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

marco@lamehost.it Thu, 27 October 2016 18:39 UTC

Return-Path: <marco@lamehost.it>
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 BDC9912965B for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Oct 2016 11:39:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.332
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.332 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.431, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 6wO5bP007Vwt for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Oct 2016 11:39:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from seele.lamehost.it (seele.lamehost.it [80.76.80.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A40CA1295E9 for <idr@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Oct 2016 11:39:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from www.lamehost.it (unknown [80.76.80.23]) (Authenticated sender: marco@lamehost.it) by seele.lamehost.it (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 19397746D2; Thu, 27 Oct 2016 20:39:23 +0200 (CEST)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 18:39:22 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <89511cb97f8896fd334c109ae498285e@www.lamehost.it>
X-Mailer: RainLoop/1.10.3.151
From: marco@lamehost.it
To: "Job Snijders" <job@instituut.net>
In-Reply-To: <20161027104158.GD34682@Vurt.local>
References: <20161027104158.GD34682@Vurt.local> <20161027095404.GP37101@Vurt.local> <20161026165710.GC58742@shrubbery.net> <1d8301d22df0$cee63500$6cb29f00$@ndzh.com> <db7a17a288aa4a3288dc6ec8f032b687@XCH-ALN-014.cisco.com> <CAL9jLaZcCwBhUEs7cvsx3HfiPSRPXrcvOguCeuV2opSns9OZMw@mail.gmail.com> <677CE346-EFED-42B6-8A9F-75ABD2B4D6B4@cisco.com> <EBCE3CE8-1295-4CB2-9A1A-8BA2E154033D@gmail.com> <6e6a37a2a51eab848e9d498a1437365f@www.lamehost.it> <524D6F67-AAFA-4880-B977-8262333DFF5B@steffann.nl> <413402e00e4c25dea495842b8e94fa1c@www.lamehost.it>
X-Originating-IP: 31.159.112.160
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.11 (seele.lamehost.it [0.0.0.0]); Thu, 27 Oct 2016 20:39:23 +0200 (CEST)
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.11 (seele.lamehost.it [0.0.0.0]); Thu, 27 Oct 2016 20:39:23 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.99.2 at seele
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/blQUvBqCWGcs7g2CxhR2YmsWqdc>
Cc: idr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Idr] Squatters (Was: BGP Attribute for Large communities (Attribute 30) was squatted on..)
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 18:39:45 -0000

October 27, 2016 12:42 PM, "Job Snijders" <job@instituut.net>; wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 10:22:26AM +0000, marco@lamehost.it wrote:
> 
>> I was suggesting the same thing out-of-list today.
>> We should really assign ~5 values to experimental/development puroposes
>> 
>> The problem here is that people are not abiding the rules, and offering
>> 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.
> 
>> 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,
> 
> Job

Job,

I would say that your reasoning is based on speculations, but also is mine as none of us works for a vendor.
I take your point and wait for others to comment.

Regards