IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Idr] 2 week WG adoption call for draft (5/31 to 6/14)

Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> Mon, 01 June 2015 23:00 UTC

Return-Path: <nick@foobar.org>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 850F31A1A8B for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Jun 2015 16:00:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 vAoQYN9hl9rS for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Jun 2015 16:00:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.netability.ie (mail.netability.ie [IPv6:2a03:8900:0:100::5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7959D1A1AFF for <idr@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Jun 2015 16:00:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Envelope-To: idr@ietf.org
Received: from cupcake.foobar.org ([IPv6:2001:4d68:2002:100:0:0:0:110]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.netability.ie (8.15.1/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id t51N0era069707 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 2 Jun 2015 00:00:41 +0100 (IST) (envelope-from nick@foobar.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: cheesecake.netability.ie: Host [IPv6:2001:4d68:2002:100:0:0:0:110] claimed to be cupcake.foobar.org
Message-ID: <556CE417.3070807@foobar.org>
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2015 00:00:39 +0100
From: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, 'IETF IDR Working Group' <idr@ietf.org>
References: <006801d09c15$ba8bba30$2fa32e90$@ndzh.com> <556CCBCA.6070308@foobar.org> <023501d09cb3$313ee970$93bcbc50$@ndzh.com>
In-Reply-To: <023501d09cb3$313ee970$93bcbc50$@ndzh.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/gOdXN_mNG2cNqL0-ar1N9isWi8k>
Cc: draft-raszuk-wide-bgp-communities@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Idr] 2 week WG adoption call for draft (5/31 to 6/14)
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Mon, 01 Jun 2015 23:00:45 -0000

On 01/06/2015 22:37, Susan Hares wrote:
> <WG chair hat off > I can understand how the draft will be complex to
> implement along with other communities.  Can you describe how you think the
> draft will be complicated to operate?   

Hi Sue,

At the moment, most operators use basic communities which require an match
/ comparison / regexp against what is basically an integer value.  This is
simple to express and match in pretty much all bgp implementation grammars.

raszuk-wide-bgp-communities requires that each community target be matched
against a complicated n-tuple of parameters - section 9 of the draft shows
some potential examples.  This makes the business of matching and managing
community values a much more complicated affair, particularly if you run in
a multivendor environment or else if your bgp communities cross AS boundaries.

Nick

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email