Re: [Idr] Robert Wilton's Discuss on draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution-16: (with DISCUSS)

Alvaro Retana <> Tue, 18 May 2021 14:50 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EDD53A15B0; Tue, 18 May 2021 07:50:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5Twbn-zX0iAq; Tue, 18 May 2021 07:50:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::533]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 936253A15D5; Tue, 18 May 2021 07:50:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id df21so11565406edb.3; Tue, 18 May 2021 07:50:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=UkkcYD3pVRQB19IF1PydgyRMknngKgYYnWY51nZ3ScI=; b=g4rVxChbbSGpb+nvxwP4gZ53oZLKO+ycuxFRmhscRUUmWUdTkl5qcFY9l0H+gMhoyE cWUV5jBd3xpxnBgX0qafndv27zGVvfRnJaE7aw2B2+RuvKoHqSES3/nYVdF2mW8D7YLT h+ikLC8SRTtqIqxlncabwdzPiS8QoTgmt0khmlxCthmHc/Fb0T6K6KJpFOduHgWCE8nv Vx3f8y9EvCkapYW+AKoXLzD3T76Ec8g1Kc64uK6+CVYlPjJXp9tEN0sjlTHjnZbJawNF ulTKQTxXuHzJfd79jxxkxoG+XUiynqzEXKBrnL8RFvM6n6IOZiL/UYa9q0ePQnczrKpk YYdQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=UkkcYD3pVRQB19IF1PydgyRMknngKgYYnWY51nZ3ScI=; b=g7VJjwGk6Zd2BLblrYoVJ9iE6M1dVHnDmRlonJF2bNQkNAqXtHv7DLWFA6XBzyPhjE IX0NnKsbzPAUnTk4eKzJVd+iY4ZcKKohyvv3boZrCzPMUCBxl1Y/bkHsnt8ALLwnEMWI Tj5RVkVKA91B4GLtVqw7inTvBmFehUkw78oFMk5cR/mmIvVJ69v7zOiSjZDkT3rM6973 Cz0ojBA3/ycrjICdJwf628Rg5HTynEH/MiJ0ZA9N9OUlwc7aUhUv67W+4u1sli3Qi1LH PqCjttP5nMBFA5e0WluB0Y45ZOcWhc90e99/u/RXKrYCZWarINW0BlXuUiN4iJvALZyd Xm7Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532x5VY2i2U5VjHW+kn8qRADRcVmjSz55AHGAUKwAMEPwcEK4z69 cubMeRFH8PkhBSZpjjU0W8t0X2rWOxN4iTls8i0=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw+DOSS8s2ZbusA1E2RB5DD1W+6SEXHAc0IzEuHcC8zvKsrzmTVXznPZhXRmZifylLqY3iEdPlRZjsuhxc1Bs0=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:34d5:: with SMTP id w21mr7592680edc.38.1621349438537; Tue, 18 May 2021 07:50:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by with HTTPREST; Tue, 18 May 2021 07:50:37 -0700
From: Alvaro Retana <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Tue, 18 May 2021 07:50:37 -0700
Message-ID: <>
To: Qin Wu <>, The IESG <>, "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <>
Cc: "" <>, "" <>, Susan Hares <>, "" <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Robert Wilton's Discuss on draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution-16: (with DISCUSS)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 May 2021 14:50:44 -0000

On May 18, 2021 at 10:29:24 AM, Rob Wilton wrote:



Joining the threads...

> Alternatively, having read the referenced text, having a sentence in the
> introduction that states that the BGP-LS EAP attribute is handled entirely
> independently of the AG attribute would be sufficient. I.e., the text in the
> introduction makes this seem like this is a replacement for, and in some way
> related to, the EA attribute.

Here's a suggestion...from the Introduction:

   These administrative groups are defined as a fixed-length 32-bit
   bitmask.  As networks grew and more use-cases were introduced, the
   32-bit length was found to be constraining and hence extended
   administrative groups (EAG) were introduced in [RFC7308].

   This document specifies an extension to BGP-LS for advertisement of
   the extended administrative groups.

NEW (append, or add as a new paragraph)>
   The EAG TLV (Section 2) is not a replacement for the Administrative
   Group (color) TLV; as explained in [RFC7308] both values can coexist.
   It is out of scope for this document to specify the behavior of the
   BGP-LS consumer [RFC7752].

Would that work?