Re: [Idr] Proposed IANA procedures for BGP Well-known communities

"Tony Li" <tony.li@tony.li> Thu, 17 July 2008 20:09 UTC

Return-Path: <idr-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: idr-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-idr-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FB523A6813; Thu, 17 Jul 2008 13:09:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: idr@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EADE3A6813 for <idr@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Jul 2008 13:09:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.3
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.300, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gsC4CTtecUg8 for <idr@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Jul 2008 13:09:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from QMTA07.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta07.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [76.96.62.64]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 776D53A67F8 for <idr@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Jul 2008 13:09:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from OMTA12.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.44]) by QMTA07.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id r0hT1Z0070xGWP8578AD1c; Thu, 17 Jul 2008 20:10:13 +0000
Received: from TONYLTM9XP ([155.53.41.237]) by OMTA12.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id r89w1Z004570qEr3Y89ywM; Thu, 17 Jul 2008 20:10:07 +0000
X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=D5NMEY0E_h8A:10 a=VEd5Tge-z3MA:10 a=zn03K2T_bEic4-wtPokA:9 a=__cFke2azsuRT3UCwREA:9 a=JAFBXa_YWMFifBCgwIoSaowWPWIA:4 a=M5NflSamuk0A:10
From: "Tony Li" <tony.li@tony.li>
To: "'David Ward'" <dward@cisco.com>, "'Jeffrey Haas'" <jhaas@pfrc.org>
References: <12433A6D-95F0-46B6-89C1-EEC6D425823C@cisco.com><20080717024718.GB21614@slice> <7814BA97-5E24-400D-95FD-6B6C97F1C239@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 13:09:55 -0700
Message-ID: <0D6A70C961EC4DD9A18857956E977E36@ad.redback.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
In-Reply-To: <7814BA97-5E24-400D-95FD-6B6C97F1C239@cisco.com>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5512
Thread-Index: AcjoRhp/ojY3IK7bSG+ma4JvSFxZ0QAAm9CQ
Cc: 'idr' <idr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Proposed IANA procedures for BGP Well-known communities
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: tony.li@tony.li
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org

Dave,

My concern is related and is perhaps entirely procedural.  If a "well-known"
community is supposed to have universal support and given that we already
have implementations in the field, how can any new community (or for that
matter, path attribute) truly become "well-known"?  We have to assume that
there will always be at least one box in the field that will not support it.

Further, if it's not practical to add to the set of "well-known"
communities, is there really a reason to have an IANA registry for that
subset?

Regards,
Tony


|>> Well-known Communities
|>>
|>>    The following communities have global significance and their
|>>    operations shall be implemented in any community-attribute- 
|>> aware  BGP
|>>    speaker.

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