[Idr] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-idr-large-community-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

"Benoit Claise" <bclaise@cisco.com> Wed, 04 January 2017 14:52 UTC

Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: idr@ietf.org
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43068124281; Wed, 4 Jan 2017 06:52:42 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: "Benoit Claise" <bclaise@cisco.com>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.40.3
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <148354156226.13001.17853336045471596840.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2017 06:52:42 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/XOv527xoIIZ9pjuZXJAwrgf3Uk8>
Cc: idr@ietf.org, draft-ietf-idr-large-community@ietf.org, rick.casarez@gmail.com, idr-chairs@ietf.org
Subject: [Idr] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-idr-large-community-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Wed, 04 Jan 2017 14:52:42 -0000

Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-idr-large-community-11: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:


I see from the abstract: "The attribute is suitable for use with
four-octet ASNs."
I also see this text, which doesn't mention four-octet ASNs

   The Global Administrator field is intended to allow different
   Autonomous Systems to define BGP Large Communities without
   This field SHOULD be an Autonomous System Number (ASN), in which
   the Local Data Parts are to be interpreted as defined by the owner
   the ASN.  The use of Reserved ASNs (0 [RFC7607], 65535 and

What if the ASN is two bytes, we use padding? How?
Even if we would say: "This field SHOULD be an four-octet Autonomous
System Number (ASN)", it doesn't preclude inserting a two-octet ASN in
the Global Administrator field.
Isn't it better to specify how? 

>From RFC 6793:

   Currently assigned two-octet AS numbers are converted into
   AS numbers by setting the two high-order octets of the four-octet
   field to zero.  Such a four-octet AS number is said to be mappable
   a two-octet AS number.


Thanks John for an excellent shepherd writeup.