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

Job Snijders <> Thu, 27 October 2016 10:42 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6004129D5B for <>; Thu, 27 Oct 2016 03:42:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pI2b_RZ7zGEw for <>; Thu, 27 Oct 2016 03:42:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F0784129D54 for <>; Thu, 27 Oct 2016 03:42:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id 140so20328878wmv.0 for <>; Thu, 27 Oct 2016 03:42:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=3rc3YVpe+PXuAdS3Rn68PTmlqSgcogK9IOZR2tUaltc=; b=IRxJ4meAFro6gYoo2aY/TDiYId52EaAqzqwNQM4NZHfOE6RyIlNZtxD0xnhoBdfvzn HUVDMB2eaCBM/PEdaEptNGciTrpk0nrfK7fjZEO5LcdBAaDaKlDMNpeBUNkm0xMl1+R6 UqILi0Z9dZIPnvLLU/kpxqBmMMnwqBbT8Za2uVR03kYqPBzGprQSF4Ovob3K4vkiH+GC j+LtwR5kwA7UrWZ7GNYVelsAMKJ7+8J88CZVoMC2Q8FJ5NVP3fqY4otxGyd2H1albbb9 tWNnoxSGGs7iFu8ovXuql9w9mRVJ+dkpCI+qALFTn1W+aIGeZm6+jlQNDn7GIFsmyia+ Co4g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=3rc3YVpe+PXuAdS3Rn68PTmlqSgcogK9IOZR2tUaltc=; b=StBhlW9ONGCeii+HD+Sk3ik1Rkah+0KBtXY5mZtKshXG3zC6kzif2D5tK8yhM2WdkN QtcdEX81oNYwS4V5QLgz5XjV+6IEb/4YlomB9hukxc8+s3u7Z4/eKfvLn/PtQCSEIj6J 1W7CWYVCTrNmcCwFzxgSopNY6gML/+RRcocZ8+hl3wPtCbnvM2GhbfPjSS24inJA8Ln+ ZGq18XtfhTL9jN4nElsPoWQcz6aQEm9CCb/hI9UzVktEaUe18Htz5b8DBUI6vsx6L8ef D8WzP5NYNmQnvew0UD0zx5Pdh/TLMHBOCJ8tm2hYn0FeirxMLlIjcflJU6R59by1l6yK Xpmg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngvfWZ4hvo2wyhNl5c72yIvBKaEMF1DzU3Qk7zmu9TN4OvP59yQKQKph4RuZnaDLH3Q==
X-Received: by with SMTP id m187mr12095937wme.73.1477564921093; Thu, 27 Oct 2016 03:42:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([]) by with ESMTPSA id 132sm2522606wmn.16.2016. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 27 Oct 2016 03:42:00 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 12:41:58 +0200
From: Job Snijders <>
Message-ID: <20161027104158.GD34682@Vurt.local>
References: <20161027095404.GP37101@Vurt.local> <> <1d8301d22df0$cee63500$6cb29f00$> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.0 (2016-08-17)
Archived-At: <>
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 10:42:13 -0000

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 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,