IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Idr] Request to adopt draft-heitz-idr-large-community - Working Group Adoption call (9/6 to 9/20)

Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> Wed, 14 September 2016 21:49 UTC

Return-Path: <nick@foobar.org>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CC0F12B0C4 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Sep 2016 14:49:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Fl0yuukIZpW2 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Sep 2016 14:49:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.netability.ie (mail.netability.ie [IPv6:2a03:8900:0:100::5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1DAE212B04D for <idr@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Sep 2016 14:49:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Envelope-To: idr@ietf.org
Received: from cupcake.local (089-101-070074.ntlworld.ie [89.101.70.74] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.netability.ie (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id u8ELn7ni001394 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 14 Sep 2016 22:49:07 +0100 (IST) (envelope-from nick@foobar.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: cheesecake.ibn.ie: Host 089-101-070074.ntlworld.ie [89.101.70.74] (may be forged) claimed to be cupcake.local
Message-ID: <57D9C5D2.3080000@foobar.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2016 22:49:06 +0100
From: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
User-Agent: Postbox 4.0.8 (Macintosh/20151105)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
References: <A0FF8539-2868-46A8-995D-7D57705D8AA3@alcatel-lucent.com> <CA+b+ERk9vOdzacXjjmhK2uWFM+Aad8gK3KLJQBeFVb2XwbW3fA@mail.gmail.com> <6190874E-0CC8-4437-9117-F7429242064B@puck.nether.net> <CA+b+ERm82jJPzHJGgmwKWY-T+q97D8tRUWW3rh6hYr3iV4BKag@mail.gmail.com> <D0E1DDA5-2C26-46A2-95BC-C7A7B19F2F8B@steffann.nl> <20160914161526.GA19429@puck.nether.net> <20160914162702.GC80448@shrubbery.net> <20160914162919.GD19429@puck.nether.net> <20160914163247.GD80448@shrubbery.net> <A529D36C-99EE-4958-9DF5-BDB056608606@steffann.nl> <20160914172058.GA28887@puck.nether.net> <CA+b+ERk3Kk_qus2hts=0p05SoZBKTQFLukK1inB3WrzxQO2iAg@mail.gmail.com> <4DAAC259-ED56-48DA-8086-DB8C07692F70@steffann.nl> <af7115318bff46d8961b63d292282cc8@XCH-ALN-014.cisco.com> <CA+b+ERmN7-WoVs4aHHs5AdqYpTxTJ1pTAysw2L2BoO4=F4puZg@mail.gmail.com> <57D9BEB8.7010109@foobar.org> <CA+b+ERnQ8U9_2EtFgyxdSRtN2SW-dcPKOmD+JbemqpcVcH9S7Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+b+ERnQ8U9_2EtFgyxdSRtN2SW-dcPKOmD+JbemqpcVcH9S7Q@mail.gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.2.3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/ZK7a2qSloAfVMfMvCMAFm3QOvk4>
Cc: "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Request to adopt draft-heitz-idr-large-community - Working Group Adoption call (9/6 to 9/20)
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
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, 14 Sep 2016 21:49:15 -0000

Robert Raszuk wrote:
> Can we get a rough consensus of the IDR WG community that someone
> tomorrow or the day after will not come and request new attribute for
> 4:4:4:4 ? Or 16:4:4 ? Or define Large Ext Communities with yet one more
> attribute ?
> 
> If we reach that consensus here I am personally fine to give up on
> trying to put large under common header and will not longer push it. 

There are no proposals on the table for this and I'm not aware of anyone
with plans to push any.

The people proposing large have already stated that their draft is
sufficient for their needs; it certainly scratches my communities itch
to satisfaction and the same for any other operators I've talked to.

Does anyone else on the WG mailing list have any plans in this area that
couldn't be accommodated in a TLV framework?

Nick

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email