Re: [Idr] Early allocation for wide communities [was: Re: BGP Attribute for Large communities (Attribute 30) was squatted on - Let's get a new attribute number (1 week WG call (10/18 to 10/25)]

"Susan Hares" <shares@ndzh.com> Tue, 18 October 2016 17:40 UTC

Return-Path: <shares@ndzh.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 B3AFD1296F0 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 10:40:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.945
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.945 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX=2.845] autolearn=no 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 12BbKsF1YqYs for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 10:40:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hickoryhill-consulting.com (50-245-122-97-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [50.245.122.97]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6D36A1296A6 for <idr@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 10:40:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=forwardok (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=199.187.221.190;
From: "Susan Hares" <shares@ndzh.com>
To: "'John G. Scudder'" <jgs@juniper.net>
References: <01f401d22950$7f988470$7ec98d50$@ndzh.com> <3BC2E5A3-380D-4F60-A719-6FA5E19FC839@pfrc.org> <001801d22963$11733630$3459a290$@ndzh.com> <019F0FC9-6751-42CD-BA26-3CB0B374748E@juniper.net>
In-Reply-To: <019F0FC9-6751-42CD-BA26-3CB0B374748E@juniper.net>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2016 13:38:51 -0400
Message-ID: <00e801d22966$7df0ecf0$79d2c6d0$@ndzh.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQGxOA6e5ti/ZI3ng6LJlnwAiipARgGREBAWAcDbSH0CB360z6DFjuIA
Content-Language: en-us
X-Authenticated-User: skh@ndzh.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/iL4NZ3oW74fo7j995pCKqJ6GOI0>
Cc: 'IETF IDR WG' <idr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Early allocation for wide communities [was: Re: BGP Attribute for Large communities (Attribute 30) was squatted on - Let's get a new attribute number (1 week WG call (10/18 to 10/25)]
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, 18 Oct 2016 17:40:36 -0000

John:

Another question is important, are there other wide-communities implementations.  Has anyone else implemented flowspecification? 

Sue 

-----Original Message-----
From: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of John G. Scudder
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 1:25 PM
To: Susan Hares
Cc: IETF IDR WG
Subject: [Idr] Early allocation for wide communities [was: Re: BGP Attribute for Large communities (Attribute 30) was squatted on - Let's get a new attribute number (1 week WG call (10/18 to 10/25)]

OK, if we're going straight to the early allocation request, let's fork the thread. Subject updated.

As a reminder, RFC 7120 gives the criteria for early allocation. The ones I think are relevant for this discussion:

   b.  The format, semantics, processing, and other rules related to
       handling the protocol entities defined by the code points
       (henceforth called "specifications") must be adequately described
       in an Internet-Draft.

IMO (speaking as a WG member) the current wide communities draft does this.

   c.  The specifications of these code points must be stable; i.e., if
       there is a change, implementations based on the earlier and later
       specifications must be seamlessly interoperable.

I am not sure this is true. Is it? 

   d.  The Working Group chairs and Area Directors (ADs) judge that
       there is sufficient interest in the community for early (pre-RFC)
       implementation and deployment, or that failure to make an early
       allocation might lead to contention for the code point in the
       field.

We can judge this based on response to this thread.

Thanks,

--John

On Oct 18, 2016, at 1:14 PM, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>; wrote:
> Jeff: 
>  
> This is a good idea to just make 129 an early allocation for wide communities. 
>  
> Sue 
>  
> From: Jeffrey Haas [mailto:jhaas@pfrc.org] 
> Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 11:19 AM
> To: Sue Hares
> Cc: IETF IDR WG; Kristian Larsson
> Subject: Re: [Idr] BGP Attribute for Large communities (Attribute 30) was squatted on - Let's get a new attribute number (1 week WG call (10/18 to 10/25)
>  
> Sue,
>  
> If 129 is not otherwise contended for, it may be reasonable to simply request early allocation for the wide communities code point.
>  
> -- Jeff
>  
>> On Oct 18, 2016, at 11:01 AM, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>; wrote:
>>  
>> WG: 
>>  
>> Early testing of the Large Communities draft (draft-ietf-idr-large-community-03.txt)  with attribute value of 30 detect that we had an implementation squatting on attribute 30 by a Huawei router.   “Squatting” on an attribute is anti-social behavior in the Internet in any release of software.  
>>  
>> The individuals who did in Huawei have been contacted by Jie Dong, and “asked” if they had made this mistake in any other attribute.   These individuals confessed to Attribute 129 (for wide communities).  These individuals apologize to the Working group.  
>>  
>> Now what shall we do? The large community draft is critical for several networks. After talking with the developers and operators, John and I would like to recommend we do the following: 
>>  
>> IDR should recommend that the following attribute numbers be deprecated:  
>>  
>> BGP Attribute 30 
>> BGP attribute 129 
>>  
>> IDR should ask IANA to assign BGP Large Communities (currently Attribute 30) to a new attribute number.  This is a 1 week call to determine if the IDR approves this action.   This call will allow the large communities draft to still continue with the 2 week WG LC.  
>>  
>> John, Alvaro, and I have check the early allocation rules.  Implementations should ask for early allocation prior to releasing, and they do not need to be interoperability testing to request the early allocation for the attribute. 
>>  
>> Sue Hares 
>>  
>>  
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
Idr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr