail.gmail.com> <D0E1DDA5-2C26-46A2-95BC-C7A7B19F2F8B@steffann.nl> <20160914161526.GA19429@puck.nether.net> <20160914162702.GC80448@shrubbery.net> <20160914162919.GD19429@puck.nether.net> <123D938E-E345-4572-84A4-377669A8F6FD@alcatel-lucent.com> <D56CA059-56AC-48A6-B832-177A637F0CC4@puck.nether.net> <CA+b+ERm4gm9FctgaAYyC=rr51EX=Pzsd-4+gef1v=VpkqXYwQg@mail.gmail.com> <1BC163F0-3D87-41D2-99F8-03B3F9FFD756@puck.nether.net> <CA+b+ER=wz=8EMrOusBT+EZjHECA_spER8=JQP3oUWWF65n6n5w@mail.gmail.com> <20160921135930.GG1101@Vurt.local> <CA+b+ER=2eyB1T3JhPpvLivvZDyVE8-DT03-00gYWtZ7W_9F7Zg@mail.gmail.com> <28460172-3CD0-4601-A543-612FEE5FFB7E@puck.nether.net> <CA+b+ERnKBEp8=sfooZ+EgyGjVp8AcofjUsWfGA-xAm3dNq_vng@mail.gmail.com> <7A2A0295-D838-47F0-99E8-9A8796356452@puck.nether.net> <2bcb13bc984c41b58131e6af03b1fba2@XCH-ALN-014.cisco.com> <603F8528-C223-4551-9239-3DAF1D326EBF@puck.nether.net> <667EE86A-E83F-4D46-97EE-7ADAE9BCEBF3@on.nokia.com>
To: "Simpson, Adam 1. (Nokia - CA)" <adam.1.simpson@nokia.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3226)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/OEUah0kyUascQ0NpeoAnqrsKAjM>
Cc: "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Request to adopt draft-heitz-idr-large-community - Working Group Adoption call (9/6 to 9/20)
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: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 16:56:23 -0000

> On Sep 22, 2016, at 12:16 PM, Simpson, Adam 1. (Nokia - CA) <adam.1.simpson@nokia.com> wrote:
> 
> OK, so the translation should be flexible. Two follow-on questions:
> 
> 1. Is there a need for reverse mapping, from large to 16:16 (RFC 1997)?

I would argue this should be done in the same way, with explicitly configured operator policy.

If I map 2914:9999 to no-export or local-as (for example) I could similarly map 2914:0:9999 to something else with a similar mapping ecosystem.

What I’ve seen (eg: I’ll keep using XR as the example) is take something and do ($1:$2) to tokenize it then I can use those variables within that sub-part of the policy.

> 2. Is it sufficient for mapping rules to be session level only? I.e. towards peer X always replace $x:$y with $x:$y:0. Or are there cases that need more complex policy logic? I.e. Only in BGP routes that match a particular prefix-list/route-filter then replace $x:$y with $x:$y:0.

I’d say if the policy is attached to a session, sure.

One place I might decide to do this is on an iBGP session or eBGP session on import/export.  Obviously anything that passes import would be propagated further in my iBGP or towards RR.

- Jared

> 
> -Adam
> 
> 
> 
> On 2016-09-22, 10:37 AM, "Idr on behalf of Jared Mauch" <idr-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of jared@puck.nether.net> wrote:
> 
>> 
>>> On Sep 21, 2016, at 7:39 PM, Jakob Heitz (jheitz) <jheitz@cisco.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I will be asking my friendly vendors to have a mapping option to map 1997 into -large-, so I can take my ($1,$2) and
>>>> turn it to $1:$2:0 (or any other order we define) internally.
>>> 
>>> Should we specify rules for such mappings in the draft?
>> 
>> No, because these are opaque.  I may want $x:$y mapped to $x:$y:0 or 0:$y:$x or any of the other variants.  My needs may be different than Gert or another operator.  Giving flexibility in how one self-organizes the bitspace is a feature vs having to strictly constrain the results and ordering.
>> 
>> - Jared
>> _______________________________________________
>> Idr mailing list
>> Idr@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr