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

Aijun Wang <> Wed, 10 March 2021 04:00 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FCA43A19B9 for <>; Tue, 9 Mar 2021 20:00:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.918
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.918 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=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 3SY6PYTad5AH for <>; Tue, 9 Mar 2021 20:00:39 -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 053273A19B8 for <>; Tue, 9 Mar 2021 20:00:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from DESKTOP2IOH5QC (unknown []) by (Hmail) with ESMTPA id 926F11C015A; Wed, 10 Mar 2021 12:00:34 +0800 (CST)
From: Aijun Wang <>
To: 'Susan Hares' <>,
References: <008101d714cd$61b8ef40$252acdc0$>
In-Reply-To: <008101d714cd$61b8ef40$252acdc0$>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2021 12:00:33 +0800
Message-ID: <002901d71561$eba921e0$c2fb65a0$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_002A_01D715A4.F9CD9A60"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQJvcj0R8Qs6aQobRHSBIRBfDNfi2qlL1vKg
Content-Language: zh-cn
X-HM-Tid: 0a781a4b2166d993kuws926f11c015a
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 04:00:43 -0000



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: <> On Behalf Of Susan Hares
Sent: Tuesday, March 9, 2021 6:17 PM
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