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

Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Tue, 04 February 2020 22:37 UTC

Return-Path: <robert@raszuk.net>
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 6F4CC120143 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 14:37:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.987
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.987 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, BODY_ENHANCEMENT=0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=raszuk.net
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 qsZivfnXaldh for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 14:37:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ot1-x336.google.com (mail-ot1-x336.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::336]) (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 58DBB12013C for <idr@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 14:37:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ot1-x336.google.com with SMTP id g64so42048otb.13 for <idr@ietf.org>; Tue, 04 Feb 2020 14:37:52 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=raszuk.net; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=qP6dtK41LqVx/9UQP7UmWU30oeno3hj6pqm/PUjx/jk=; b=ZfuWgJvYehYo+AJpkcrtqcQ9vYnr0qHCV8TvL2r4yhxRyFq5adzSQVDSWJ3xDJXL9z QYFmfD1tDMwIzQDYmUy47LNCgZNxZo4+76B5ZDwXVs8Z36kVWY7feJ/7nfGtuWo+LDut lJiBVKKXyb9Ni1wxSD3XGMcDBVq2+XrEx+/sLE7TypeIHXH1qC9pXpXZG72TMpFnsFC2 rUvopPUIt9XhAuXT7cu5LbXsJbI9e0NQElNgZh1qyG8Tey2sqVLrTaBYSQLJsLxPSkS7 jIuawlcjRSYG059st2RM3Q17+G9+NZbpEbpdQAy54lTz4VX3HJROZgRvJPwm8Vaxot2t 7k0A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=qP6dtK41LqVx/9UQP7UmWU30oeno3hj6pqm/PUjx/jk=; b=oyWnTFlbCZBgwYfn0KhT9MA0F5/Wrv0q12jDjGvnmdUZ1K4E3G38VuxDREU+NamcU3 7LLWqMr12iYAUWQbF2tclds8+3yHecK1clywMjbaksTazv0XJwr5ypVPeXbWThM4U5KE avxskMHTsBexeAlBpplB8162M64dLZM7UTSZuF/I5urM42+ljZ1h8OZTYTzICdGNmLfc sX5I40LBA0N/d/NYiY7vgoU9Ry40THTT0dAbVeyn5PXFlBXRlJCXpohCoyA29uC/RapA 9mogj77C1+pGaQz6JxiVV4YO/O7iIUM81YO9jRd1qFUBpjYrWxAKiCwFxWqoWn2Ti6l7 sjRA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVOTVDayyUVZCgDVchD6CkhckvJBBAZvyuAH4zqzmQ/qJUJJ92s pdMUNok5Bs60JokeV4h9gkMJ/BuKaL/QX5Qm8OD4jw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyuWmLDN997Aws7lKql7bC7vr4TPFVfOScWPfS2oVjp/zKGAFrm0H6X9hy/sXYBnInjDbzV3uu9cP9sbfzhcqk=
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:6a06:: with SMTP id g6mr1523598otn.305.1580855871668; Tue, 04 Feb 2020 14:37:51 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <DM6PR09MB54489301E52DD711E031400984030@DM6PR09MB5448.namprd09.prod.outlook.com> <BN6PR11MB1890AA431F63030DFE310902C0030@BN6PR11MB1890.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <CAOj+MMH-xff0VUBy5UZZp7FH7_ES5A5ZCcUqFin2UP0hOnpjug@mail.gmail.com> <5603F4C9-7ECD-4A9C-AF81-49AE292CEE83@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <5603F4C9-7ECD-4A9C-AF81-49AE292CEE83@cisco.com>
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2020 23:37:41 +0100
Message-ID: <CAOj+MMF3K6jCp+CDg92ua7qH5hkQ1V+g0JoFt_zf+zCogwVZ7g@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Jakob Heitz (jheitz)" <jheitz@cisco.com>
Cc: "Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed)" <kotikalapudi.sriram@nist.gov>, Job Snijders <job@ntt.net>, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>, John Heasly <heas@shrubbery.net>, "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>, "grow-chairs@ietf.org" <grow-chairs@ietf.org>, "idr-chairs@ietf.org" <idr-chairs@ietf.org>, "grow@ietf.org" <grow@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ac14b2059dc7b064"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/a3UUo4Osn5tMjMsZwnIJ2Nu4TiY>
Subject: Re: [Idr] [GROW] Question about BGP Large Communities
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Tue, 04 Feb 2020 22:37:55 -0000

> 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>om>; Job Snijders <job@ntt.net>et>;
>> Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>rg>; 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
>>
>