Re: [Idr] Early allocation for wide communities [was: Re: 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)]

Job Snijders <job@ntt.net> Tue, 18 October 2016 20:32 UTC

Return-Path: <job@ntt.net>
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 A8E73129856 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 13:32:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.366
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.366 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.431, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] 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 xT8AtfL9pZ5l for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 13:32:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail3.dllstx09.us.to.gin.ntt.net (mail3.dllstx09.us.to.gin.ntt.net [IPv6:2001:418:3ff:5::26]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 97740126579 for <idr@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 13:32:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail3.dllstx09.us.to.gin.ntt.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <job@ntt.net>) id 1bwb3Y-000EU0-UF (job@us.ntt.net); Tue, 18 Oct 2016 20:32:17 +0000
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2016 15:32:15 -0500
From: Job Snijders <job@ntt.net>
To: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
Message-ID: <20161018203215.GU95811@Vurt.local>
References: <01f401d22950$7f988470$7ec98d50$@ndzh.com> <3BC2E5A3-380D-4F60-A719-6FA5E19FC839@pfrc.org> <001801d22963$11733630$3459a290$@ndzh.com> <019F0FC9-6751-42CD-BA26-3CB0B374748E@juniper.net> <20161018180650.GS95811@Vurt.local> <8BC27C25-22D2-4B52-A1C8-D2C90E1D54A3@pfrc.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <8BC27C25-22D2-4B52-A1C8-D2C90E1D54A3@pfrc.org>
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.0 (2016-08-17)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/eFymvrCG9jyZvLqFshQ3iZkAKMM>
Cc: Sue Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, IETF IDR WG <idr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Early allocation for wide communities [was: Re: 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-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: Tue, 18 Oct 2016 20:32:20 -0000

On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 04:27:13PM -0400, Jeffrey Haas wrote:
> > On Oct 18, 2016, at 2:06 PM, Job Snijders <job@ntt.net>; wrote:
> > 
> > On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 01:25:25PM -0400, John G. Scudder wrote:
> >>   c.  The specifications of these code points must be stable; i.e., if
> >>       there is a change, implementations based on the earlier and later
> >>       specifications must be seamlessly interoperable.
> >> 
> >> I am not sure this is true. Is it? 
> > 
> > I do not believe that to be true.
> 
> Wide comms was spec-wise pretty stable until recently when we tried to
> accommodate large comms as a header.  The amount things were perturbed
> wasn't much but still was still incompatible.
> 
> But I agree with the general sentiment: We want it to be at that
> stability point before proceeding with the actual early allocation.  
> 
> This also hits the interesting question about versioning to accept my
> own criticisms about incremental deployment.
> 
> What would be nice would be to hear the feedback from the implementors
> at Huawei as to their experiences in implementing the spec.  This
> would give insight to the level of maturity of the draft, along with
> being a lot more careful to avoid spec churn if it's actually getting
> traction.

Yes, implementor feedback before an early allocation makes a lot of
sense.