Re: [Idr] BGP Attribute for Large communities (Attribute 30) was squatted on - Let's get a new attribute number (1 week WG call (10/18 to 10/25)

Wesley George <> Tue, 18 October 2016 17:39 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD82912973E for <>; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 10:39:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.632
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.632 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.431, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WAoQx_tRSyuX for <>; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 10:39:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 550FF12973A for <>; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 10:39:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:1998:3400:1d::287] (unknown [IPv6:2001:1998:3400:1d::287]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A716E540976; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 13:38:57 -0400 (EDT)
From: Wesley George <>
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_C83927C1-955F-4265-933C-4593CCD77BF3"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2016 13:38:56 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: Nick Hilliard <>, Susan Hares <>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <>
Cc: IETF IDR WG <>, Kristian Larsson <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] BGP Attribute for Large communities (Attribute 30) was squatted on - Let's get a new attribute number (1 week WG call (10/18 to 10/25)
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: Tue, 18 Oct 2016 17:39:03 -0000

On 10/18/16, 12:05 PM, "Nick Hilliard" <> wrote: <>

     I'm not sure if this is a good

    idea, as it could be interpreted as sending a message to vendors that

    squatting path attribute code points will result in being told, "that's

    very naughty and we're going to punish you by ensuring that no-one else

    gets these numbers, so don't do it again!"

I agree with the pragmatic approach of re-allocating so that we aren’t dependent on various network operators to upgrade code to fix this problem before large communities can be deployed, but I share the concern about this setting a bad precedent and rewarding bad behavior. Admittedly we have little leverage beyond finger-wagging, but I think the appropriate response here is to ensure a bit of diulian 丟臉 (lose face) aka name and shame for those making the "mistake".

For example, an addition to the IANA considerations section such as:

IANA is requested to allocate a new codepoint after early testing of the early-allocated codepoint revealed router vendors such as Huawei with production software making unauthorized use of (squatting on) unused codepoints including attribute 30 and 129 in a way that breaks interoperability if the original early-allocation codepoint were used.

Wes George