Re: [Idr] Vendor Defaults (was Re: Review of draft-ietf-large-community-06.txt)

[Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jeff,

Just to clarify my intention here ...

I really wanted to make sure that large is deployed with defaults which
make most sense and such defaults are identical between implementations.
And we can do it now or never as when the code is shipped out in first
production release the gave is over.

When I mentioned RFC1997 it was only due to heavy influence by some for the
enforcement of functional symmetry between standard and large communities.
As far as propagation defaults IMO they do not need to be identical.

Bottom line I am not advocating to change RFC1997 propagation rules. Only
to define one way or another what should be such rules regarding large
communities if implementation recognizes the new attribute and no policy is
in place to overwrite the default behavior.

Thank you,
Robert.


On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 8:42 PM, Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Sun, Nov 06, 2016 at 05:43:42AM +0000, Jakob Heitz (jheitz) wrote:
> > Unfortunately, it was too late to change the default in IOS. If IOS
> > changes that default, it would break many existing deployments.
>
> This is a point I'm also strongly sympathetic to.  Changing the core
> defaults is simply Not Done.
>
> Supporting such default changes will likely have to be done via a new knob
> that imposes a new set of defaults.  Admittedly, not fully "default" since
> you have to configure something, but at least something that changes
> expectations.
>
> -- Jeff
>