Re: [Idr] Request to adopt draft-heitz-idr-large-community - Working Group Adoption call (9/6 to 9/20)

["Jakob Heitz (jheitz)" <[e-mail]>]

Here is my common header

2.1.  BGP Community Container Header

   Containers always start with the following header:

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |      Type     |  Flags    | T |          Length               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                       Context ASN                             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The fields are as shown below:

        Type -  The type of community following the header.  The types
             are to be defined in companion documents.

        Flags -  Sent as 0.  Ignored upon receipt.  MUST be propagated
             to other BGP speakers unchanged.  These flags may be
             assigned meanings by future specifications.  Thus it is
             important that speakers that do not recognize the flags
             propagate them unchanged.

        T -  Transitivity field

             Value 0:  The communities in the container are transitive
                  across all ASes.

             Value 1:  The communities in the container are transitive
                  across AS boundaries, but not across an administration
                  boundary.  An administration in this sense is an
                  arbitrary set of connected ASes, possibly owned by a
                  single administration.  How such an administration
                  boundary is determined is out of scope of this
                  document.  However, by default, every autonomous
                  system is its own administrative region.

             Value 2:  The communities in the container are transitive,
                  but not across an AS boundary.

             Value 3:  The communities in the container are not
                  transitive.

        Length -  The number of octets occupied by the communities after
             the header.

        Context ASN -  Context Autonomous System Number.

             The meaning of this is defined in the specifications of
             each container type

   The Transitivity field governs how a received community is propagated
   in a BGP UPDATE message to the next speaker.  It does not apply to
   the originator of a community.  That means that a BGP speaker may
   send a community over any boundary if it is configured to do so.  The
   transitivity applies when a speaker is simply passing the community
   on.

   A BGP speaker that does not recognize a container type SHOULD ignore
   it, but propagate it to other speakers as defined by the Transitivity
   field.  This behavior MAY be overridden by local policy.


Thanks,
Jakob.


> On Sep 9, 2016, at 11:30 AM, Jakob Heitz (jheitz) <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> I had endless discussions with Robert on the format of the common header and I don't have the appetite anymore. Besides, it's not needed. Attribute exhaustion is a strawman.
> 
> Thanks,
> Jakob.
> 
> 
>>> On Sep 9, 2016, at 11:24 AM, Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 10:54:36PM +0000, Jakob Heitz (jheitz) wrote:
>>> Jeff, you proposed to split a common header out of the wide communities draft as a separate draft and I agreed. Then Robert didn't want to do that and published -03 of the wide communities. So be it.
>> 
>> The discussion circled around the *logistics* of the split.  Robert would
>> prefer not to, I'm supportive of it.  John requested we take this discussion
>> to the mail list, hence I'm doing so.
>> 
>> Tersely, with a common header, I'm supportive of a separate 4:4 draft as
>> long as it's built on a common header as per the other discussion.  That
>> header can be in a separate draft; Robert has updated wide -03 in a way that
>> shows how the split may be done.
>> 
>> In the absence of a common header, I would not be supportive of the current
>> proposal.
>> 
>> -- Jeff