Re: [Idr] One week extension to WGLC for draft-ietf-idr-large-community

What he said

Thanks,
Jakob.

> On Nov 18, 2016, at 3:58 AM, Dickinson, Ian <Ian.Dickinson@sky.uk> wrote:
> 
> Apologies for a 2nd post - I hit send too early. The intended version is below:
> 
> Only bit pattern duplication makes sense here, as protocol cannot understand operator defined semantics.
> I would say that large and 1997 communities are different things and cannot be duplicates at the protocol level.
> Both would be required to be able to perform a viable transition from 1997 to large..
> Operators can configure policy that would choose which took precedence (regardless of semantic equivalence or otherwise).
> 
> Ian
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dickinson, Ian
> Sent: 18 November 2016 11:47
> To: t.petch <ietfc@btconnect.com>; John G. Scudder <jgs@juniper.net>; idr wg <idr@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [Idr] One week extension to WGLC for draft-ietf-idr-large-community
> 
> I would say that large and 1997 communities are different things and cannot be duplicates at the protocol level.
> Operators can configure policy that would choose which took precedence (regardless of semantic equivalence or otherwise).
> 
> Ian
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of t.petch
> Sent: 18 November 2016 10:58
> To: John G. Scudder <jgs@juniper.net>; idr wg <idr@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [Idr] One week extension to WGLC for draft-ietf-idr-large-community
> 
> John
> 
> I am happy with the proposed text but ...
> 
> An issue that came up earlier and that I did not see resolved was what
> constitutes a duplicate.  This is binary so we don't have the issues
> that
> character comparisons do but is it the same bit pattern from start to
> finish, the same semantics or something between the two?  A case I have
> in mind is when the same semantics appear in RFC1997 format and also
> in LC format; is that a duplicate?.
> 
> Tom Petch
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John G. Scudder" <jgs@juniper.net>
> To: "idr wg" <idr@ietf.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2016 4:01 AM
> 
>> Hi Everyone,
>> 
>> After Bruno's comments regarding RFC 7606 style error handling being
> invoked to react to duplicate community values, a few people have
> expressed (on and off list) concern that even though that is not
> intended, the -08 text as written could possibly be misinterpreted by a
> zealous implementor. To resolve this, I propose adding the following, or
> similar, to the Error Handling section:
>> 
>> o A BGP Large Communities attribute SHALL NOT be considered malformed
> due
>>  solely to presence of duplicate community values. Such duplicates
> MUST be handled
>>  by removing them as specified in Section 2.
>> 
>> IMO this clarifies the intent of the document and doesn't represent a
> normative change. Hopefully it will resolve the concerns of those who
> were concerned about and opposed to 7606-style handling for duplicates.
>> 
>> The authors have indicated they'll incorporate the text in an -09
> (assuming of course that the consensus of the WGLC doesn't go against
> the change).
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> --John
> 
> Information in this email including any attachments may be privileged, confidential and is intended exclusively for the addressee. The views expressed may not be official policy, but the personal views of the originator. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete it from your system. You should not reproduce, distribute, store, retransmit, use or disclose its contents to anyone. Please note we reserve the right to monitor all e-mail communication through our internal and external networks. SKY and the SKY marks are trademarks of Sky plc and Sky International AG and are used under licence.
> 
> Sky UK Limited (Registration No. 2906991), Sky-In-Home Service Limited (Registration No. 2067075) and Sky Subscribers Services Limited (Registration No. 2340150) are direct or indirect subsidiaries of Sky plc (Registration No. 2247735). All of the companies mentioned in this paragraph are incorporated in England and Wales and share the same registered office at Grant Way, Isleworth, Middlesex TW7 5QD.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr