Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-large-community-04.txt

"Jakob Heitz (jheitz)" <> Tue, 25 October 2016 19:48 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6ACAE129B35 for <>; Tue, 25 Oct 2016 12:48:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.951
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.951 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0M1r4BO_EVxl for <>; Tue, 25 Oct 2016 12:47:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BBE7F129B31 for <>; Tue, 25 Oct 2016 12:47:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=10997; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1477424879; x=1478634479; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=RIJDDNxVUe91HkM/pwuttO67sn/pS9Zu8+IsZIgPizM=; b=JnkyqThSHdur8DVdDeH954ji3fmMzef0hvEZ96Hqpf8+C2InFgokMUUS 4Nae3SjBpSnI+PVnMiSmutZ9rFgf92X+NUP9RDWuq+/EI6VJjplQSWUzQ edxpvTvjXIbNFZdwUfHdkhcaJccNFgQBSEM9uvXXkerKYmd66qEPrQIc1 M=;
X-Files: ATT00001.txt : 124
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.31,399,1473120000"; d="txt'?scan'208,217";a="166679795"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 25 Oct 2016 19:47:58 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u9PJlwUt015423 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 25 Oct 2016 19:47:58 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Tue, 25 Oct 2016 14:47:58 -0500
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Tue, 25 Oct 2016 14:47:58 -0500
From: "Jakob Heitz (jheitz)" <>
To: David Freedman <>, "" <>, Jeff Haas <>
Thread-Topic: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-large-community-04.txt
Thread-Index: AQHSLuBR7U5ooZIeUkC8tSq3UeWjJ6C5kdSg
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2016 19:47:57 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="_002_47bd6edaf74a40dfaa474eba7b043c5fXCHALN014ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-large-community-04.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2016 19:48:01 -0000

We added that as a result of Jeff Haas's email attached.

It actually makes sense.
However, if we want to keep parity with
it's no big deal for me.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Idr [] On Behalf Of David Freedman
> Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2016 9:54 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-large-community-04.txt
> Apologies for the ultra-late-last-minute input, but I was discussing this with Job offlist and we felt it should be
> seen by list participants.
> My point was about RFC1997 parity and the length validation.
>  " A Large BGP Communities attribute with a length of zero MUST be ignored upon receipt and removed when sending."
> Later wording here has been discussed to be amended (I understand) to:
> " A Large BGP Communities attribute with a length of zero MUST NOT be sent and MUST be ignored upon receipt."
> Well, I wanted to point out, that RFC1997 was of course updated by RFC7606.
> In (7606), the following two comments are made:
> " For all path attributes other than those specified as having an attribute length that may be zero, it SHALL be
> considered a syntax error for the attribute to have a length of zero."
> And
> " The error handling of [RFC1997] is revised as follows: The Community attribute SHALL be considered malformed if
> its length is not a non-zero multiple of 4"
> So really, if you apply RFC7606 to RFC1997 you have lost parity if you accept a zero length community (even if you
> just ignore it).
> My suggestion here is just to drop the passive receive tolerance of the zero length largecomm, since it seems out of
> place (even if it is harmless).
> and let it be considered malformed and handled by RFC7606.
> Thoughts?
> Dave.
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
--- Begin Message ---
   On Sep 21, 2016, at 4:31 PM, Randy Bush <<>> wrote:

            The attribute consists of a set of Large Communities.

         a bgp update may contain a large community attribute which is composed
         of zero or more large communities.  or one or more if you insist.


   zero or one?

   1 or more.

   Implementations may prune empty path attributes (and probably should) when the contents are lists.  However, I don't believe we should standardize sending 0 of these communities as a form of signaling.

   That said, in the error handling section, it should note that a length of zero shall not be treated as a malformed route.

   -- Jeff

--- End Message ---