Re: [Idr] Adoption call for draft-heitz-idr-wklc-02 (3/9 to 3/23)

Aijun Wang <> Wed, 10 March 2021 06:30 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEB423A1B82 for <>; Tue, 9 Mar 2021 22:30:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.917
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.917 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QSj9XdaGVyWb for <>; Tue, 9 Mar 2021 22:30:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6622C3A1B83 for <>; Tue, 9 Mar 2021 22:30:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from DESKTOP2IOH5QC (unknown []) by (Hmail) with ESMTPA id 0A5511C0164; Wed, 10 Mar 2021 14:30:47 +0800 (CST)
From: Aijun Wang <>
To: "'Jakob Heitz (jheitz)'" <>, 'Susan Hares' <>,
References: <008101d714cd$61b8ef40$252acdc0$> <002901d71561$eba921e0$c2fb65a0$> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2021 14:30:46 +0800
Message-ID: <005d01d71576$e782c430$b6884c90$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_005E_01D715B9.F5A9FBD0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQJvcj0R8Qs6aQobRHSBIRBfDNfi2gF+7c2TAb2SKKWpMiRe8A==
Content-Language: zh-cn
X-HM-Tid: 0a781ad4a666d993kuws0a5511c0164
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Adoption call for draft-heitz-idr-wklc-02 (3/9 to 3/23)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2021 06:30:56 -0000

Would you like to describe the situation that the “well-known communities”
is not enough to tag the BGP routes?


From: Jakob Heitz (jheitz) <> 
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2021 2:21 PM
To: Aijun Wang <>; 'Susan Hares' <>;
Subject: RE: [Idr] Adoption call for draft-heitz-idr-wklc-02 (3/9 to 3/23)


Well known communities have no data field.

Well known large communities have 10 octets of data available for each WKLC.


1. Yes, "type" is meant to be WKLC ID. Thanks for finding it. I'll fix it.


2. the 10 octets of data are divided into 3 fields for convenience of

    I did state that any specific WKLC may define another division.

    Maybe it would be easier to just put 10 octets free form with fields to
be defined by each specific WKLC as it is defined.


3. Same answer as for 2. 3 data fields is suggested, as it looks to be the
most convenient division for the most likely applications. Perhaps you can
come up with better wording?





From: Idr < <> > On Behalf Of
Aijun Wang
Sent: Tuesday, March 9, 2021 8:01 PM
To: 'Susan Hares' < <> >;
Subject: Re: [Idr] Adoption call for draft-heitz-idr-wklc-02 (3/9 to 3/23)




Considering the communities is used mainly for the tag of BGP routes. 

And as also mentioned in your draft, that there are only about 22 well-known
communites have been used so far. Then what’s the necessary to
define/reserve the well-known large communities?

Why the current well-known
well-known-communities.xhtml#bgp-well-known-communities-1) can’t be used to
accommodate the requirements, which is not stated in the draft?


And, after reading the current version of the draft, some confusions are

1.     Where is the “type” filed, that you mentioned in, are
you referring the “WKLC ID” field in your encoding?

2.     The length of LC is 12 octets, as defined in, why you just use 10 octets,
and want also to encourage the user to follow the canonical representation
of RFC8092?

3.     From my understanding, your draft just want to reserve some 4 bytes
AS range for the “Global Administrator” part of the large community, is
that right? If so, what’s necessary to divide it into three parts?



Best Regards


Aijun Wang

China Telecom


From: <>  <idr-bounces@ietf.
org <> > On Behalf Of Susan Hares
Sent: Tuesday, March 9, 2021 6:17 PM
To: <> 
Subject: [Idr] Adoption call for draft-heitz-idr-wklc-02 (3/9 to 3/23)


This begins a WG Adoption call for draft-heitz-idr-wklc-02.txt.


In your review of this draft, please consider: 


1) Should IDR standardize a set of “well known large communities”? 

2) Will the transitivity field help these well know large communities?

3) Is this document ready for adoption? 


I’ve not received Sriram’s IPR statement.  If this statement is not
received within 1 week, this WG adoption call will pause waiting for that


Cheers, Susan Hares