Re: [Idr] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-idr-large-community-11: (with COMMENT)

["Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" <[e-mail]>]

Okay, thanks for your clarification. Was reading this part in section 5 and therefore wondering if any action should follow. But if that was discussed that’s fine.


> Am 02.01.2017 um 14:25 schrieb Job Snijders <[e-mail]>:
> 
> Dear Mirja,
> 
> On Mon, Jan 02, 2017 at 05:14:31AM -0800, Mirja Kuehlewind wrote:
>> Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
>> draft-ietf-idr-large-community-11: No Objection
> 
> Thank you for your review.
> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> COMMENT:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> One question: Since the Global Administrator field could also be not an
>> ASN, would it be useful to say something about what should be done if an
>> unknow value is received (ignore, remove, log an error...)?
> 
> Section 5 states:
> 
>    """
>    The BGP Large Communities Global Administrator field may contain
>    any value, and a BGP Large Communities attribute MUST NOT be
>    considered malformed if the Global Administrator field contains an
>    unallocated, unassigned or reserved ASN.
>    """
> 
> Further more, based on our experience with the current implementations
> [1], [2] there was no perceived ambiguity amongst the implementers what
> to do with non ASN values in the Global Administator field. The global
> administrator field contains just an unsigned 32-bit integer.
> 
> The consensus on the mailing list was to treat the non ASN values
> exactly the same as normal values. As such it would not be correct to
> ignore, remove, or log an error.
> 
> In other words, the ability to put a non-ASN values in the Global
> Administrator field is by design.
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Job
> 
> [1]: http://largebgpcommunities.net/implementations/
> [2]: https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/idr/trac/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-large-community%20implementations
>