Re: [Idr] Question about BGP Large Communities

"Jakob Heitz (jheitz)" <jheitz@cisco.com> Wed, 05 February 2020 01:44 UTC

Return-Path: <jheitz@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 2D681120115; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 17:44:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, BODY_ENHANCEMENT=0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 header.b=Q+8dzA2i; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=sd0HBd/p
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 hnFA5TN179yt; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 17:44:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-6.cisco.com (alln-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.142.93]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B335112006E; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 17:44:04 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3331; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1580867044; x=1582076644; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=eDD9TQdOdOJ3X72lUch180UGxbvRqMsbnAR4NO9GL88=; b=Q+8dzA2iQjEMeMHE34+rh9JOD+HM6s2rqqI23i9cnQd+nmzAySn94L+v 2o8JZ3Z8H6PRkJF95rgKGbegdV9O6BxRmx069lMRCrr8Dg2gYzO4JF8Kl lHCN6dXc1w0eapCFjw3qHVFsnx330DDuqyN5jRrnKLZH2x6y+9XA3Ij1r E=;
IronPort-PHdr: =?us-ascii?q?9a23=3A4V6bXR+rc0Ej7/9uRHGN82YQeigqvan1NQcJ65?= =?us-ascii?q?0hzqhDabmn44+/bR7E/fs4iljPUM2b8P9Ch+fM+4HYEW0bqdfk0jgZdYBUER?= =?us-ascii?q?oMiMEYhQslVcyFBEznPtbhbjcxG4JJU1o2t3w=3D?=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AmAAC/HDpe/5tdJa1lGwEBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?FAQEBEQEBAwMBAQGBaAUBAQELAYFTKScFgUQgBAsqCodRA4sCgl+JYY4ugS4?= =?us-ascii?q?UgRADVAkBAQEMAQEtAgEBhEACgjckNQgOAgMNAQEEAQEBAgEFBG2FNwyFZgE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQECARIoBgEBNwELBAIBCBEEAQEfECERHQgBAQQBDQUIGoMvAYIfAw4gAaF?= =?us-ascii?q?GAoE5iGKCJ4J/AQEFhTENC4IMCYE4AYwhGoFBP4EQAUeCTD6CG4F7ARIBIyS?= =?us-ascii?q?DHIIsryNECoI7khmERZsIjmGLD5ALAgQCBAUCDgEBBYFUAzRncXAVgydQGA2?= =?us-ascii?q?OHQeDbIpTdAKBJ4pggSIBgQ8BAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.70,404,1574121600"; d="scan'208";a="443992171"
Received: from rcdn-core-4.cisco.com ([173.37.93.155]) by alln-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 05 Feb 2020 01:44:03 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-007.cisco.com (xch-rcd-007.cisco.com [173.37.102.17]) by rcdn-core-4.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 0151i3FY027316 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 5 Feb 2020 01:44:03 GMT
Received: from xhs-aln-003.cisco.com (173.37.135.120) by XCH-RCD-007.cisco.com (173.37.102.17) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 19:44:03 -0600
Received: from xhs-rcd-003.cisco.com (173.37.227.248) by xhs-aln-003.cisco.com (173.37.135.120) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 19:44:02 -0600
Received: from NAM10-MW2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (72.163.14.9) by xhs-rcd-003.cisco.com (173.37.227.248) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3 via Frontend Transport; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 19:44:02 -0600
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=PbBlk/9iJ48YxQsKoTP6LloPToOg5zWbz3gB26/ApaTS9dmvNAdRK1NiOEPLAXrBKn1DMv/v/U6hBMZZXIieAaWBoYeZQxgmdx+/K0k3SlNYvmShEfzI+MzYM9rnl7v5/gWJxlJNoRZnH5at1MtzcIrZ4moJ8WEDUCZ0hn75hJb2BmeDwM6mEy3HzJXRujbg6t5E8jZSk+2KXgqX3eB5KOBR5gb/TVySY0+S39yuabRK3EpkMe5tswf4J/h+OBZw5hXo3kztGiLMlGSooIcl/SEZLEYG4bcO4gDsCoWBVI4LJwKsBDVgk2Bhx162heVjx7Jjj/ZEc5ZXr1GUhqmSag==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=Rivuql42d1o3OcjdBs8cUYAyZS9qlUacMsRDICAgABQ=; b=EMPH8vF1pFAv/Cdp+EjgIwR9N9Pb96bKNu6ueqe09PW0H5kF4a802ClE+fMjK4nc0u1bxwVd/u4g2mx4xsA16pDOAtDCja8r+Q5cTwwa1v/nbMpIKnNYF0IkzGKdsQZvkoQVqTafac1Ll+D6cVCn6tH1HHLm8seNMma5dAAgcFgeKoMWmmU9512VTdn7yYklwXMLM2PWx6zSEeUAqvnMS94MtYglfNqRPcL8Xj3DlN/KavrBLLyeLRCm+aKAWFUXBJ8xwW9bRhi0ZI9iTg7Pi70b5QBBjMQIThWK6ikgmxugT6rlpF/XQfXN0qjbUhUOi+gn6aI/L7vAaGyzUGX37A==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cisco.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=cisco.com; dkim=pass header.d=cisco.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=Rivuql42d1o3OcjdBs8cUYAyZS9qlUacMsRDICAgABQ=; b=sd0HBd/p1HqIw+39M0YTEdI+NSUxn4M/lU8/TyBeDgoh2pNe/9qmOYknnygcSTeHF9K3HosCh0CUKX0DxuoY6KJelZ45vN9X8VHh+36vCNbWzxKAGiSPCjt0VrO7pkzhAwZHytgBWSsDWe/KlvksI18UHK/QRnBKSgnxMPgqNe8=
Received: from MWHPR11MB1901.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (10.175.54.12) by MWHPR11MB2047.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (10.169.237.12) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2686.27; Wed, 5 Feb 2020 01:44:01 +0000
Received: from MWHPR11MB1901.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::5109:65e6:5d:db41]) by MWHPR11MB1901.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::5109:65e6:5d:db41%3]) with mapi id 15.20.2707.020; Wed, 5 Feb 2020 01:44:01 +0000
From: "Jakob Heitz (jheitz)" <jheitz@cisco.com>
To: "Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed)" <kotikalapudi.sriram@nist.gov>, John Heasly <heas@shrubbery.net>
CC: "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>, "grow@ietf.org" <grow@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Question about BGP Large Communities
Thread-Index: AdXbeNI4t0SppYFnSky8PqLGmuct1gAIu5NAAASXzAAAA08B8AACeZhw
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2020 01:44:01 +0000
Message-ID: <MWHPR11MB190134212E928A89A0120288C0020@MWHPR11MB1901.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <DM6PR09MB54489301E52DD711E031400984030@DM6PR09MB5448.namprd09.prod.outlook.com> <BN6PR11MB1890AA431F63030DFE310902C0030@BN6PR11MB1890.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <20200204225458.GB57481@shrubbery.net> <DM6PR09MB544817A892B1F331E972DF9384020@DM6PR09MB5448.namprd09.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <DM6PR09MB544817A892B1F331E972DF9384020@DM6PR09MB5448.namprd09.prod.outlook.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=jheitz@cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [128.107.241.189]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: fd2dda23-0e45-46b8-5f07-08d7a9dce016
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: MWHPR11MB2047:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <MWHPR11MB2047E78A0E69EA20F7C3F4E5C0020@MWHPR11MB2047.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-forefront-prvs: 0304E36CA3
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(4636009)(376002)(346002)(39860400002)(136003)(366004)(396003)(189003)(199004)(66446008)(66946007)(66556008)(66476007)(26005)(64756008)(76116006)(2906002)(110136005)(33656002)(316002)(4326008)(478600001)(55016002)(54906003)(9686003)(186003)(8936002)(81166006)(81156014)(53546011)(86362001)(6506007)(8676002)(5660300002)(71200400001)(52536014)(7696005); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:MWHPR11MB2047; H:MWHPR11MB1901.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: cisco.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: UHeSiqWmaJwrrxe+8Q8ywCIEjzUdUnMQmsjJxiUeLlKNF17/91oya/1AH3W79Ik8PK+D2+CsUBTHgxKtZ0znLrcgSt2LvGhb3ea+n7NJzXH7UtCI5dJNIhKDQCQCkp21oMgqLKMnONxxCFJ88No+P7dNxtv762VG1hW5ELoFz4CmSLBiIaIbicNMUwd6FEVygs2q/QwLWv0IVHo8sPoossAg6dydVJJlt36ehmKjwcQEYdyFEaK/X5TYqrc8xVCnfDCKkhNFQk4GMMCuOxMEQLfGuyTjryy6plwiZOGyDpjO/loUctC84GGWhYkZ/b8DMO2zBa+75kTepTYHUG3qDYtSatVGl5EzG4q7UlD/oZZgUF6+5PTWhZYzLhbrosCdoC/MXLDhoGU4plmx7zJA8yRXZzmaMtv7oGPGwQryr6gN6WTfxBm6Et3Fyy33D6lw
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: gCKfe1CVtqxG2FXBw0Rvufp3Z/dlPJ2XLCZWVB/JNYiGCcmKW6hNmlv/O9aNl+KkwuOQ14TawXq9wgZ7kNr0RYUi9f7DvzbdRS+Bj4gEj1nu4zVC829YBOuSQrXyL/cWcbjUPz8D+FSUE27zCUkD+A==
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: fd2dda23-0e45-46b8-5f07-08d7a9dce016
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 05 Feb 2020 01:44:01.2466 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: 9kA+q5ZOWf0QM3MhPJNWemXyE4bYchRwr50DbpwmKEd3AskEGM4waI2hR+dflIYXaRmjJU9mmJYkjZWbXGAsWA==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: MWHPR11MB2047
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.37.102.17, xch-rcd-007.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-4.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/j-wKN4BG7tooK7wEaGIvKyXm9jU>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Question about BGP Large Communities
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Wed, 05 Feb 2020 01:44:07 -0000

I'm asking for 67 million AS numbers, after which there will still be over 4 billion AS numbers,
not including the nearly 95 million private AS numbers.
That's not much more than your 1024.

Regards,
Jakob.

-----Original Message-----
From: Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed) <kotikalapudi.sriram@nist.gov> 
Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2020 5:29 PM
To: John Heasly <heas@shrubbery.net>et>; Jakob Heitz (jheitz) <jheitz@cisco.com>
Cc: idr@ietf.org; grow@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Question about BGP Large Communities

> > Does anyone want to co-author and suggest changes?
I would also be glad to participate in that effort.

I have looked at the proposals in the two drafts (Jacob and John H).  
There are a few observations I would like to share.

As Alvaro pointed out, RFC 8092 says:
   This document defines the BGP Large Communities attribute as an
   optional transitive path attribute of variable length.

That means *all* BGP Large Communities are transitive. Do you agree?
RFC 8195 seems to be written in that spirit as well. 

The first 32 bits together are a Global Administrator (GA) ID.
So, it seems it would not be possible to use any part of it as data.
Otherwise, collisions (ambiguity) could happen when 
other LCs use 4-octet ASNs in the Global Administrator field. Agree?
I see Jacob's draft proposes using some portion of the first 32 bits as data.
The draft that John Heasly shared sets the first 32-bits to ASN value 0
to designate WK-LC;  so no part of the first 32-bits is data.

Another idea to consider: 
Why not request IANA to assign a range of 256 or 1024 or some number (?) 
of 4-byte ASN values to be allocated and used as GA ID for transitive WK-LCs?
A function (e.g., route-leak protection) that requires transitive WK-LC 
will be allocated one these ASN values.
Then we don't waste any part of the first 32-bits to designate "type" of LC.
That cleanly leaves 64 bits for local data (as RFC 8092 specifies)
which can accommodate two 4-byte ASNs if needed.

Sriram

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Heasly <heas@shrubbery.net>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2020 5:55 PM
> To: Jakob Heitz (jheitz) <jheitz@cisco.com>
> Cc: Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed) <kotikalapudi.sriram@nist.gov>ov>; Job Snijders
> <job@ntt.net>et>; Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>rg>; John Heasly
> <heas@shrubbery.net>et>; idr@ietf.org; grow@ietf.org; idr-chairs@ietf.org;
> grow-chairs@ietf.org; a.e.azimov@gmail.com; Brian Dickson
> <brian.peter.dickson@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: Question about BGP Large Communities
> 
> Tue, Feb 04, 2020 at 08:45:40PM +0000, Jakob Heitz (jheitz):
> > A set of well known large communities could be useful.
> > I have a draft that I never submitted attached to this email.
> > Does anyone want to co-author and suggest changes?
> 
> Hey Jacob,
> I'd work on that with you.  Job, Morrow and I also started a draft for
> Large WKCs, but we have not submitted anything - nor made any recent
> progress.
> 
> IIRC, the direction we were intending to use 0 (zero) as the ASN, then
> define local data part 1 as WKC itself, and local data part 2 to be a
> value associated.
> 
> I've attached that I have written so far.  Job and Morrow may or may not
> endorse this approach at this point.
> 
> -heas