Re: [Idr] Early allocation for wide communities [was: Re: BGP Attribute for Large communities (Attribute 30) was squatted on - Let's get a new attribute number (1 week WG call (10/18 to 10/25)]

"Jakob Heitz (jheitz)" <jheitz@cisco.com> Tue, 18 October 2016 19:28 UTC

Return-Path: <jheitz@cisco.com>
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 5C388124281 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 12:28:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.952
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.952 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.431, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 op4GgmP2x27M for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 12:28:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com [173.37.86.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 88087129416 for <idr@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 12:28:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=6250; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1476818917; x=1478028517; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=iRJyo5E+5hVvA5xfNTlccsoEvOyi919Jn/n7I8dcpl4=; b=UEDrBYBibc3xgf2tqIWH/ZvX9fc8mzicbEKXpiFLeqtuaw16705UahOC av2TfGvkDj8iCkXszaYGlBqUyo0eRoi3mUXqTmmueXk3Nukekg7ha0sLk LD/I3BQzfRX/5i+eFu/lVIPuNBT3Uj3DWZKPFYJ8qXW1A2vPgM9nooQWj o=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AkAQAvdwZY/4wNJK1cGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBBwEBAQEBgzwBAQEBAR1XfAeNLZcFlDiCCBwLgkSDNgIagWk4FAECAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAWInhGEBAQEEAQEBIBETJwsMBAIBCBEEAQEBAgIfBAMCAgIlCxQBCAgCBAENB?= =?us-ascii?q?QgMiD4OtkGFAId5AQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBGAWBB4U2hFWEXoJtgls?= =?us-ascii?q?FmggBj36Pfox7g38BHjZUgwYcGYE6cocZgQABAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.31,511,1473120000"; d="scan'208";a="159005498"
Received: from alln-core-7.cisco.com ([173.36.13.140]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 18 Oct 2016 19:28:36 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-015.cisco.com (xch-rcd-015.cisco.com [173.37.102.25]) by alln-core-7.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u9IJSaEj014035 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 18 Oct 2016 19:28:36 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-014.cisco.com (173.36.7.24) by XCH-RCD-015.cisco.com (173.37.102.25) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 14:28:35 -0500
Received: from xch-aln-014.cisco.com ([173.36.7.24]) by XCH-ALN-014.cisco.com ([173.36.7.24]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 14:28:35 -0500
From: "Jakob Heitz (jheitz)" <jheitz@cisco.com>
To: "John G. Scudder" <jgs@juniper.net>, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
Thread-Topic: [Idr] Early allocation for wide communities [was: Re: BGP Attribute for Large communities (Attribute 30) was squatted on - Let's get a new attribute number (1 week WG call (10/18 to 10/25)]
Thread-Index: AQHSKWS0G1ls8+NosUWjaTtAf4m5HaCulzlw
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2016 19:28:35 +0000
Message-ID: <242f34dfe25b497f9271435e61e2b64d@XCH-ALN-014.cisco.com>
References: <01f401d22950$7f988470$7ec98d50$@ndzh.com> <3BC2E5A3-380D-4F60-A719-6FA5E19FC839@pfrc.org> <001801d22963$11733630$3459a290$@ndzh.com> <019F0FC9-6751-42CD-BA26-3CB0B374748E@juniper.net>
In-Reply-To: <019F0FC9-6751-42CD-BA26-3CB0B374748E@juniper.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.154.162.58]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/pDyEogE4uCGAHDxPX12K07NoNPg>
Cc: IETF IDR WG <idr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Early allocation for wide communities [was: Re: BGP Attribute for Large communities (Attribute 30) was squatted on - Let's get a new attribute number (1 week WG call (10/18 to 10/25)]
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: Tue, 18 Oct 2016 19:28:39 -0000

I have no objection to letting "wide" have a codepoint.
Even if it is not stable.
Wide comms could add a version number into the header to satisfy (c),
but even if it doesn't, I won't object.

Thanks,
Jakob.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of John G. Scudder
> Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 10:25 AM
> To: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>;
> Cc: IETF IDR WG <idr@ietf.org>;
> Subject: [Idr] Early allocation for wide communities [was: Re: BGP Attribute for Large communities (Attribute 30)
> was squatted on - Let's get a new attribute number (1 week WG call (10/18 to 10/25)]
> 
> OK, if we're going straight to the early allocation request, let's fork the thread. Subject updated.
> 
> As a reminder, RFC 7120 gives the criteria for early allocation. The ones I think are relevant for this discussion:
> 
>    b.  The format, semantics, processing, and other rules related to
>        handling the protocol entities defined by the code points
>        (henceforth called "specifications") must be adequately described
>        in an Internet-Draft.
> 
> IMO (speaking as a WG member) the current wide communities draft does this.
> 
>    c.  The specifications of these code points must be stable; i.e., if
>        there is a change, implementations based on the earlier and later
>        specifications must be seamlessly interoperable.
> 
> I am not sure this is true. Is it?
> 
>    d.  The Working Group chairs and Area Directors (ADs) judge that
>        there is sufficient interest in the community for early (pre-RFC)
>        implementation and deployment, or that failure to make an early
>        allocation might lead to contention for the code point in the
>        field.
> 
> We can judge this based on response to this thread.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> --John
> 
> On Oct 18, 2016, at 1:14 PM, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>; wrote:
> > Jeff:
> >
> > This is a good idea to just make 129 an early allocation for wide communities.
> >
> > Sue
> >
> > From: Jeffrey Haas [mailto:jhaas@pfrc.org]
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 11:19 AM
> > To: Sue Hares
> > Cc: IETF IDR WG; Kristian Larsson
> > Subject: Re: [Idr] BGP Attribute for Large communities (Attribute 30) was squatted on - Let's get a new attribute
> number (1 week WG call (10/18 to 10/25)
> >
> > Sue,
> >
> > If 129 is not otherwise contended for, it may be reasonable to simply request early allocation for the wide
> communities code point.
> >
> > -- Jeff
> >
> >> On Oct 18, 2016, at 11:01 AM, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>; wrote:
> >>
> >> WG:
> >>
> >> Early testing of the Large Communities draft (draft-ietf-idr-large-community-03.txt)  with attribute value of 30
> detect that we had an implementation squatting on attribute 30 by a Huawei router.   “Squatting” on an attribute is
> anti-social behavior in the Internet in any release of software.
> >>
> >> The individuals who did in Huawei have been contacted by Jie Dong, and “asked” if they had made this mistake in
> any other attribute.   These individuals confessed to Attribute 129 (for wide communities).  These individuals
> apologize to the Working group.
> >>
> >> Now what shall we do? The large community draft is critical for several networks. After talking with the
> developers and operators, John and I would like to recommend we do the following:
> >>
> >> IDR should recommend that the following attribute numbers be deprecated:
> >>
> >> BGP Attribute 30
> >> BGP attribute 129
> >>
> >> IDR should ask IANA to assign BGP Large Communities (currently Attribute 30) to a new attribute number.  This is
> a 1 week call to determine if the IDR approves this action.   This call will allow the large communities draft to
> still continue with the 2 week WG LC.
> >>
> >> John, Alvaro, and I have check the early allocation rules.  Implementations should ask for early allocation prior
> to releasing, and they do not need to be interoperability testing to request the early allocation for the attribute.
> >>
> >> Sue Hares
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Idr mailing list
> >> Idr@ietf.org
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Idr mailing list
> > Idr@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr