Re: [Idr] Review of draft-ietf-large-community-06.txt

"Susan Hares" <shares@ndzh.com> Fri, 04 November 2016 16:41 UTC

Return-Path: <shares@ndzh.com>
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 55E8512950D; Fri, 4 Nov 2016 09:41:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.946
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.946 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX=2.845, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] autolearn=no 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 ImyfdF0j26P1; Fri, 4 Nov 2016 09:41:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hickoryhill-consulting.com (50-245-122-97-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [50.245.122.97]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A9BDC1295C1; Fri, 4 Nov 2016 09:41:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=loggedin (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=50.36.175.1;
From: "Susan Hares" <shares@ndzh.com>
To: "'Jeffrey Haas'" <jhaas@pfrc.org>, "'Geoff Huston'" <gih@apnic.net>
References: <112dc01d235fd$57f9c370$07ed4a50$@ndzh.com> <C2DABF02-D3CB-4646-B869-FBCE5F05FDA1@apnic.net> <117ea01d23611$a28513e0$e78f3ba0$@ndzh.com> <CED07D95-A426-469C-85B4-DB2FBE52D14A@apnic.net> <4080cfba032744f590fcbbb710f0d618@XCH-ALN-014.cisco.com> <08C97932-4E8B-4EBC-B780-3A2F54A1EEF2@apnic.net> <C85C0950-8D91-4695-A28A-FC17B9E5AFDC@pfrc.org>
In-Reply-To: <C85C0950-8D91-4695-A28A-FC17B9E5AFDC@pfrc.org>
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 12:38:56 -0400
Message-ID: <043a01d236b9$f07058f0$d1510ad0$@ndzh.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_043B_01D23698.695F7C40"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQH7vYX/r5lvDTiDOvRZn6NWFj+MugIVEsE7AusR2FECKfMMFwHKxisSAhTYCDcBtVkRzqAQADnA
Content-Language: en-us
X-Authenticated-User: skh@ndzh.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/gJOF7NkShyqF89pGbKPtrQDbxm4>
Cc: 'IETF IDR WG' <idr@ietf.org>, rtg-dir@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Idr] Review of draft-ietf-large-community-06.txt
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, 04 Nov 2016 16:41:16 -0000

Jeff: 

 

Should atomic-aggregate be deemed "historical" at this point?  This can
happen in parallel to this work. 

 

Sue 

 

From: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Haas
Sent: Friday, November 4, 2016 6:34 AM
To: Geoff Huston
Cc: IETF IDR WG; Sue Hares; rtg-dir@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Idr] Review of draft-ietf-large-community-06.txt

 

 

On Nov 4, 2016, at 4:59 AM, Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net> wrote:

 

I just noted that RFC1997 and RFC4360 had these constraints.

It seems strange to me that an implementation would handle aggregation
differently, treating communities and extended communities one way and large
communities in a subtly different manner.

Frankly I would prefer to see a consistent treatment of communities in the
case of aggregation, and reproducxing the RFC4360 text kinda makes that
clear (at least to me)

Omitting it invites different handling and that would be not good

 

The relevant point from the thread is that the atomic-aggregate attribute is
largely protocol noise.  It's a vestigial organ from the BGP-3 to BGP-4
transition, and a poorly specified one at that.  We shouldn't include its
use in specifications, particularly where discussing aggregation.

 

The only place its discussion would be relevant is as part of
*de-*aggregation of a prefix.

 

-- Jeff