Re: [Idr] Review of draft-ietf-large-community-06.txt

Job Snijders <> Sat, 05 November 2016 10:35 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54444129704 for <>; Sat, 5 Nov 2016 03:35:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] 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 s11DI3b1K027 for <>; Sat, 5 Nov 2016 03:35:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8EC89129766 for <>; Sat, 5 Nov 2016 03:35:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id t79so92957920wmt.0 for <>; Sat, 05 Nov 2016 03:35:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=JIgKyq8ojN1ZnFsLHDMJuIquKt94QZs85mGr5JGi+IA=; b=Ugo7nFik63A9wYxuYIZ60qGPbAssJUzv91oFzcLc+uz9uf6F5Q8Pgt/UaW9Q7Ci2Sm PKE0fRW7fe690flzlnjE5i2KBos3wXZDIy7fH394SThsTP2K45mAlS3dDzblZKSlOxqi 3EUHmyEDEIFAP7IQn1I+uttOVkUEWk22gqF7G6U1o15ZIJQLFfzOXgVk+vH337l+3n3E m2kmmfycxn2PJqXqLSLn8NNDPh5H2rdcKsHo1bCIbTXUZAnuqcirx+3DQq0JSDgGw9R2 GAmVEgwqfyafVNukXYNo7QvabNYmpgjgcSGuZn32Oy72HRB+CvUhczCFE0q867gNLjPl lwyw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=JIgKyq8ojN1ZnFsLHDMJuIquKt94QZs85mGr5JGi+IA=; b=i9nthnEz9/Y8SP796RGDVMLac27WgJMPGLGyVADYCOX56Zg00Em78b6OVer4vrT9MC CUauaZ+Iy/yPr4NQfRLevw/M18ayjL/hfebG/Io84xkO8OD5e3NIrzRnNSX1j2/63OC+ lSA34y0LbFLmGXywB4RzBmQ58khl947NofYdPkxBpI6akMYWXGfVTVFKZyqAoE077v/L UFKu60YVAMdg+ghzxjPwEOPV85mYyTbDoTUkmz/zDfqTvLyGePtyw3zSHfuCla17w983 TEUA3O35QKo9+xpCNXg3vjfT4FoelghQF7J3OmSuTYn6w7EDK0d57E0FSIp5XPkJzepp JOaQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngvfUpvET8DLzeNg6uFA7s/EqGEn3eis7bULZP9qFv5YzDSAACaGSPb36F3sv1tGo4g==
X-Received: by with SMTP id ui7mr15116231wjc.66.1478342128893; Sat, 05 Nov 2016 03:35:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([]) by with ESMTPSA id ym3sm19011445wjc.6.2016. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 05 Nov 2016 03:35:28 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2016 11:35:26 +0100
From: Job Snijders <>
To: Zhuangshunwan <>
Message-ID: <20161105103526.GM952@Vurt.local>
References: <> <> <> <20161104195346.GK961@Vurt.local> <20161104201631.GA35942@Vurt.lan> <> <20161104221030.GD37681@Vurt.lan> <> <20161104230536.GJ37681@Vurt.lan> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.1 (2016-10-04)
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Review of draft-ietf-large-community-06.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2016 10:35:32 -0000

On Sat, Nov 05, 2016 at 10:28:58AM +0000, Zhuangshunwan wrote:
> I have read this document and it looks good to me!

Thank you for the kind words!

> One comment:
> In most of the network operating systems, we must enable neighbor/peer
> send-community command knob in order BGP speaker include community in
> routes announcement. 
> By default, the BGP speaker does not send/transmit community
> attributes. Even if the COMMUNITIES path attribute is an optional
> transitive attribute. This is the current reality application.

Then change your default!

> So the following case describing in draft-ietf-idr-large-community-06
> maybe cannot reflect the reality:
>    "Because BGP communities are optional transitive BGP attributes,
>    BGP communities may be acted upon or otherwise used by routing
>    policies in other Autonomous Systems (ASes) on the Internet."
> Some customers from IDC/OTT complain that ISPs can not transmit their
> community attributes, because ISPs do not transmit community
> attributes in most cases.

I find it hard to make or accept quantative statements in this context,
I know some ISP that scrub all communities, and I know some ISPs that
pass on as much communities as possible. The market will decide.

> Should we clearly define whether LargeCommunity should act different
> from (or the same with) the RFC1997's Community?

I consider it a feature that the behaviour is exactly aligned with
RFC1997 communities. Some OTT operators might desire slightly different
behaviour, but that is really a commercial dicussion outside of IETF

Thanks for the feedback.

Kind regards,