Re: [Idr] Squatters (Was: BGP Attribute for Large communities (Attribute 30) was squatted on..)

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <> Thu, 27 October 2016 13:23 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58D2912949F for <>; Thu, 27 Oct 2016 06:23:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.952
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.952 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.431, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QJnXJO6PhwCV for <>; Thu, 27 Oct 2016 06:23:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 696E81293EE for <>; Thu, 27 Oct 2016 06:22:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=3798; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1477574573; x=1478784173; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=5oadUH1fFWjgCsZgN7U7LJKE/+M63RTPyhX/FNJ7ET8=; b=O5n4Dy7UmNOaJub2gCK7VJA+wNNxk17CIhxBot95cubgPZWqvMG50aWq X7E1nKGbDDWzwe5W7+InFYIVbJbERKnIgYuzXcFz5VeMk8b8CvR1B2xCQ 8HzSidXueVoOTl7fHEw3STdI5pejpXpKG1zREuW6foZPRN4f4nN+F30m9 s=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.31,404,1473120000"; d="scan'208";a="340288197"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 27 Oct 2016 13:22:52 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u9RDMqGt004308 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 27 Oct 2016 13:22:52 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Thu, 27 Oct 2016 09:22:51 -0400
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Thu, 27 Oct 2016 09:22:51 -0400
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <>
To: Job Snijders <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [Idr] Squatters (Was: BGP Attribute for Large communities (Attribute 30) was squatted on..)
Thread-Index: AQHSMDgfTBxv8SJv/02s2RN9AVvwdqC8WqQAgAAFdQD//+niAA==
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 13:22:51 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <20161027095404.GP37101@Vurt.local> <> <1d8301d22df0$cee63500$6cb29f00$> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <20161027104158.GD34682@Vurt.local>
In-Reply-To: <20161027104158.GD34682@Vurt.local>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Squatters (Was: BGP Attribute for Large communities (Attribute 30) was squatted on..)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 13:23:14 -0000

Hi Job, Marco, 

On 10/27/16, 6:41 AM, "Idr on behalf of Job Snijders"
< on behalf of> wrote:

>On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 10:22:26AM +0000, wrote:
>> >> I was suggesting the same thing out-of-list today.
>> >> We should really assign ~5 values to experimental/development
>> >> 
>> > The problem here is that people are not abiding the rules, and
>> > more codepoints will only work if people abide those rules. I have no
>> > confidence that more dev codepoints resolve the issue.
>> > 
>> I am just trying to cope with the status quo.  Vendors are squatting
>> codepoints for their own purposes, it is obviously is bad and they
>> shouldn't, but they do.
>> I can understand how a single value may not be enough for large
>> environments with multiple development processes.  So i think that we
>> should try address the "unpleasant" habit of squatting what they
>> should ask for by giving them enough room to work with.
>If you can't isolate your features in development branches, something is
>strange in your development process. This is of course a subjective
>statement, I'd like to hear from more fulltime implementors what their
>take on this is.

In our case (Cisco NX-OS), the code point was used for the BGP Remote Next
Hop attribute (draft-vandevelde-idr-remote-next-hop). When the approach
was abandoned, the mistake made was not to remove the attribute handling
and validation. Hence, NX-OS switches will not propagate the 31 attribute
(assuming validation failure and an optional transitive attribute). As you
would guess, this is not something that would show up in normal regression
or feature testing since attribute 31 was unallocated. We debated the
severity of this problem given NX-OS’s Place In Network (PIN) but decided
it was better to disclose the problem. As Jakob already indicated, we are
sorry for the oversight.


>> My *wish* is in that way vendors will use experimental space in
>> development phase and get back to the community to get an assignment
>> when ready.
>If you look at the numbers that have been used so far: 30, 31, 129 -
>those are all square in the middle. If you have concurrent projects and
>need multiple bgp path attributes, I'd expect someone to squat on the
>high numbers: 254, 253, 252, etc - because IANA, obviously is counting
>upwards. The presence of low (not yet used) squatted codepoints, shows
>me that the social contract is not followed, so making more rules won't
>address that.
>Kind regards,
>Idr mailing list