Re: [Idr] [GROW] Question about BGP Large Communities

> How would you divide the numbers?

I would not divide them at all in LCs. I would either define new type in
extended communities or use wide communities.

But I am a bit biased here ;-)

Best,
R,

On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 11:34 PM Jakob Heitz (jheitz) <jheitz@cisco.com>
wrote:

> The numbers are a trade off. How would you divide the numbers?
>
> Thanks,
> Jakob.
>
> On Feb 4, 2020, at 2:19 PM, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> wrote:
>
> 
> And you think 255 such known large communities will be sufficient ?
>
> Thx,
> R.
>
> On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 9:45 PM Jakob Heitz (jheitz) <jheitz@cisco.com>
> wrote:
>
>> A set of well known large communities could be useful.
>>
>> I have a draft that I never submitted attached to this email.
>>
>> Does anyone want to co-author and suggest changes?
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Jakob.
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed) <kotikalapudi.sriram@nist.gov>
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 4, 2020 10:22 AM
>> *To:* Jakob Heitz (jheitz) <jheitz@cisco.com>; Job Snijders <job@ntt.net>;
>> Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>; John Heasly <heas@shrubbery.net>
>> *Cc:* idr@ietf.org; grow@ietf.org; idr-chairs@ietf.org;
>> grow-chairs@ietf.org; a.e.azimov@gmail.com; Brian Dickson <
>> brian.peter.dickson@gmail.com>
>> *Subject:* Question about BGP Large Communities
>>
>>
>>
>> In the route leaks solution draft,
>>
>>
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-grow-route-leak-detection-mitigation-02
>>
>> we (the authors) have proposed using BGP Large Community.
>>
>> We specify this to be a "well-known transitive Large Community".
>>
>>
>>
>> Question:
>>
>> Can the draft simply make an IANA request for
>>
>> a Global Administrator ASN value for Route Leaks Protection (RLP) type
>>
>> and request that it be published in IANA registry
>>
>> as a "well-known Transitive Large Community"?
>>
>>
>>
>> There is no IANA registry for Large Communities yet;
>>
>> we have requested IDR and GROW Chairs to facilitate that.
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------
>>
>> Details/background:
>>
>>
>>
>> We've read the following RFCs related to Large Communities:
>>
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8092
>>
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8195
>>
>>
>>
>> RFC 8195 has this table:
>>
>>
>>                  +-------------------------------+-------------------------+
>>
>>                  |       RFC8092                    | RFC
>> 8195                |
>>
>>
>> +-------------------------------+--------------------------+
>>
>>                  | Global Administrator    |      ASN
>> |
>>
>>                  |  Local Data Part 1           |
>> Function              |
>>
>>                  |  Local Data Part 2           |   Parameter            |
>>
>>
>> +--------------------------------+-------------------------+
>>
>> which is instructive. In the examples that RFC 8195 offers,
>>
>> it appears it is *assumed* that the Large Communities are transitive.
>>
>>
>>
>> For comparison, in Extended Communities (RFC 7153), there are
>>
>> explicit Type values assigned for Transitive, Non-transitive, etc.
>>
>>
>> https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-extended-communities/bgp-extended-communities.xhtml
>>
>> However, there is no such explicit Type specification
>>
>> for Large Communities (in RFC 8092 or elsewhere).
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> Sriram
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GROW mailing list
>> GROW@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
>>
>