Re: [Idr] WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-large-community-03.txt (10/17/2016 to 10/31/2016)

[Jared Mauch <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 11:47:05AM +0100, t.petch wrote:
> I remain unhappy with this I-D.
> 
> I find it ironic that the messages for this Last Call should be
> interspersed with those relating to what goes wrong when someone
> somewhere else in the world uses a field in an unexpected way.  This
> reinforces my belief that this I-D should be more forceful in calling
> out the dangers (eg MUST instead of SHOULD).
> 
> I think that this I-D is factually incorrect, or at least open to
> misinterpretation,  when it says
> '[RFC1997] BGP Communities attributes are four-octet values split into
>    two two-octet words.  The most significant word is usually
>    interpreted as an Autonomous System Number (ASN) '

	rfc1998: section 4 gives you the slice + dice bits:

-- snip -- rfc 1998 -- 
   To make use of the BGP community attribute, several community values
   (MCI's AS number: 3561 = 0x0DE9) have been defined that can be used
   by customers to tag routes so that the appropriate "LOCAL_PREF"
   values are configured. Table 2 lists the appropriate community
   attribute values (and the mappings of community to LOCAL_PREF):
-- snip -- rfc 1998 --

	This is the segmenting, and most customers have
"ip bgp community new-format" configured.

	If your issue is about printf %ull vs %d:%d:%d we operators
can solve this by ensuring our vendors do the right thing, which
we have already done 20 years ago via rfc1998.

	This nit is imo not worth picking.

	- Jared

-- 
Jared Mauch  | pgp key available via finger from [e-mail]
clue++;      | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/  My statements are only mine.