Re: [Idr] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-idr-large-community-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Thu, 05 January 2017 08:19 UTC

Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.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 F3F8D129AE2; Thu, 5 Jan 2017 00:19:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.621
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.621 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.1, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 38D_61E_ltp4; Thu, 5 Jan 2017 00:19:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aer-iport-2.cisco.com (aer-iport-2.cisco.com [173.38.203.52]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 66E9D1294C5; Thu, 5 Jan 2017 00:19:56 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=10496; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1483604396; x=1484813996; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=SxMeK8apFUJNMcDQwCNr57iw9E6OUQdnGK0ZcDN1NyU=; b=EY+6dn6Ow00mNjz1kREqBJfzTnVCKursGDWBNkfz27PnzNLb2P0z3NDt aV8QkuphJynWpViY2J+akOsh5ey0A9NfGq9VUI7hDPn05WoKI+IW3/ewb Xl2Auj+LiGW98X61D8ynf3fYET0Xv4hR/lRb1g+BLU+5Fqd+ob5x3vgpG U=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.33,320,1477958400"; d="scan'208,217";a="648514821"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-3.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 05 Jan 2017 08:19:54 +0000
Received: from [10.60.67.87] (ams-bclaise-8916.cisco.com [10.60.67.87]) by aer-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v058JrRg020670; Thu, 5 Jan 2017 08:19:54 GMT
To: "Jakob Heitz (jheitz)" <jheitz@cisco.com>, "John G. Scudder" <jgs@juniper.net>
References: <148354156226.13001.17853336045471596840.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <748483d7-df5c-e961-15f5-5aa76b784a7e@gmail.com> <af1e79a9-c188-23e4-3e45-0acacac049c8@cisco.com> <20170104161329.GD53926@Vurt.local> <503f746a-7530-388f-4ed7-6868e53b7ff4@cisco.com> <5ED073F1-7EB7-438F-81DE-7287D48831EB@juniper.net> <b4b6264470914c1d8527f323ee30211f@XCH-ALN-014.cisco.com>
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <c46c3450-f1ba-55c6-93a6-26fa0a8f74e4@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2017 09:19:54 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <b4b6264470914c1d8527f323ee30211f@XCH-ALN-014.cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------645259ED910EAF3265705E51"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/i1dpfKxC3sJf9N-1ET6SaM_pqhk>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 05 Jan 2017 05:04:46 -0800
Cc: "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>, "idr-chairs@ietf.org" <idr-chairs@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-idr-large-community@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-idr-large-community@ietf.org>, "rick.casarez@gmail.com" <rick.casarez@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-idr-large-community-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
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: Thu, 05 Jan 2017 08:19:59 -0000

Hi Jakob,
> There is no need to change the text.
>
> The attribute is in fact suitable for use with four-octet ASNs.
> Since all ASNs can be represented in 4 octets, there is no problem.
And the document lacks this link to RFC6793 as I mentioned in my initial 
DISCUSS, most probably because it's so obvious to you guys in your 
community.
My reasoning has been:
     either you mention that two-octet ASN can be represented in 
four-octets (RFC6793)
     or you mention: suitable for all ASNs (2 or 4)

Ok, it seems that we're going in circle here.
You guys understood my issue. It was DISCUSSed. I believe the draft 
should be clearer, but this is not DISCUSS-level point any longer.
Moving to a COMMENT, and trusting the responsible shepherd and AD.

For the record, John's proposal solved the issue.

    OLD:
        The attribute is suitable for use with four-octet
        Autonomous System Numbers

    NEW:
        The attribute is suitable for use with all Autonomous System Numbers including four-octet
        Autonomous System Numbers


Regards, Benoit
>
> Thanks,
> Jakob.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: John G. Scudder [mailto:jgs@juniper.net]
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2017 11:51 AM
>> To: Benoit Claise (bclaise) <bclaise@cisco.com>;
>> Cc: Job Snijders <job@ntt.net>;; Ignas Bagdonas <ibagdona.ietf@gmail.com>;; The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>;; draft-ietf-idr-
>> large-community@ietf.org; idr-chairs@ietf.org; idr@ietf.org; rick.casarez@gmail.com
>> Subject: Re: Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-idr-large-community-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
>>
>> Benoit,
>>
>> I think the wording is accurate as written, but I see your point. I think your suggested wording is terse to a fault
>> since it abandons the important "this will work with your four-byte ASN" information. IMO a change is not strictly
>> needed, but if one is desired how about something like this?
>>
>> OLD:
>>     The attribute is suitable for use with four-octet
>>     Autonomous System Numbers
>>
>> NEW:
>>     The attribute is suitable for use with all Autonomous System Numbers including four-octet
>>     Autonomous System Numbers
>>
>> Or a lawyer would probably say :-)
>>     The attribute is suitable for use with, inter alia, four-octet
>>     Autonomous System Numbers
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> -John
>>
>>> On Jan 4, 2017, at 1:43 PM, Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>; wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Job,
>>>
>>> So basically, you're telling me: "The attribute is suitable for use with ASNs.", right?
>>> Is this what needs to be in the abstract?
>>>
>>> Regards, B.
>>>> Hi Benoit,
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 04:39:25PM +0100, Benoit Claise wrote:
>>>>>> Global Administrator field is a 4 octet integer that is used to carry AS
>>>>>> number but it is not mandatory to interpret it as an AS number only
>>>>>> (while a typical use case is for carrying AS number) - two peers can
>>>>>> agree on any value that has meaning between those peers. Representation
>>>>>> on the wire is in network byte order, and 2 byte AS number will get
>>>>>> naturally padded with two zero bytes in front. Virtually all deployments
>>>>>> today are AS4 capable and use AS4 encoding even for AS number values
>>>>>> that fit into 16 bit value range therefore AS number is a 4 octet entity
>>>>>> already.
>>>>> Then this sentence in the abstract "The attribute is suitable for use
>>>>> with four-octet ASNs." is misleading, right? At least to me. The
>>>>> attribute is suitable for four-octets ASNs and two-octets ASNs encoded
>>>>> in four-octets. This would be more in line with "This field SHOULD be
>>>>> an Autonomous System Number (ASN)" later on.
>>>> I am under the impression that nowadays the IETF community considers all
>>>> ASNs to be four-octet ASNs, however, some of those ASNs can be encoded
>>>> as a two octet value. The Large Communities specification is suitable
>>>> for usage in Autonomous Systems from all walks of life, where as rfc1997
>>>> communities are unsuitable for all ASNs, specifically those ASNs which
>>>> cannot be encoded as two-octet values.
>>>>
>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>
>>>> Job
>>>> .
>>>>
> .
>