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
Precedence: list

--0000000000001bbdd1059dc4f44f
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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/=C2=A72.1, 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
>

--0000000000001bbdd1059dc4f44f
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">Hi Sriram,<div><br></div><div>Just to add to what Alvaro s=
aid what you are looking for seems to be a new type for the information req=
uired.=C2=A0</div><div><br></div><div>Large Communities are really unstruct=
ured from the perspective of types like Extended Communities are.=C2=A0</di=
v><div><br></div><div>But please observe that=C2=A0proposed Wide Communitie=
s do have support for types:=C2=A0</div><div><br></div><div><a href=3D"http=
s://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-wide-bgp-communities-05">https://too=
ls.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-wide-bgp-communities-05</a>=C2=A0</div><div=
><br></div><div>so perhaps you may want to take a look into this type of ca=
rrier as well. Of course this assumes that more and more vendors will bring=
 support of Wide Communities to their BGP code at some=C2=A0point :).<br></=
div><div><br></div><div>Rgs,</div><div>Robert.</div><div><br></div><div><br=
></div><div><br></div></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr"=
 class=3D"gmail_attr">On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 8:09 PM Alvaro Retana &lt;<a h=
ref=3D"mailto:aretana.ietf@gmail.com">aretana.ietf@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:=
<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8=
ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">On February 4, =
2020 at 1:22:11 PM, Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed) wrote:<br>
<br>
[Speaking as a WG participant.]<br>
<br>
<br>
Sriram:<br>
<br>
Hi!<br>
<br>
<br>
...<br>
&gt; Question:<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Can the draft simply make an IANA request for<br>
&gt; a Global Administrator ASN value for Route Leaks Protection (RLP) type=
<br>
&gt; and request that it be published in IANA registry<br>
&gt; as a &quot;well-known Transitive Large Community&quot;?<br>
<br>
No.<br>
<br>
There is no IANA registry for Global Administrator because it is<br>
simply a &quot;four-octet namespace identifier...SHOULD be an ASN&quot;<br>
[rfc8092], but it doesn&#39;t have to be.<br>
<br>
Skimming through draft-ietf-grow-route-leak-detection-mitigation, I<br>
would say (personal opinion) that you have two options:<br>
<br>
(1) Describe the Local Data Parts so that they are well-known when<br>
used by any ASN (Global Administrator).=C2=A0 This has the disadvantage<br>
that the values may collide with existing policies (?).<br>
<br>
(2) Request IANA to assign an ASN for this application.=C2=A0 Take a look<b=
r>
at rfc7249/=C2=A72.1, which talks about the allocation of special-purpose<b=
r>
AS Numbers.=C2=A0 The advantage is obviously that collisions can be<br>
avoided, but it seems to me that it may be too much (an ASN) for just<br>
this application.<br>
<br>
So...if an ASN is requested, it would be independent of Large Communities.<=
br>
<br>
<br>
...<br>
&gt; it appears it is *assumed* that the Large Communities are transitive.<=
br>
<br>
rfc8092 &quot;defines the BGP Large Communities attribute as an optional<br=
>
transitive path attribute&quot;.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Alvaro.<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Idr mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:Idr@ietf.org" target=3D"_blank">Idr@ietf.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr" rel=3D"noreferrer" ta=
rget=3D"_blank">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr</a><br>
</blockquote></div>

--0000000000001bbdd1059dc4f44f--