Re: [Idr] route-capability explained

"Samita Chakrabarti" <> Mon, 04 August 2008 19:36 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A0223A68F4; Mon, 4 Aug 2008 12:36:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 918B73A6924 for <>; Mon, 4 Aug 2008 12:36:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.249
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.750, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qVltSukHH3Kg for <>; Mon, 4 Aug 2008 12:36:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with SMTP id C90E83A6922 for <>; Mon, 4 Aug 2008 12:36:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 32237 invoked from network); 4 Aug 2008 19:37:13 -0000
Received: from unknown ( by ( with ESMTP; 04 Aug 2008 19:37:12 -0000
From: "Samita Chakrabarti" <>
To: "'Paul Jakma'" <>
References: <000001c8f313$eaa095e0$2b168182@samitacD600> <alpine.LFD.1.10.0808011257360.4279@localhost.localdomain> <006101c8f65e$302551d0$97000a0a@samitacD600> <alpine.LFD.1.10.0808041931110.5059@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 12:37:10 -0700
Message-ID: <006a01c8f669$7ce090b0$97000a0a@samitacD600>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
Thread-Index: Acj2ZI/QDzpEHe2nSzGCPRSPK6lcFAAAtTpQ
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.1.10.0808041931110.5059@localhost.localdomain>
Cc: 'Inter-Domain Routing List' <>,
Subject: Re: [Idr] route-capability explained
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi Paul,
>On Mon, 4 Aug 2008, Samita Chakrabarti wrote:
>> [SC>]  Correct.  You are right about unlikely AS4 speakers without AS4
>> extended community support -- eventually that should be the case. But,
>> these two documents are separate, we can only assume and hope that an
>> implementation would support both at the same time :-)
>Yakhov's ext-community is probably best place to address these
>problems, no?
       Yes, the transition issues should be addressed at the the
Rekhter-as4octet-ext-community draft.  

>Also, I'd like to ask the IDR WG to adopt his draft as a working
>group document. Some kind of communication issue with the IDR chair
>seems to have prevented this from appearing on the agenda...
[SC>]  You can respond to Danny's message on l3vpn to support Yakov's draft
to move forward; I did already :-)

>> [SC>] Yes. The draft-rekhter-as4octet-ext-community can use the
>> extended-asn-capability defined in RFC4893 and make the 2byte/4byte
>> mapping of ext-community decision accordingly. If it is specified
>> in the document, then the implementations will behave in a
>> consistent manner. In that case, we don't need a different
>> route-capability [as proposed in my draft] message.
>Unfortunately, there are already some 4B speakers deployed which do
>not translate. So translation is perhaps not a robust answer.
    Are you sure?
  A deployment should be a RFC compliant. Draft-rekhter-as4octet is an
individual contribution now. When it becomes an RFC, the final deployment
should follow the RFC. But, folks can discuss more on this and come up with
a solution that works and scales.

So, to be clear, we do not need to worry about
draft-chakrabarti-idr-as4-route-cap-01.txt, if a transition solution is
devised at future version of the draft-rekhter-as4octet-ext-community doc.


Idr mailing list