Re: [Idr] 2 week WG adoption call for draft (5/31 to 6/14)

[Shane Amante <[e-mail]>]

I am not aware of any IPR.

I support both documents.

-shane


> On May 31, 2015, at 7:50 PM, Susan Hares <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> This begins a 2 week WG adoption call for draft-raszuk-wide-bgp-communities and draft-raszuk-registered-wide-bgp-communities.   These drafts can be found at:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-raszuk-wide-bgp-communities/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-raszuk-wide-bgp-communities/>
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-raszuk-registered-wide-bgp-communities/ <http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-raszuk-registered-wide-bgp-communities/>
>  
> Authors (Robert Raszuk, Jeff Haas, Andrew Lange, Shane Amante, Bruno Decraene, Paul Jakma, and Richard Steenbergen) should indicate whether they know of any IPR.   Since this proposal relates to existing RFCs and IDR WG document (draft-ietf-idr-as4octet-extcomm-generic-subtype-07),  We have included a bit of history below.  At the 6/1/2015 interim (10:00 – 11:30am EDT), there will be a short review of the technology and time to discuss the draft with Robert Raszuk.
>  
> Please discuss  
> a)       If these drafts should be adopted in addition to draft-ietf-idr-as4octet-extcomm-generic-subtype-07,
> b)       whether the new flexible format is useful for BGP deployments, and
> c)       Any technical issues on the draft.
>  
> As always, indicate “support” or “no support” within the comment.
>  
> Sue Hares and John Scudder
>  
> =================
> A bit of history:
>  
> RFC 1997 defines the BGP Community attribute (except for 2 reserved ranges)
> as 4 octets [2 octets AS number, 2 octets local-defined value]. 
> RFC 4893 introduced 4 byte AS encoding, and suggested using
> extended communities [RFC 4360] to encoding 4 octet AS numbers.
>  
> RFC5668 defines a format for a four-octet AS specific extended
> community with a designated type field, and defines two
> sub-types: Four-octet specific Route Target extended community and
> Four-octet specific Route Origin extended community. 
> An IDR WG document: draft-ietf-idr-as4octet-extcomm-generic-subtype-07
> (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-as4octet-extcomm-generic-subtype-07 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-as4octet-extcomm-generic-subtype-07>)
> specifies a generic sub-type for the four-octet AS specific extended community.
>  
>     0                   1                   2                   3
>     0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
>     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>     | 0x02 or 0x42  |     0x04      |           Global              |
>     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>     |    Administrator              |    Local Administrator        |
>     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>  
>    Global Administrator sub-field: 4 octets
>    This sub-field contains a four-octet Autonomous System number.
>  
>    Local Administrator sub-field: 2 octets
>       This sub-field contains a value that can influence routing
>       policies. This value has semantics that are of significance for
>       the Autonomous System in the Global Administrator field.
>  
> [From draft-ietf-idr-as4octet-extcomm-generic-subtype-07]
>  
> Draft-raszuk-wide-bgp-communities suggests a new BGP Path Attribute,
> that provides more flexible encoding than these WG RFCs and draft.
>  
> The wide BGP header includes a Container header and community.
> The container header has:
>  
>       0                   1                   2                   3
>       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
>      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>      |             Type              |     Flags     |   Hop Count   |
>      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>      |            Length             |
>      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>       0                   1                   2                   3
>       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
>      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>      |               Registered/Local Community Value                |
>      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>      |                        Source AS Number                       |
>      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>      |                       Context AS Number                       |
>      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>      |            Wide Community Target(s) TLV (optional)            |
>      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>      |        Wide Community Exclude Target(s) TLV (optional)        |
>      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>      |          Wide Community Parameter(s) TLV (optional)           |
>      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>                     Figure 4: Wide BGP Community Type 1
>  
>  
>