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

Robert Raszuk <> Sun, 06 November 2016 21:50 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE744129578 for <>; Sun, 6 Nov 2016 13:50:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.399
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.199, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id K713e-nbxTUp for <>; Sun, 6 Nov 2016 13:50:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C4A31129575 for <>; Sun, 6 Nov 2016 13:50:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id a197so148695432wmd.0 for <>; Sun, 06 Nov 2016 13:50:27 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=CW1TF9Srbj5hGK+5E6x2ecT03Tn2JISXJkMJWxDTek8=; b=R0bWdzQ08px7nXOZ0Vrbm3TOoTxOqOzxOkF/UDKOQiQ8q15o1KsuupSBcfqEplG7ky 0sy1mLZe/aqFjOrGVDCCU3FT/k/embs7GOb8C243D4dz46XSwOuYU7MCiulV5bn+0Oem hSaYIU0TA3XbStkaocknp2xuhWgFj68JiTKlHViZWxAma7jHg3p/EYMmJpKPSZTzprgo xYKtUiH+N0x3e+nc7aGCKEfXvkK0At89jBJo+Ecpqugz7OBPlbMXkPGxmEiQG4j51DBa Pn6PN8aZ/Z5k/sIXNhX55NHuyQKANlCtrPmhwWO96880wJAeg2QmxNXZRk9x9kJ68unx aK6g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=CW1TF9Srbj5hGK+5E6x2ecT03Tn2JISXJkMJWxDTek8=; b=GOwtaQLwTK82s1yZrO/K1YCLKrIS4sI6ZCi3zp+EagJELgb5sWHjxLvipHNNvK7B7Q dwalK2HoV7aIFzzKCmdeWzWq3DlWq+BYOSxDeiuiN8nsw7dzpTqF2Ml37FDRZJeX5NjP a31JBtlBA9scNt46cNTG15AQPEQ2/5sf8kBL3z9WdUSLSfsxRWGbaDlo0+e1njw1CX+o k6rsvWI2CXmg0+u0gZPjoPWXEiu3zlc9r+w0qi2fG6xOJDTos9Fd5Wb0lLk2d44nR9zq TyYPIQAihABqUi4gNDc+qoE9dh/kFxo5lEbvtzBk7ySTtq/aoFUmxsVaM1IrL335BLRa cpaQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngvc4OVTq6rO7sRyQvM/bEyAad9PW47kx8+MpvtMbU9JDshz7GmWSdFixZLYjfrbdUSKpb5p0S8ltORgsDg==
X-Received: by with SMTP id u15mr6509881wmu.61.1478469026143; Sun, 06 Nov 2016 13:50:26 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Sun, 6 Nov 2016 13:50:24 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
From: Robert Raszuk <>
Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 22:50:24 +0100
X-Google-Sender-Auth: MyHlSP0Bow-DkEb3TbfhhWEcBSc
Message-ID: <>
To: Jeffrey Haas <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1142532c1d64840540a8e5d6
Archived-At: <>
Cc: heasley <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Vendor Defaults (was Re: Review of draft-ietf-large-community-06.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: Sun, 06 Nov 2016 21:50:30 -0000

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,

On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 8:42 PM, Jeffrey Haas <> 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