Re: [Idr] Early allocations and other ways to avoid squatting on code points

Keyur Patel <keyur@arrcus.com> Tue, 01 November 2016 17:03 UTC

Return-Path: <keyur@arrcus.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 AD311129479 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Nov 2016 10:03:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.922
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.922 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, 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=netorgft1331857.onmicrosoft.com
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 910E1ePLCyLs for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Nov 2016 10:03:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from NAM01-BY2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-by2nam01on0050.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.34.50]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D28DC129561 for <idr@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Nov 2016 10:03:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=NETORGFT1331857.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-arrcus-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=Q54nPj33umK8uZLrBT+m8HwXBJ2Ool7wmmSXRbjBMLE=; b=CHciNToNDugIez30LaIgsW0sLKqIGp6wLRiN+MvzAfUIk9x0RdUhRSpjZhrjxGxPhY/87CLLcYgbwjweyf/a2C50Wz2DXxr33KcXau2Vg4fpyFTefdfVCwORhzObpL7EX+E+YFs8Znto6BupjCKlPLsDdh7wSWetTs/R4FyI+vg=
Received: from BY2PR18MB0262.namprd18.prod.outlook.com (10.163.72.152) by BY2PR18MB0263.namprd18.prod.outlook.com (10.163.72.153) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P384) id 15.1.693.12; Tue, 1 Nov 2016 17:03:23 +0000
Received: from BY2PR18MB0262.namprd18.prod.outlook.com ([10.163.72.152]) by BY2PR18MB0262.namprd18.prod.outlook.com ([10.163.72.152]) with mapi id 15.01.0693.009; Tue, 1 Nov 2016 17:03:22 +0000
From: Keyur Patel <keyur@arrcus.com>
To: "Jakob Heitz (jheitz)" <jheitz@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: [Idr] Early allocations and other ways to avoid squatting on code points
Thread-Index: AQHSNF86XZS4wAjYq0aSyuh/AAdkJ6DEWvaR
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 17:03:22 +0000
Message-ID: <960A93B5-2D91-4247-B8BD-51BA7B38A9C6@arrcus.com>
References: <169A4C1A-302E-4FE0-841A-ADA63E812E1F@juniper.net> <20161101133240.GK1581@hanna.meerval.net> <CA+b+ERnh8MMDgCoviLDRvOxbOky=8pBtHC8Z-WCQr6xFF_ZzGQ@mail.gmail.com> <20161101141229.GK1589@hanna.meerval.net> <CA+b+ERmfW0vVXgqrxqNajZhJS3aDXD6kG7xzMFjsuk4bBNLvnQ@mail.gmail.com> <20161101142807.GL1589@hanna.meerval.net> <CA+b+ERkKicRi2qAcm=t3LHyVcqe5J1=Ba=QLsFuCGUv+oMRwFg@mail.gmail.com> <89B7215E-505D-4EEF-94E6-DB9B7CC23A8D@juniper.net>, <c10ad1e738a442eba50440803befbc8c@XCH-ALN-014.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <c10ad1e738a442eba50440803befbc8c@XCH-ALN-014.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=keyur@arrcus.com;
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-originating-ip: [67.169.5.26]
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 8221430c-4688-445c-75ed-08d40278fcfd
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; BY2PR18MB0263; 7:u85jXnS5UX3oIqr8j6+BVlPjTmGthFghmVG7OD+KwKUKCB5Iac5p6a9fAjg2ImcrNKvKIhdZerrzqAihaBjJFzPlnG1w/Ne6JhbJDwFJRK2JhcTNvFgm769LP40y5P84oD+9VaBUU9N70tUSuzo1X/5A/FkZS/kHrEfLzaRC9VLIBJ1GSETdLlsRPDl8LJWd5vXXanVeYom2KhiBRDUCI5+BlazsSoidDUtuKU+Pd4knh4VOi2vywfizZ0BTY/asBItHfCWGGPKgLxiXKt7t9BZvewiBHc14DUA4dQSnYCgvo6Qa8eoQ5VFYJbssf+1yd5Yr+zPnJF/kD5nvaniimPe+eJsFhKwDPf8WEzbp2oA=
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:BY2PR18MB0263;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BY2PR18MB0263421C46B71B379EECBA9EC1A10@BY2PR18MB0263.namprd18.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(120809045254105)(95692535739014);
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(6040176)(601004)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(3002001)(10201501046)(6043046)(6042046); SRVR:BY2PR18MB0263; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BY2PR18MB0263;
x-forefront-prvs: 01136D2D90
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(6009001)(7916002)(24454002)(13464003)(377454003)(199003)(189002)(8936002)(8676002)(10400500002)(2906002)(19580395003)(19580405001)(93886004)(81166006)(36756003)(81156014)(110136003)(122556002)(9886003)(82746002)(2950100002)(2900100001)(77096005)(68736007)(92566002)(15975445007)(83716003)(6916009)(5660300001)(66066001)(3660700001)(189998001)(106356001)(50986999)(106116001)(99286002)(101416001)(5003630100001)(105586002)(87936001)(76176999)(7846002)(54356999)(8666005)(586003)(3846002)(102836003)(6116002)(33656002)(561944003)(86362001)(305945005)(7736002)(3280700002)(4326007)(5002640100001)(97736004)(7059030)(104396002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:BY2PR18MB0263; H:BY2PR18MB0262.namprd18.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: arrcus.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: arrcus.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 01 Nov 2016 17:03:22.6539 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 697b3529-5c2b-40cf-a019-193eb78f6820
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BY2PR18MB0263
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/gVsv5PUJgun896t3sSiBlirIUmY>
Cc: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>, IETF IDR Working Group <idr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Early allocations and other ways to avoid squatting on code points
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: Tue, 01 Nov 2016 17:03:34 -0000

+1. 

Regards,
Keyur

Sent from my iPhone

> On Nov 1, 2016, at 9:44 AM, Jakob Heitz (jheitz) <jheitz@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> I support an early attribute code allocation for wide communities.
> I'm happy for it to have 129 if that's what it's been using.
> Of course, it's not my call to make, just my opinion.
> 
> Thanks,
> Jakob.
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of John G. Scudder
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2016 8:05 AM
>> To: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
>> Cc: IETF IDR Working Group <idr@ietf.org>
>> Subject: [Idr] Early allocations and other ways to avoid squatting on code points
>> 
>> I have changed the subject line to reflect the fact we are off on a tangent and no longer relevant to adoption of
>> the draft in question.
>> 
>>> On Nov 1, 2016, at 10:41 AM, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> wrote:
>>> ​Few days back You and others complained that Wide was not implemented by anyone for so many years. Now when we see
>> it actually was implemented at least by few BGP code basis ​it is again bad.
>> 
>> I'm not sure what you mean by "it is again bad" but see the message I just sent -- we were not asked for an
>> allocation for the code base in question (not sure what other code bases you are including in "few", I think one was
>> reported).
>> 
>> When the question of early allocation for wide came up recently (I don't recall if it was on the list, in private
>> email, in conversation or what, sorry) my feedback was to ask whether wide satisfies the stability requirement given
>> in RFC 7120 Section 2 (c). Certainly if there is need for an allocation for wide and it can satisfy the RFC 7120
>> requirements, let's do it. If it can't satisfy the requirements, read on:
>> 
>>> So to me the problem we need to solve is how to allow early implementations for any proposal on the table
>> especially now when we have no two but at least 8 production BGP implementations (and growing). Forbidding it does
>> not seems to me like a solution to the main problem.
>> 
>> I expect we will be discussing this at our upcoming meeting, although that's no reason not to continue the
>> conversation on the list right now, on the contrary. Jeff has also written a draft that tries to address the problem,
>> he posted a pointer to it yesterday, https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-haas-idr-extended-experimental/
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> --John
>> _______________________________________________
>> Idr mailing list
>> Idr@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr