Re: [Idr] Review of draft-ietf-large-community-06.txt

heasley <heas@shrubbery.net> Sat, 05 November 2016 17:42 UTC

Return-Path: <heas@shrubbery.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 4002812995C for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 5 Nov 2016 10:42:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497, 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 EiIpJOJTC5PG for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 5 Nov 2016 10:42:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from guelah.shrubbery.net (guelah.shrubbery.net [198.58.5.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0C1B129964 for <idr@ietf.org>; Sat, 5 Nov 2016 10:42:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by guelah.shrubbery.net (Postfix, from userid 7053) id 80F0274D90; Sat, 5 Nov 2016 17:42:29 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2016 17:42:29 +0000
From: heasley <heas@shrubbery.net>
To: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Message-ID: <20161105174229.GG98782@shrubbery.net>
References: <95F42982-7DCF-46A9-A26C-71EF70DB3C59@apnic.net> <20161104195346.GK961@Vurt.local> <20161104201631.GA35942@Vurt.lan> <8a293ce4fc134657aa98134b5017d92e@XCH-ALN-014.cisco.com> <20161104221030.GD37681@Vurt.lan> <0919e676e12d49d1a2ba30f4acc3b273@XCH-ALN-014.cisco.com> <20161104230536.GJ37681@Vurt.lan> <19AB2A007F56DB4E8257F949A2FB9858C87AFC6E@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com> <20161105103526.GM952@Vurt.local> <CA+b+ERnRJ5Ko9XXF+_wxRUeWVGV5NuwmewSo0nGg-cCyBQNx2g@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CA+b+ERnRJ5Ko9XXF+_wxRUeWVGV5NuwmewSo0nGg-cCyBQNx2g@mail.gmail.com>
X-PGPkey: http://www.shrubbery.net/~heas/public-key.asc
X-note: live free, or die!
X-homer: i just want to have a beer while i am caring.
X-Claimation: an engineer needs a manager like a fish needs a bicycle
X-reality: only YOU can put an end to the embarrassment that is Tom Cruise
User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.1 (2016-04-27)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/UbsLGdvJUnEsEeVnuK9HIle78ts>
Cc: "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Review of draft-ietf-large-community-06.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: Sat, 05 Nov 2016 17:42:31 -0000

Sat, Nov 05, 2016 at 06:18:36PM +0100, Robert Raszuk:
> Hi Job,
> 
> > By default, the BGP speaker does not send/transmit community
> > > attributes. Even if the COMMUNITIES path attribute is an optional
> > > transitive attribute. This is the current reality application.
> >
> > *​​Then change your default!*
> >
> 
> ​Are you making a recommendation here ​that BGP implementations should now
> be modified to send BGP communities to EBGP (and obviously IBGP) peers by
> default ?
> 
> Do you mean that only for large communities or also for standards and
> extended communities ?
> 
> I think Shunwan's point is very valid and it seems by making above
> recommendation to modify the BGP implementations default you agree with it.
> If so draft should reflect this as this is no longer market nor EBGP peers
> agreement.

I do not believe Job made either recommendation.  He merely said that
Shunwan as an implementer (I am assuming) could change their implementation's
default.

Job did write that it was adventageous for -large- to have similar properties
as rfc1997.  neither docs make recommendations about the feature to which
Shunwan is referring.