Re: [Idr] Adoption call for draft-heitz-idr-wklc-02 (3/9 to 3/23)

Aijun Wang <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn> Wed, 10 March 2021 08:10 UTC

Return-Path: <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn>
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 924203A1EA8 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Mar 2021 00:10:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.918
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.918 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 M9VxIFfdgIoG for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Mar 2021 00:10:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-m17638.qiye.163.com (mail-m17638.qiye.163.com [59.111.176.38]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F40FF3A1EA5 for <idr@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Mar 2021 00:10:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from DESKTOP2IOH5QC (unknown [219.142.69.75]) by mail-m17638.qiye.163.com (Hmail) with ESMTPA id 500FA1C01B6; Wed, 10 Mar 2021 16:10:42 +0800 (CST)
From: "Aijun Wang" <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn>
To: "'Jakob Heitz \(jheitz\)'" <jheitz@cisco.com>, "'Susan Hares'" <shares@ndzh.com>, <idr@ietf.org>
References: <008101d714cd$61b8ef40$252acdc0$@ndzh.com> <002901d71561$eba921e0$c2fb65a0$@tsinghua.org.cn> <BYAPR11MB3207A3E46EE57EBA0441D769C0919@BYAPR11MB3207.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <005d01d71576$e782c430$b6884c90$@tsinghua.org.cn> <BYAPR11MB32076258C1A1FF0D2B5C4B87C0919@BYAPR11MB3207.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <BYAPR11MB32076258C1A1FF0D2B5C4B87C0919@BYAPR11MB3207.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2021 16:10:41 +0800
Message-ID: <008101d71584$dcfacf90$96f06eb0$@tsinghua.org.cn>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0082_01D715C7.EB200B60"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQJvcj0R8Qs6aQobRHSBIRBfDNfi2gF+7c2TAb2SKKUCv6RBCgIXxIEDqQt7MeA=
Content-Language: zh-cn
X-HM-Spam-Status: e1kfGhgUHx5ZQUtXWQgYFAkeWUFZS1VLWVdZKFlBSkxLS0o3V1ktWUFJV1 kPCRoVCBIfWUFZTU9DSkkZSU8fQxlLVkpNSk5ITUhDT0lOTEJVEwETFhoSFyQUDg9ZV1kWGg8SFR 0UWUFZT0tIVUpKS0hNSlVLWQY+
X-HM-Sender-Digest: e1kMHhlZQR0aFwgeV1kSHx4VD1lBWUc6MhA6Nxw*Nz8KVgxKUTACEhcq Cg5PCz5VSlVKTUpOSE1IQ09IS0tLVTMWGhIXVQwaFRwaEhEOFTsPCBIVHBMOGlUUCRxVGBVFWVdZ EgtZQVlJSkJVSk9JVU1CVUxOWVdZCAFZQUhPTktKNwY+
X-HM-Tid: 0a781b30217ed993kuws500fa1c01b6
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/gMNX5HtvVxbeH7a7Da-lxcHQdA4>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Adoption call for draft-heitz-idr-wklc-02 (3/9 to 3/23)
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Wed, 10 Mar 2021 08:10:50 -0000

How about just reserve the 4-byte AS range for the well-known large
community, and leave the other 8-bytes be defined by each WKLC as that done
in
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-grow-route-leak-detection-mitigation-
04?

I think such arrangement will be conformed with the definition of
LC(RFC8092), also aligned with the proposed DO large community?

 

Or else, the DO large community should be modified to follow your proposal?

And, what the reason to assign the “111101”value in the first 6bit your
encoding? It is not conformed to general definition of large community, in
which the first 4-bytes is to identify the Global Administrator.

 

From: Jakob Heitz (jheitz) <jheitz@cisco.com> 
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2021 2:50 PM
To: Aijun Wang <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn>cn>; 'Susan Hares' <shares@ndzh.com>om>;
idr@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Idr] Adoption call for draft-heitz-idr-wklc-02 (3/9 to 3/23)

 

When the tag requires additional data. For example, when it is necessary to

know which AS added the tag. Then that ASN can be written into the data
field.

For example,
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-grow-route-leak-detection-mitigation-
04.

 

Regards,

Jakob.

 

From: Aijun Wang <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn
<mailto:wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn> > 
Sent: Tuesday, March 9, 2021 10:31 PM
To: Jakob Heitz (jheitz) <jheitz@cisco.com <mailto:jheitz@cisco.com> >;
'Susan Hares' <shares@ndzh.com <mailto:shares@ndzh.com> >; idr@ietf.org
<mailto:idr@ietf.org> 
Subject: RE: [Idr] Adoption call for draft-heitz-idr-wklc-02 (3/9 to 3/23)

 

Would you like to describe the situation that the “well-known communities”
is not enough to tag the BGP routes?

 

From: Jakob Heitz (jheitz) <jheitz@cisco.com <mailto:jheitz@cisco.com> > 
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2021 2:21 PM
To: Aijun Wang <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn <mailto:wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn>
>; 'Susan Hares' <shares@ndzh.com <mailto:shares@ndzh.com> >; idr@ietf.org
<mailto:idr@ietf.org> 
Subject: RE: [Idr] Adoption call for draft-heitz-idr-wklc-02 (3/9 to 3/23)

 

Well known communities have no data field.

Well known large communities have 10 octets of data available for each WKLC.

 

1. Yes, "type" is meant to be WKLC ID. Thanks for finding it. I'll fix it.

 

2. the 10 octets of data are divided into 3 fields for convenience of
representation.

    I did state that any specific WKLC may define another division.

    Maybe it would be easier to just put 10 octets free form with fields to
be defined by each specific WKLC as it is defined.

 

3. Same answer as for 2. 3 data fields is suggested, as it looks to be the
most convenient division for the most likely applications. Perhaps you can
come up with better wording?

 

Regards,

Jakob.

 

From: Idr <idr-bounces@ietf.org <mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org> > On Behalf Of
Aijun Wang
Sent: Tuesday, March 9, 2021 8:01 PM
To: 'Susan Hares' <shares@ndzh.com <mailto:shares@ndzh.com> >; idr@ietf.org
<mailto:idr@ietf.org> 
Subject: Re: [Idr] Adoption call for draft-heitz-idr-wklc-02 (3/9 to 3/23)

 

Hi,Jakob:

 

Considering the communities is used mainly for the tag of BGP routes. 

And as also mentioned in your draft, that there are only about 22 well-known
communites have been used so far. Then what’s the necessary to
define/reserve the well-known large communities?

Why the current well-known
communities(https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-well-known-communities/bgp-
well-known-communities.xhtml#bgp-well-known-communities-1) can’t be used to
accommodate the requirements, which is not stated in the draft?

 

And, after reading the current version of the draft, some confusions are
raised:

1.     Where is the “type” filed, that you mentioned in
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-heitz-idr-wklc-02#section-4, are
you referring the “WKLC ID” field in your encoding?

2.     The length of LC is 12 octets, as defined in
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8092, why you just use 10 octets,
and want also to encourage the user to follow the canonical representation
of RFC8092?

3.     From my understanding, your draft just want to reserve some 4 bytes
AS range for the “Global Administrator” part of the large community, is
that right? If so, what’s necessary to divide it into three parts?

 

 

Best Regards

 

Aijun Wang

China Telecom

 

From: idr-bounces@ietf.org <mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org>  <idr-bounces@ietf.
org <mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org> > On Behalf Of Susan Hares
Sent: Tuesday, March 9, 2021 6:17 PM
To: idr@ietf.org <mailto:idr@ietf.org> 
Subject: [Idr] Adoption call for draft-heitz-idr-wklc-02 (3/9 to 3/23)

 

This begins a WG Adoption call for draft-heitz-idr-wklc-02.txt. 

 

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-heitz-idr-wklc/

 

In your review of this draft, please consider: 

 

1) Should IDR standardize a set of “well known large communities”? 

2) Will the transitivity field help these well know large communities?

3) Is this document ready for adoption? 

 

I’ve not received Sriram’s IPR statement.  If this statement is not
received within 1 week, this WG adoption call will pause waiting for that
statement. 

 

Cheers, Susan Hares