Re: [Idr] BGP Attribute for Large communities (Attribute 30) was squatted on - Let's get a new attribute number (1 week WG call (10/18 to 10/25)

Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com> Wed, 26 October 2016 13:38 UTC

Return-Path: <christopher.morrow@gmail.com>
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 A401F12952D for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Oct 2016 06:38:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 5sbUguMPcD2Z for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Oct 2016 06:38:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk0-x235.google.com (mail-qk0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D7A7F1293E1 for <idr@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Oct 2016 06:38:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk0-x235.google.com with SMTP id w69so6539002qka.4 for <idr@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Oct 2016 06:38:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=SQ36X7xuAvUWIXVr/Lex+0FRCEPq5riPnD1jgyMgExc=; b=fTv5mTPdCh38QkJrh6f2GopClWs4UPNBlStogqQGRun/yvxNx2l8Ojq+4CLz7RoBus BFg8tUOY2Yb1Ep4BkbCmFmoF0C2rlAcJHscjtC9AuPDxRt19tNFx142Sp4btWJBFfKGR CqjbKS5OQwjPPXjEMsofXLXB++ZyiAXUEO8zfVzLkwSbgO743c0Sofz1cvR0+nZaOekw 3X6Fw7lBBLU2BYQmF725jFZEM6ufqjsOrXfI+mCgRt7lHSWcYazzc7/Py7xg+SVnymKo yspGhqhT4cfeb5P0hpf0O0ZmbOpVcAegLMxbNr3vG+TD2V1OdiW7u5fk7boTqsphYMrp LckQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=SQ36X7xuAvUWIXVr/Lex+0FRCEPq5riPnD1jgyMgExc=; b=i+KXD8EvSKtTcxKScnDjnFWLlrBmV8y8N4RAisNnd2oWn/EO6YYPRLK6rrmYslObcQ dHoenlBPZ0RqQzwC17xQjrXaJ8wHFLnkB61x8znkyC2nuUM9HAksHMXD6ftU1upSUwDB udA71HiywDVoqtnTYcBlIbJ3TbLGIpzY4GewewFF+fan+hARUfS/JtnTjp0dRQjzbY7N D+FRD2U72vJUKYR6vytdEGyEoKvbaYebU6zRNse0t0x279JSUkUUWQ1hkKMXkoQdbeuX iIbXmEcx3Q3mhkxyPsx3aPiRw8e5miaeuKSbuT4aDUoBVYLurIJudxFw6YBfKf7PIdLO VpTw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngvdbmNpRNVFO/TRbIH8rcvZX5e7vqLYVhvOqMCuQtRYjudES5a519EM6Y7dYD2pwY95DVXZU1evBXJuNpw==
X-Received: by 10.55.7.210 with SMTP id 201mr1916901qkh.228.1477489115962; Wed, 26 Oct 2016 06:38:35 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: christopher.morrow@gmail.com
Received: by 10.140.105.244 with HTTP; Wed, 26 Oct 2016 06:38:35 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <677CE346-EFED-42B6-8A9F-75ABD2B4D6B4@cisco.com>
References: <1d8301d22df0$cee63500$6cb29f00$@ndzh.com> <db7a17a288aa4a3288dc6ec8f032b687@XCH-ALN-014.cisco.com> <CAL9jLaZcCwBhUEs7cvsx3HfiPSRPXrcvOguCeuV2opSns9OZMw@mail.gmail.com> <677CE346-EFED-42B6-8A9F-75ABD2B4D6B4@cisco.com>
From: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 09:38:35 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: HIigE1rbs5HjkGZVu4Rcmy85aXs
Message-ID: <CAL9jLabVh95QsNVenwgQxbs_0yW83Evq9J3MOCGg0psX7HaSzA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Jakob Heitz (jheitz)" <jheitz@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11488caeeac10a053fc4bdb6
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/_NCp9WYqcRkCCsEgutLIkikMx-w>
Cc: "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
Subject: Re: [Idr] BGP Attribute for Large communities (Attribute 30) was squatted on - Let's get a new attribute number (1 week WG call (10/18 to 10/25)
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, 26 Oct 2016 13:38:39 -0000

On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 1:51 AM, Jakob Heitz (jheitz) <jheitz@cisco.com>;
wrote:

> Because then we wouldn't own up to it and innocents would suffer.
>

I totally agree that owning up is good here.
I imagine that when other squatted values are discovered either in the
field or in tests the same: "oops!" email/etc will happen... but I don't
want us to end up just excluding forever the squatted
attributes/value/numbers, that'll be super painful in very short order.


> We would hope we could fix as much of it as possible and hope the rest
> wouldn't notice.
> Actually, the intended purpose of the NXOS line is for the data center,
> not the Internet and we can very likely fix all of the deployed ones.
> However, users have a right to deploy them wherever they want without
> notifying us and they have the right not to apply patches, so I chose to
> own up to the problem.
>

yup, I think it's nice to see folk stand up and say: "DOH! we screwed up,
sorry! we're now making our best effort to fix this, too." thanks!


> Honest, we didn't mean it. Sorry.
>
> Thanks,
> Jakob.
>
>
> On Oct 25, 2016, at 6:50 PM, Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>;
> wrote:
>
> So, what's the downside to having IANA pick the next available (from the
> current list, prior to the 2 squatting incidents) value in cases like this?
>
> I think it's: "Some routers somewhere do bad things"
>   (or sometimes cause other remote people to do 'bad things' .. where
> sometimes that other person is 'me')
>
> and when that happens: "some people quickly upgrade code to avoid the 'bad
> things'"
> (presuming that the code is available, I mean... and I do hope that
> vendors, all of them, are telling their DE folk: "Hey, don't do this, it's
> super painful...srsly!")
>
> Is that about it? Why don't we just go back to assigning the next
> available and deal with the problem(s) as they arise?
>
> -chris
>
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 6:27 PM, Jakob Heitz (jheitz) <jheitz@cisco.com>;
> wrote:
>
>> I have discovered that Cisco has used BGP attribute code 31
>>
>> for an internal experiment in certain NXOS routers,
>>
>> but unfortunately some of the code leaked into production.
>>
>> The code does not send the attribute,
>>
>> but it receives it incorrectly. We are creating patches for the
>>
>> faulty code, but cannot guarantee that all affected routers will
>>
>> be patched. Consequently, we request deprecation of attribute
>>
>> code 31 as well.
>>
>>
>>
>> I apologize on behalf of Cisco for the oversight.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Jakob.
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Susan Hares
>> *Sent:* Monday, October 24, 2016 5:19 AM
>> *To:* idr@ietf.org
>> *Subject:* [Idr] BGP Attribute for Large communities (Attribute 30) was
>> squatted on - Let's get a new attribute number (1 week WG call (10/18 to
>> 10/25)
>>
>>
>>
>> IDR Working group:
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you for your input on the question of whether Large communities
>> should be reassigned another attribute number due to Huawei squatting on
>> attribute 30.  The WG consensus is that the IDR WG wishes to have IANA
>> deprecate attribute 30, and reassign large communities another attribute
>> number for its early allocation.
>>
>>
>>
>> Alvaro should request a new attribute number for wide communities.
>>
>>
>>
>> If wide communities implementers request an early allocation, the WG
>> consensus was unclear.  Therefore,  the code point of 129 is deprecated for
>> now.  The full discussion on this point is at:
>>
>>
>>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/idr/current/msg16556.html
>>
>>
>>
>> The following other attributes were seen in the wild with the comments we
>> saw:
>>
>>
>>
>> #        BGP function                                      Reference
>>
>> ----    -----------------------------------------------   ---------------
>>
>> 20     Connector Attribute (deprecated)   [RFC6037]
>>
>> 21      AS_PATHLIMIT (deprecated)           [draft-ietf-idr-as-pathlimit,
>> unknown]
>>
>> 30     (deprecated)                                       [variant of
>> draft-ietf-tunnel-encaps, Huawei router]
>>
>> 129   (deprecated)
>>         [draft-ietf-idr-wide-bgp-communities, Huawei router]
>>
>>
>>
>> Attribute  AS Attribute Observed
>>
>> -----------   --------------------------------
>>
>> 20           AS 22742  (Peter Hessler)
>>
>> 21           AS 14706, AS 11720, AS 22490
>>
>>                  https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/idr/c
>> urrent/msg16583.html
>>
>>
>>
>> 30   -  in trials reported by Job
>>
>> 129 -  self-reported by Huawei
>>
>>
>>
>> Sue Hares
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Idr mailing list
>> Idr@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>>
>>
>