IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Idr] Vendor PM/PLM and IDR

Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net> Wed, 21 September 2016 19:12 UTC

Return-Path: <jared@puck.nether.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 6571412BD35 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Sep 2016 12:12:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.518
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.518 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.316, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, 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 ozouFuuMUH9B for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Sep 2016 12:12:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from puck.nether.net (puck.nether.net [IPv6:2001:418:3f4::5]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94BB512BD33 for <idr@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Sep 2016 12:12:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2601:401:4:3000:497:6da:f4fc:de37] (unknown [IPv6:2601:401:4:3000:497:6da:f4fc:de37]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by puck.nether.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 62DB4540FCC; Wed, 21 Sep 2016 15:12:10 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.0 \(3226\))
From: Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net>
In-Reply-To: <7fb54daa-3b03-5e2e-30ef-67f4151efe55@i3d.net>
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2016 15:12:11 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <A5903745-46A0-4EDF-8DEB-7509F310B516@puck.nether.net>
References: <20160914163247.GD80448@shrubbery.net> <A529D36C-99EE-4958-9DF5-BDB056608606@steffann.nl> <20160914172058.GA28887@puck.nether.net> <CA+b+ERk3Kk_qus2hts=0p05SoZBKTQFLukK1inB3WrzxQO2iAg@mail.gmail.com> <4DAAC259-ED56-48DA-8086-DB8C07692F70@steffann.nl> <af7115318bff46d8961b63d292282cc8@XCH-ALN-014.cisco.com> <CA+b+ERmN7-WoVs4aHHs5AdqYpTxTJ1pTAysw2L2BoO4=F4puZg@mail.gmail.com> <57D9BEB8.7010109@foobar.org> <CA+b+ERnQ8U9_2EtFgyxdSRtN2SW-dcPKOmD+JbemqpcVcH9S7Q@mail.gmail.com> <57D9C5D2.3080000@foobar.org> <20160914223521.GB15934@pfrc.org> <57DA823D.6020303@foobar.org> <CA+b+ERn3qjOixQBD_XQxMq+t3bhHQSbuJfmwfmWFUMHgOcr68Q@mail.gmail.com> <57DA87D8.2000301@foobar.org> <CA+b+ERmEYQxT+vUOa8iB7aLhc-aM2OKN2WNWKZsxkqQ+2gjNKQ@mail.gmail.com> <57DAB00B.5060703@i3d.net> <749C12B8-844A-4C59-9B8B-21C6746CFFDB@alcatel-lucent.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1609210537510.1477@uplift.swm.pp.se> <43882608-BBFF-4218-81F8-10CBC38B0E8C@alcatel-lucent.com> <7fb54daa-3b03-5e2e-30ef-67f4151efe55@i3d.net>
To: "i3D.net - Martijn Schmidt" <martijnschmidt@i3d.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3226)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/psV4FU_mhdOFgKr39i8xzaPobSU>
Cc: idr@ietf.org
Subject: [Idr] Vendor PM/PLM and IDR
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: Wed, 21 Sep 2016 19:12:17 -0000

> On Sep 21, 2016, at 3:05 PM, i3D.net - Martijn Schmidt <martijnschmidt@i3d.net> wrote:
> 
> Andrew,
> From an operator's perspective - when we go to $vendor and ask for a
> feature that must inter-operate with other vendors' boxes but where no
> official standard exists, we typically just get told "no such RFC" after
> which the feature request is punted to /dev/null. I'm sure many of those
> requests do not end up at your desk simply because the rest of your
> organization filters out the noise.

I was told to use extended or wide, which aren’t implemented.

eg:

(first draft in 2009):
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-as4octet-extcomm-generic-subtype

(first draft in 2010):

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-wide-bgp-communities

This disconnect I think has driven the operator frustration evident in this
thread.

Due to this gap, the market forces have caused us to be present here.

- Jared

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email