IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Idr] One week extension to WGLC for draft-ietf-idr-large-community

Gert Doering <gert@space.net> Sun, 20 November 2016 13:34 UTC

Return-Path: <gert@space.net>
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 05EFE129660 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 20 Nov 2016 05:34:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497] 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 vdif-KxqSEO4 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 20 Nov 2016 05:34:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mobil.space.net (mobil.space.net [IPv6:2001:608:2:81::67]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 469B712964D for <idr@ietf.org>; Sun, 20 Nov 2016 05:34:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: idr@ietf.org
Received: from mobil.space.net (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mobil.space.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 870C46014D for <idr@ietf.org>; Sun, 20 Nov 2016 14:34:07 +0100 (CET)
X-SpaceNet-Relay: true
X-SpaceNet-Relay: true
X-SpaceNet-Relay: true
Received: from moebius4.space.net (moebius4.space.net [IPv6:2001:608:2:2::251]) by mobil.space.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DD156010F; Sun, 20 Nov 2016 14:34:07 +0100 (CET)
Received: by moebius4.space.net (Postfix, from userid 1007) id 2E8562F443; Sun, 20 Nov 2016 14:34:07 +0100 (CET)
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2016 14:34:07 +0100
From: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>
To: "t.petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com>
Message-ID: <20161120133407.GN79185@Space.Net>
References: <27701_1479159582_582A2F1E_27701_6903_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A1EC77FE1@OPEXCLILM21.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <736EA2CC-3DD1-4F14-96ED-2916E62F6F02@cisco.com> <26709_1479217575_582B11A7_26709_12999_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A1EC79584@OPEXCLILM21.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <CA+b+ER=SEcEFW4OxMx8qTxjpu1eyzKFH0TxshsoTS3oz6MvFBw@mail.gmail.com> <CAH1iCipLcODmZVGRRmaC-n=dHvSAALeZSifimf0FHvhNxY8_rQ@mail.gmail.com> <20161116001246.GB27230@pfrc.org> <4EB6222D-86A4-4A83-AF8C-364CB52B8422@juniper.net> <004201d2418b$887208c0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <583033B8.5010006@foobar.org> <016a01d24317$4cd1eaa0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <016a01d24317$4cd1eaa0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
X-NCC-RegID: de.space
User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.1 (2016-04-27)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/oUHA-WK3MM2BLOkd2hKTeKlLZt4>
Cc: idr wg <idr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Idr] One week extension to WGLC for draft-ietf-idr-large-community
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: Sun, 20 Nov 2016 13:34:12 -0000

Hi,

On Sun, Nov 20, 2016 at 10:17:20AM +0000, t.petch wrote:
> We are now saying 'ah no, this is two separate unrelated bits of
> technology that cannot be compared and you must treat as different'.
> Someone with a 32-bit ASN is in a different universe to someone with a
> 16-bit ASN.
> 
> Mmmm not very friendly.

This is not what Nick was saying, so don't try to make it.

Nick was saying that to argue that LC de-duplication should not take 
1997 communities into account, because that's a different namespace.

But in the end, what you say is what the IETF *made* it to be, due to
the insane delay in providing a 32bit equivalent to 1997 communities - 
folks with an older implementation living in 16 bit space will now
have issues setting community values to effect 32bit AS <-> 32bit AS
relations (like, exchange point route servers) because there just is
no way to express this with 1997 communities.

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444           USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email