IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Idr] AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-large-community-09

Michael H Lambert <lambert@psc.edu> Fri, 02 December 2016 15:40 UTC

Return-Path: <lambert@psc.edu>
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 CE01F129468; Fri, 2 Dec 2016 07:40:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.198
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.896, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=psc.edu
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 02FZm5Xt1Hlb; Fri, 2 Dec 2016 07:40:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailer2.psc.edu (mailer2.psc.edu [128.182.70.106]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0634E129588; Fri, 2 Dec 2016 07:40:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.101.69] (c-67-186-19-193.hsd1.pa.comcast.net [67.186.19.193]) (authenticated bits=0) by mailer2.psc.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id uB2FeQiv017401 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 2 Dec 2016 10:40:28 -0500
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.1 mailer2.psc.edu uB2FeQiv017401
Authentication-Results: mailer2.psc.edu; dmarc=none header.from=psc.edu
Authentication-Results: mailer2.psc.edu; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lambert@psc.edu
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.10.3 mailer2.psc.edu uB2FeQiv017401
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=psc.edu; s=default; t=1480693228; bh=cYQO+sVO8D5vD69M0QvmcLmzNcGtJyrYoHeqCF29DwQ=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To:From; b=HMpcS/4bNxP9SwebJLBTSBIIHRpX6dqFf/cgV8orkHOKViPx54vR+v4A3azjacs5T /jwfzVdXlTrWLeftlinPa5LZOY8gr3cE1rkktBk692olUwVJMhT1QoRvUVrF2fXGFM gXNo6Ap5bbKz6F841xO1bUdKEqDHDVKuDwhYSdV4=
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
From: Michael H Lambert <lambert@psc.edu>
In-Reply-To: <AAC9E38F-BF0D-41D7-8871-9B89D31BC37B@juniper.net>
Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2016 10:40:25 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <8A889AAA-05C6-4036-B05A-316FEB2C84E2@psc.edu>
References: <CE1331E4-3ECA-41D7-801F-05519778E8DA@cisco.com> <94f48779-14c8-0ec0-93ef-69eeba49e5be@gmail.com> <8B6BA07A-D636-4D8C-8B02-A5CB05538AAF@cisco.com> <AAC9E38F-BF0D-41D7-8871-9B89D31BC37B@juniper.net>
To: "John G. Scudder" <jgs@juniper.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/epTCtJIdwvX5_ubM92J75LkCUkE>
Cc: "draft-ietf-idr-large-community@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-idr-large-community@ietf.org>, "idr-chairs@ietf.org" <idr-chairs@ietf.org>, "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Idr] AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-large-community-09
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: Fri, 02 Dec 2016 15:40:36 -0000

> On 2 Dec 2016, at 08:57, John G. Scudder <jgs@juniper.net> wrote:
> 
> On Dec 2, 2016, at 8:46 AM, Alvaro Retana (aretana) <aretana@cisco.com> wrote:
>> Removing and ignoring are obviously different things…  The text above is fine with me, but I would ask: what do the current implementations do?  If they remove (as originally specified), then I would suggest you keep that.
> 
> What do you think would be a good minimal change to clarify? How about changing the word "duplicate" to "redundant"?
> 
> OLD:
>   Duplicate BGP Large Community values MUST NOT be transmitted.  A
>   receiving speaker MUST silently remove duplicate BGP Large Community
>   values from a BGP Large Community attribute.
> 
> NEW:
>   Duplicate BGP Large Community values MUST NOT be transmitted.  A
>   receiving speaker MUST silently remove redundant BGP Large Community
>   values from a BGP Large Community attribute.

Just for clarification:  Does "speaker" in this context refer to a BGP speaker implementing large communities, and, by inference, excludes BGP speakers not supporting large communities?

Thanks,

Michael

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email