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

Hi Nick,

Thank you for your comment.

However I would like to bring one point which maybe was not clear and needs
to be made very clear.

Your comment is true in respect for locally defined wide bgp communities
where you (as the operator) need to define both the community and the
policy how to handle it.

However that complication is not intended to be exposed to operators using
registered wide bgp communities as those by the respective policy
implementations should be self executive. Of course still subject to normal
enable/disable/filter actions.

Regards,
R.

On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 1:00 AM, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> wrote:

> On 01/06/2015 22:37, Susan Hares wrote:
> > <WG chair hat off > I can understand how the draft will be complex to
> > implement along with other communities.  Can you describe how you think
> the
> > draft will be complicated to operate?
>
> Hi Sue,
>
> At the moment, most operators use basic communities which require an match
> / comparison / regexp against what is basically an integer value.  This is
> simple to express and match in pretty much all bgp implementation grammars.
>
> raszuk-wide-bgp-communities requires that each community target be matched
> against a complicated n-tuple of parameters - section 9 of the draft shows
> some potential examples.  This makes the business of matching and managing
> community values a much more complicated affair, particularly if you run in
> a multivendor environment or else if your bgp communities cross AS
> boundaries.
>
> Nick
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>