Re: [Idr] 2 week WG adoption call for draft (5/31 to 6/14)

[Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>]

I am not aware of any IPR associated with any of those documents.

Support for both - as co-author.

- - -

As to the clarification regarding relation to standard or extended
communities (including their 4 octet AS extension) the proposed encoding is
not intended to replace it. All functionalities which depend on current
communities will work as usual without any changes.

BGP wide communities are mainly proposed to simplify the operational
aspects for application of BGP policies.

Many thx,
Robert.


On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 4:50 AM, Susan Hares <[e-mail]> wrote:

> This begins a 2 week WG adoption call for
> draft-raszuk-wide-bgp-communities and
> draft-raszuk-registered-wide-bgp-communities.   These drafts can be found
> at:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-raszuk-wide-bgp-communities/
>
>
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-raszuk-registered-wide-bgp-communities/
>
>
>
> Authors (Robert Raszuk, Jeff Haas, Andrew Lange, Shane Amante, Bruno
> Decraene, Paul Jakma, and Richard Steenbergen) should indicate whether they
> know of any IPR.   Since this proposal relates to existing RFCs and IDR WG
> document (draft-ietf-idr-as4octet-extcomm-generic-subtype-07),  We have
> included a bit of history below.  At the 6/1/2015 interim (10:00 – 11:30am
> EDT), there will be a short review of the technology and time to discuss
> the draft with Robert Raszuk.
>
>
>
> Please discuss
>
> a)       If these drafts should be adopted in addition to
> draft-ietf-idr-as4octet-extcomm-generic-subtype-07,
>
> b)       whether the new flexible format is useful for BGP deployments,
> and
>
> c)       Any technical issues on the draft.
>
>
>
> As always, indicate “support” or “no support” within the comment.
>
>
>
> Sue Hares and John Scudder
>
>
>
> =================
>
> A bit of history:
>
>
>
> RFC 1997 defines the BGP Community attribute (except for 2 reserved
> ranges)
>
> as 4 octets [2 octets AS number, 2 octets local-defined value].
>
> RFC 4893 introduced 4 byte AS encoding, and suggested using
>
> extended communities [RFC 4360] to encoding 4 octet AS numbers.
>
>
>
> RFC5668 defines a format for a four-octet AS specific extended
>
> community with a designated type field, and defines two
>
> sub-types: Four-octet specific Route Target extended community and
>
> Four-octet specific Route Origin extended community.
>
> An IDR WG document: draft-ietf-idr-as4octet-extcomm-generic-subtype-07
>
> (
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-as4octet-extcomm-generic-subtype-07
> )
>
> specifies a generic sub-type for the four-octet AS specific extended
> community.
>
>
>
>     0                   1                   2                   3
>
>     0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
>
>     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>
>     | 0x02 or 0x42  |     0x04      |           Global              |
>
>     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>
>     |    Administrator              |    Local Administrator        |
>
>     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>
>
>
>    Global Administrator sub-field: 4 octets
>
>    This sub-field contains a four-octet Autonomous System number.
>
>
>
>    Local Administrator sub-field: 2 octets
>
>       This sub-field contains a value that can influence routing
>
>       policies. This value has semantics that are of significance for
>
>       the Autonomous System in the Global Administrator field.
>
>
>
> [From draft-ietf-idr-as4octet-extcomm-generic-subtype-07]
>
>
>
> Draft-raszuk-wide-bgp-communities suggests a new BGP Path Attribute,
>
> that provides more flexible encoding than these WG RFCs and draft.
>
>
>
> The wide BGP header includes a Container header and community.
>
> The container header has:
>
>
>
>       0                   1                   2                   3
>
>       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
>
>      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>
>      |             Type              |     Flags     |   Hop Count   |
>
>      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>
>      |            Length             |
>
>      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>
>       0                   1                   2                   3
>
>       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
>
>      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>
>      |               Registered/Local Community Value                |
>
>      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>
>      |                        Source AS Number                       |
>
>      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>
>      |                       Context AS Number                       |
>
>      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>
>      |            Wide Community Target(s) TLV (optional)            |
>
>      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>
>      |        Wide Community Exclude Target(s) TLV (optional)        |
>
>      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>
>      |          Wide Community Parameter(s) TLV (optional)           |
>
>      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>
>                     Figure 4: Wide BGP Community Type 1
>
>
>
>
>