Re: [Idr] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-idr-large-community-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Job Snijders <job@instituut.net> Wed, 04 January 2017 19:13 UTC

Return-Path: <job@instituut.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 0C0A3129A6E for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Jan 2017 11:13:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=instituut-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 Gz3Mgqbj5gb2 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Jan 2017 11:13:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wm0-x22a.google.com (mail-wm0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A5930129A70 for <idr@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Jan 2017 11:13:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wm0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id k184so269371318wme.1 for <idr@ietf.org>; Wed, 04 Jan 2017 11:13:38 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=instituut-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject :mime-version; bh=mB7eZvUWgTMgds09vlAUFa5flWUvQIqLJydnouCeSIU=; b=pVogTfkXuov4KZ186vXD71rpVrc/cxXlIsw7H0yGzcn0Oje6b+kOH54RWki4eg2E6e gkiS4JhzvgXraeDgpAlK2koVszLdie5Plxrf8o8DMtwsZay2CNursB68EoTdtG1M4A0c vmSIuhfQ040fC1yEH/8Wz34N2s+5/wwosCKsDud5OAIN6i1aSfZ4R08JCq2qRS91V6Z1 YTgooZfizuMrRuuOtsJjXra9g/ZxB7cPStiby9WFFAdBQI0Zey2rKdSTQ7rXGJdPh0gq 0BKZci/jF5Zkn2NXqBiC4zsANZp+3pMu7gYCCU6utRcH7HNHfrp73VUm6CMLgzT8wfCw PdKA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to :references:subject:mime-version; bh=mB7eZvUWgTMgds09vlAUFa5flWUvQIqLJydnouCeSIU=; b=BJsqrQP4jl5jQhvPQqpA/ohcXY97n7zG0fhM2jusKDSM7MoK9vMjGUfDuHSDUg+EOd 0V3GJSnbqz4r+bkO3gNN7Ot1fFrGXekpq44lA3foFBppq55esVMto9YJ6HLj89EPMPLD x24AoOBO9SpsjiPHstolxAdimT3aOTFyGSabhKJuuv+TLQERoKONAMorcwJAdw+3h1hL gb96Ch+To4m5JtQ4WNW7MSWyWZMbbNSlH1NFRhCVz0mKbd7h7ZjrfpjFtgTk5F72Un0T IyflLd6XZDKqWQ04VUYGAvURmZILTy/qryST7UqsJt/Mm67FKIUIozFs8k1tnGYWRHXm SWVw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXJOXIvAmr/IQjkfjQGJSPFJhrfGqRJXE6TZ0v6xVsrSrAW4mnkgAw1Si2h5zsMePQ==
X-Received: by 10.28.138.135 with SMTP id m129mr55668901wmd.36.1483557216973; Wed, 04 Jan 2017 11:13:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [100.119.50.64] ([188.207.113.9]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id wp2sm61902127wjc.35.2017.01.04.11.13.34 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 04 Jan 2017 11:13:36 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2017 21:13:08 +0200
From: Job Snijders <job@instituut.net>
To: Job Snijders <job@ntt.net>, Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <41368b03-eaa0-453e-8fd0-7e31a7650d0d@Spark>
In-Reply-To: <503f746a-7530-388f-4ed7-6868e53b7ff4@cisco.com>
References: <148354156226.13001.17853336045471596840.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <748483d7-df5c-e961-15f5-5aa76b784a7e@gmail.com> <af1e79a9-c188-23e4-3e45-0acacac049c8@cisco.com> <20170104161329.GD53926@Vurt.local> <503f746a-7530-388f-4ed7-6868e53b7ff4@cisco.com>
X-Readdle-Message-ID: 41368b03-eaa0-453e-8fd0-7e31a7650d0d@Spark
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="586d4956_6b8b4567_4e8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/OPh6RHFTh-g1rNPY-6eyrdnOgiw>
Cc: idr@ietf.org, rick.casarez@gmail.com, draft-ietf-idr-large-community@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, idr-chairs@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Idr] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-idr-large-community-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
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, 04 Jan 2017 19:13:43 -0000

Yes, absolutely!

I believe it is helpful because many people are looking for a solution like Large Communities provides (with their favorite search engine). This sentence is a hat tip to a 10+ year problem.

Large Communities addresses a very urgent problem from the operator community, specifically because it can be used by ASNs which fit only in four-octet values.

We are scraping the bottom of the barrel, IANA has run out of two-octet ASNs. Also at the RIR level, the end is also in sight: There are only a few thousand left. We cannot sustain the growth of the internet without a tool like Large Communities. Large Communities specifically addresses an issue which prevents four-octets from being used in a similar way to how RFC1997 is used.

Btw, I am not clear on how the topic at hand relates to the actual content of the DISCUSS. Can you update the discuss? Or how should I view the feedback?

Kind regards,

Job

On 4 Jan 2017, 20:43 +0200, Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>;, wrote:
> Hi Job,
>
> So basically, you're telling me: "The attribute is suitable for use with
> ASNs.", right?
> Is this what needs to be in the abstract?
>
> Regards, B.
> > Hi Benoit,
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 04:39:25PM +0100, Benoit Claise wrote:
> > > > Global Administrator field is a 4 octet integer that is used to carry AS
> > > > number but it is not mandatory to interpret it as an AS number only
> > > > (while a typical use case is for carrying AS number) - two peers can
> > > > agree on any value that has meaning between those peers. Representation
> > > > on the wire is in network byte order, and 2 byte AS number will get
> > > > naturally padded with two zero bytes in front. Virtually all deployments
> > > > today are AS4 capable and use AS4 encoding even for AS number values
> > > > that fit into 16 bit value range therefore AS number is a 4 octet entity
> > > > already.
> > > Then this sentence in the abstract "The attribute is suitable for use
> > > with four-octet ASNs." is misleading, right? At least to me. The
> > > attribute is suitable for four-octets ASNs and two-octets ASNs encoded
> > > in four-octets. This would be more in line with "This field SHOULD be
> > > an Autonomous System Number (ASN)" later on.
> > I am under the impression that nowadays the IETF community considers all
> > ASNs to be four-octet ASNs, however, some of those ASNs can be encoded
> > as a two octet value. The Large Communities specification is suitable
> > for usage in Autonomous Systems from all walks of life, where as rfc1997
> > communities are unsuitable for all ASNs, specifically those ASNs which
> > cannot be encoded as two-octet values.
> >
> > Kind regards,
> >
> > Job
> > .
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr