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

Brian Dickson <brian.peter.dickson@gmail.com> Fri, 07 October 2016 21:37 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.peter.dickson@gmail.com>
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 C764D129430 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Oct 2016 14:37:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 WGyvEj5SmA2h for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Oct 2016 14:37:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pa0-x22a.google.com (mail-pa0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::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 3E1C7128B37 for <idr@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Oct 2016 14:37:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pa0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id qn10so23682790pac.2 for <idr@ietf.org>; Fri, 07 Oct 2016 14:37:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=7iog1G4RzBuFFuTENe2dPfjf57j5/JGUHSZHW/408OI=; b=UHAPJnlhe/9vlobxJ8IHTZFlDYEmpWUDEMm7YLbTIxvljduucGp/b7D8SCoChlGmxj YJTg2DyFx7R5XNDgHucuj9kcEOcG/04h/uVG6jKPYtom5EQpSMRMipdswyhNag9nILOo H9Xj/xSbYN05uMZygrS2tSAH2fN9T9LI3enWPUYT/BNeRGvLB3b7Vf+GdX+fC70dlM9A EiTNP5XKCsOsU8QkPeonglEWl14K0dw/CBp0GyJa9L46TzYRrkMeYPXErTheITnUHDvu TD8Tb4DNO95SgAHUt6cX3W/xI0mPVXYzqrCI3gNhoBoO0/LQ1oTXsYvOOG8paq56aKFc xc0w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=7iog1G4RzBuFFuTENe2dPfjf57j5/JGUHSZHW/408OI=; b=NLy2IOyjhIQ1X49lCwh3dhqwr2PYs/Im44ViG9l4BLCRF6pjX/1Fhh1PovFryyz9FB 3Yqn9ts35YMZFMciXNQmODMUB2JcI1VMXMOEkJZhcxn74tWU30Eu3gqOmD2IObF8N3ma 3S6+luKWG8I8ys2Lcy7AWHyBAl12hMGM3ev+nLBSEjbuurY0Dw27jjxaHF3kBIP1o4NZ w2HCdyGGTntmkjr6XwXBh/9jOZ/yLH+crgGUUOdYVEPJt3pxuEny+h7EWno0CHeuc7aB Xbmo8vvJwahrBiP7s0rrkljTiJ0q/Zph7+KIVZ908DlxJcP7ZDX+y66umAFKk3SG3/J2 +xxw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9RnxLFtnMmXL13jFtXpaxnHQuPQFfcxHioL9ipWoldz0d+NmkGYJ7SWiZ+ITIvgWnQ==
X-Received: by 10.66.72.103 with SMTP id c7mr33189178pav.15.1475876222853; Fri, 07 Oct 2016 14:37:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2001:569:72b9:1f00:3088:faf:b0af:5d3b? (node-1w7jr9qj3jdopj7r2x2bo16wr.ipv6.telus.net. [2001:569:72b9:1f00:3088:faf:b0af:5d3b]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b129sm16296034pfg.36.2016.10.07.14.37.01 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 07 Oct 2016 14:37:01 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Brian Dickson <brian.peter.dickson@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (14A456)
In-Reply-To: <57F78B7D.609@foobar.org>
Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2016 14:37:00 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <333030E6-0422-4A34-B07B-90D5F8E9F116@gmail.com>
References: <147531113077.4216.12599976309263776317.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <20161001085434.GW20697@Vurt.local> <005b01d21d58$aaf869e0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <20161003095936.GC20697@Vurt.local> <04cf01d21d68$52c656a0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <20161003115723.GD20697@Vurt.local> <57F27D3F.7090404@foobar.org> <00da01d22085$4f0f2ee0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <57F78B7D.609@foobar.org>
To: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/ULoQnaSr1kgHCrMWDdTQs3RscWM>
Cc: 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: Fri, 07 Oct 2016 21:37:06 -0000


Sent from my iPhone

> On Oct 7, 2016, at 4:48 AM, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> wrote:
> 
> Tom,
> 
> t.petch wrote:
>> Here, I would go for 'MUST be an ASN' (or else the community should not
>> be transitive:-)
> 
> Every 32 bit number is an ASN, so there's an argument to say that this
> is a tautology.

Let us leave the straw man alone, please. :-)

> 
> I don't think it's either viable or necessary to narrow down the text to
> specify that the global administrator field MUST be the ASN of the
> operator who assigns the community to the prefix.
> 
> The reason for this is that if large communities are used for inter-as
> signaling, operators should only act at the edge router when the global
> administrator field matches the peer-as, and if they need to interpret
> the community tag further inside the network, they should use a
> translation layer to map the semantics to a locally significant
> community (i.e. the same as what we do for rfc1997 communities).

No.

You are making the erroneous assertion that the way you think these communities should be used, is the only correct way or the only common way they should be (or will be) used.

For 1997 communities (both the year as well as the RFC), inter-as was not limited to adjacent ASNs.

This is why large needs to be transitive as well as globally unique for the global administrator - i.e. ASN.

>  For
> intra-as signaling, it doesn't matter because it's local semantics only.
> Either way, there is no compelling reason that this should be a MUST
> and good reasons (e.g. operator discretion) that it shouldn't.

Local semantics are fully supported by use of (agreed upon) private ASNs.

Those are also consistent with the strong assertion of MUST, as well as both the letter and intent of what is meant by ASN.

Is there anything you envision in use of large communities that cannot be supported by use of ASNs and private ASNs? I can't see anything that would not fit into those two use cases.

Brian