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

Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Tue, 04 February 2020 19:22 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 02144120865 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 11:22:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 91q96yiyr1yS for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 11:21:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oi1-x230.google.com (mail-oi1-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::230]) (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 D6C54120827 for <idr@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 11:21:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-oi1-x230.google.com with SMTP id l136so19643765oig.1 for <idr@ietf.org>; Tue, 04 Feb 2020 11:21:58 -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=86J8yU2V/vE16WjOwEXZxplNVLzUam4DfxGJYOKBjnQ=; b=c2eitoMBN785OmtWV7KcflqQBFoVFXocpjyHT0LQoRi/yCw828eFP1Wa/A/m08TUES feXH0li5nXRtEjMWxGLoFvv+XnAXKCpq2QeyxqykiIhGWhQ/XDpbu04n5YKsk11DCAac 2fcFrqhuO34q9886wxKrwgw7X5nmEB51QTCKhc0cqECwjUqy/YKj1DWYlBDkErZOd/SM pNcGTnEAeShD6E7goua1gxT6sGRnWJRA8OgdXVJDHqGbzoZABHnAtRGCXUnnyze0HaP3 aX2tlFSFELL44QZPc6R16tJApQ5+HshPZZ+vE2yUSeZw9yYZ0q+6Hy7EiC1FzGx8Fe8j 3yUw==
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=86J8yU2V/vE16WjOwEXZxplNVLzUam4DfxGJYOKBjnQ=; b=EKVm+6qJDTtL6Crq3EVRE3iiI7DLh8Wo1qKFLEtIY8x6GB0nWgAcc77Si1c/dwD4/l DAqs0KLIAbI2bm5xPkvUZcdfmq+IF9FH4YDli71Jw6dC6O1KkDqZFNd+2JTd+Pc3WomY 6eUMSk8ep0CoDLLMWT+Xwh0Inpm+3a0bcYL419NQBDRl9O14x79Rpo/olJwYTHYJKIQA 6jX1XlqjV8cjyPymp9f/Wr+b4pW/Tl1i1yh76TH9EKjY71F4ng5o9vVCEHzREAtZ3doY 50mlmINUqcEACYZgx3iO7Le03+6VWjVNdSPBUmQeY0HGnfebfbVg3o/i408mkrblqkeZ f8hw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUN4vVQ6U70Vmt6cab14Hkzg4zxNfkUK0WLO6d2URfu+i4U2jAP XhtyIosF9uPtemLlDi/Qr76BqFbV7jz0jQSUaAC2Hw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwJWQMsh9T/Cg5veOqxfs40uHSiSmHUpjJ4Ujj80OxS/gMF23Q32vKwy0CEOtu2SlDHlRAd/ZmnMD++ELJkgAo=
X-Received: by 2002:aca:4106:: with SMTP id o6mr345222oia.173.1580844118157; Tue, 04 Feb 2020 11:21:58 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <DM6PR09MB54489301E52DD711E031400984030@DM6PR09MB5448.namprd09.prod.outlook.com> <CAMMESszpxmUrvNxf4tj6GCy8rjoG_SwvQCqRPOqu-2hc=nC=vQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMMESszpxmUrvNxf4tj6GCy8rjoG_SwvQCqRPOqu-2hc=nC=vQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2020 20:21:48 +0100
Message-ID: <CAOj+MMG02ufbP12wtmns+9GQ73E=mxoR==ccj37hKtcOmc4SoA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>, "Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed)" <kotikalapudi.sriram=40nist.gov@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: "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>, John Heasly <heas@shrubbery.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000001bbdd1059dc4f44f"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/aOwVOv3SiXDWLcmcJXuJyMXN0G4>
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 19:22:03 -0000

Hi Sriram,

Just to add to what Alvaro said what you are looking for seems to be a new
type for the information required.

Large Communities are really unstructured from the perspective of types
like Extended Communities are.

But please observe that proposed Wide Communities do have support for
types:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-wide-bgp-communities-05

so perhaps you may want to take a look into this type of carrier as well.
Of course this assumes that more and more vendors will bring support of
Wide Communities to their BGP code at some point :).

Rgs,
Robert.




On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 8:09 PM Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:

> On February 4, 2020 at 1:22:11 PM, Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed) wrote:
>
> [Speaking as a WG participant.]
>
>
> Sriram:
>
> Hi!
>
>
> ...
> > 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"?
>
> No.
>
> There is no IANA registry for Global Administrator because it is
> simply a "four-octet namespace identifier...SHOULD be an ASN"
> [rfc8092], but it doesn't have to be.
>
> Skimming through draft-ietf-grow-route-leak-detection-mitigation, I
> would say (personal opinion) that you have two options:
>
> (1) Describe the Local Data Parts so that they are well-known when
> used by any ASN (Global Administrator).  This has the disadvantage
> that the values may collide with existing policies (?).
>
> (2) Request IANA to assign an ASN for this application.  Take a look
> at rfc7249/§2.1, which talks about the allocation of special-purpose
> AS Numbers.  The advantage is obviously that collisions can be
> avoided, but it seems to me that it may be too much (an ASN) for just
> this application.
>
> So...if an ASN is requested, it would be independent of Large Communities.
>
>
> ...
> > it appears it is *assumed* that the Large Communities are transitive.
>
> rfc8092 "defines the BGP Large Communities attribute as an optional
> transitive path attribute".
>
> Regards,
>
> Alvaro.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>