Re: [Idr] WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-large-community-03.txt (10/17/2016 to 10/31/2016)

[Mikael Abrahamsson <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, 19 Oct 2016, Brian Dickson wrote:

> Yes, the implementation should still "allow any value".

When I have created BGP route policies, I've several times asked myself 
the question "what will the vendor implementation do itself, and what do I 
need to do in my policy".

So for instance, do I need to implement the well-knowns myself, or is that 
something that I need to do in my policy? If I for operational reasons 
want the router to not do something (for instance I do want NO-EXPORT to 
traverse AS boundary), how do I do that?

I think here in the IETF we should always consider to have separate 
documents for what goes on the wire (compatibility reasons), and what the 
implementation should do with this information by default in case the user 
also can set policy.

The contents of the -large- fields and whether the implementation should 
check if this is true is a typical thing that the "wire" document should 
not over-specify. That should instead be an operational document, and that 
should involve GROW as well.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: [e-mail]