Re: [Idr] WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-large-community-03.txt (10/17/2016 to 10/31/2016)

Richard A Steenbergen <> Tue, 25 October 2016 15:01 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29AE01296A9 for <>; Tue, 25 Oct 2016 08:01:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.431
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.431 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.431] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sOVXgUYi1Fi0 for <>; Tue, 25 Oct 2016 08:00:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8048D129480 for <>; Tue, 25 Oct 2016 08:00:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (ras@localhost []) by (8.14.8/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u9PF0iwl057099 for <>; Tue, 25 Oct 2016 10:00:44 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from
Received: (from ras@localhost) by (8.14.8/8.14.8/Submit) id u9PF0i2I057098 for; Tue, 25 Oct 2016 10:00:44 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ras)
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2016 10:00:44 -0500
From: Richard A Steenbergen <>
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <20161021164241.GC32387@Vurt.local> <20161022123423.GD79185@Space.Net> <> <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-large-community-03.txt (10/17/2016 to 10/31/2016)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2016 15:01:01 -0000


As a network operator, and a listed author on the "competing" wide BGP 
communities draft, I'd like to make a few comments.

At the time I originally got involved in helping to create a "better" BGP 
community implementation (around 2010, IIRC), we were facing the rather 
serious problem that when 16-bit ASNs ran out, there was no good mechanism 
for 32-bit speakers to use BGP communities in the way we've all come to 
know and love on the Internet. 

Quite frankly, my involvement with that draft wasn't because I in any way 
considered it to be the best solution, but because I thought we needed to 
do SOMETHING, and I didn't want to see something that had zero ACTUAL 
operator vetting get rolled out. I got very busy with other things in life 
(being the CTO of a Tier 1, launching a new startup, etc), so admittedly 
this issue fell off my radar (and as an owner of many 16-bit ASNs, it was 
never really something that affected me personally anyways :P), but I am 
absolutely appalled to see that the state of affairs has not changed since 
then. This is disgraceful in a way that only the IETF is capable of 
delivering, and I feel very sorry for the poor networks who are trying to 
get off the ground today in a 32-bit ASN world with issues like this still 

Having reviewed the current state of both proposals, I am now a firm 
supporter of the large communities draft, and wish to remove my support 
and authorship from the wide communities draft. This is the simple, 
effective, and not overly convoluted solution we need, and I'm glad that 
someone is actually taking the time and energy to get it fixed once and 
for all.

Richard A Steenbergen <>
GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)