IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Idr] Squatters (Was: BGP Attribute for Large communities (Attribute 30) was squatted on..)

marco@lamehost.it Sat, 29 October 2016 11:52 UTC

Return-Path: <marco@lamehost.it>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B29181294C3 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 29 Oct 2016 04:52:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.332
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.332 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.431, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sfAJg0bA3cNP for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 29 Oct 2016 04:52:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from seele.lamehost.it (seele.lamehost.it [80.76.80.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4E4C12947D for <idr@ietf.org>; Sat, 29 Oct 2016 04:52:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from www.lamehost.it (unknown [80.76.80.23]) (Authenticated sender: marco@lamehost.it) by seele.lamehost.it (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0471D746D1; Sat, 29 Oct 2016 13:52:14 +0200 (CEST)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2016 11:52:13 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <95023aa5eac831d49b612a3abf92cc91@www.lamehost.it>
X-Mailer: RainLoop/1.10.3.151
From: marco@lamehost.it
To: Job Snijders <job@instituut.net>, Brian Dickson <brian.peter.dickson@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20161028142507.GB956@Vurt.local>
References: <20161028142507.GB956@Vurt.local> <20161026165710.GC58742@shrubbery.net> <1d8301d22df0$cee63500$6cb29f00$@ndzh.com> <db7a17a288aa4a3288dc6ec8f032b687@XCH-ALN-014.cisco.com> <CAL9jLaZcCwBhUEs7cvsx3HfiPSRPXrcvOguCeuV2opSns9OZMw@mail.gmail.com> <677CE346-EFED-42B6-8A9F-75ABD2B4D6B4@cisco.com> <EBCE3CE8-1295-4CB2-9A1A-8BA2E154033D@gmail.com> <6e6a37a2a51eab848e9d498a1437365f@www.lamehost.it> <524D6F67-AAFA-4880-B977-8262333DFF5B@steffann.nl> <20161027095404.GP37101@Vurt.local> <CAH1iCipJNye8fpvFwBwoLkL3+=rWVcZac2BUFVcJXQ_9YTrXvg@mail.gmail.com>
X-Originating-IP: 79.24.77.5
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.11 (seele.lamehost.it [0.0.0.0]); Sat, 29 Oct 2016 13:52:14 +0200 (CEST)
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.11 (seele.lamehost.it [0.0.0.0]); Sat, 29 Oct 2016 13:52:14 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.99.2 at seele
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/n2E1szgUAGwic3sl6w3YoWkacvE>
Cc: heasley <heas@shrubbery.net>, IETF IDR <idr@ietf.org>, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Squatters (Was: BGP Attribute for Large communities (Attribute 30) was squatted on..)
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2016 11:52:20 -0000

October 28, 2016 4:25 PM, "Job Snijders" <job@instituut.net> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 12:04:12PM -0700, Brian Dickson wrote:
> 
>>>> I was suggesting the same thing out-of-list today. We should
>>>> really assign ~5 values to experimental/development puroposes
>>> 
>>> I think this would be useful both to allow for larger-scale
>>> testing of new attributes, and for vendors to be more easily be
>>> able to test multiple new attributes in-house.
>> 
>> The problem here is that people are not abiding the rules, and
>> offering more codepoints will only work if people abide those rules.
>> I have no confidence that more dev codepoints resolve the issue.
>> 
>> The counter argument is very simple: If we don't offer more code
>> points, they *definitely* won't use them (and thus abide by the
>> rules).
> 
> On the other hand, they weren't using today's 255 codepoint either.
> 

Again: you can't be sure!

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email