Re: [Idr] Adoption call for draft-heitz-idr-wklc-02 (3/9 to 3/23)

Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> Wed, 24 March 2021 09:37 UTC

Return-Path: <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
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 E0EA63A2895 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 02:37:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.087
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.087 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_REMOTE_IMAGE=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 GBEAARtAgrsh for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 02:37:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf1-x42f.google.com (mail-pf1-x42f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::42f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3CFE83A2898 for <idr@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 02:37:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf1-x42f.google.com with SMTP id 11so16903749pfn.9 for <idr@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 02:37:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=8nwru1dTx4KVSGsjyKNRQSUsLMxxJW+vBamNf+OnXbc=; b=RxXUoh3HPnscr6VuxXagb3x6HZuDhdtStrW4s89qXCLU1hg1VflC+BfVM/vgFNkQFP ixN83JtreeHLZBCoSrigGM0Wwad7CnD+3Mi930IfB/V65yP8JbgJIyWKEhc1/GjEc//C Y9SjW3RQZJMzCLqTvDNlEDKynfIzEQZRukKAdCzOT8oVmxpuivMy8vO7pGrus75K91M9 KAaZjyyfNf91rzTQj2ow4IIBTQUkW9ZazzFWgn1Gh1ENJKq6xT5QKCVGSOaKyzOXndj5 hmGhKMMOAZFJiB/PwFWgRTsQgo/P+5ZJ1X6lOxMrkWscgOrKENRSw1s8awxQ5B3OW98n cU2g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=8nwru1dTx4KVSGsjyKNRQSUsLMxxJW+vBamNf+OnXbc=; b=GDhlgdVtRDcEdGND8SvfpdvsXpsOzvyN3VjyJ7zoqPyiB+xabocQzoDRDKgpjvCY3d pFVEgYibK7AhdFQTKbdpWagILUFRXJS1uWxcmFdsEgYjgTOFpdIuJzUzZDzHOFcMERsN Ci63JMIGOy+/+jha7DaS4vb7WJPuKFvv7kADPYUf8oVeZ6ibVXaSpjZH0c2ASL3Gc3II 3I9abEYRrLMvn3CwWSM9D7kgvOoNt8fCT5ouzTMeaWKyim5TshIEo7NCL5xeG8FYAxQH Sv8BcRP9bWWLUPOODSjWsang8X1KINnrovH1CQqUHvo41H5Mo6IoRm6uArgneSLyKUgS Tyng==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532eVKu9TCtUN9Gu55qg5KRqbynKfZs1MMU2gmhHbkDuPBybKBxc 8US5Wc0jJOg07Wql9dVSACM1emqGpMcNDer2sy21lkEbE0JRxg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwmSGdhUUfnp5FueA1NBA8ni5cduX+LqIXb3f+cfCSzRfFLuv+SEVwwK+8u6kcEB3EkQXsTyS3WKNohvhF3quo=
X-Received: by 2002:a63:e656:: with SMTP id p22mr558747pgj.50.1616578633372; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 02:37:13 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <BYAPR11MB3207CF86CF2FBD56CA3EAD66C0919@BYAPR11MB3207.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <CBFDE565-E501-4344-BF6C-53A541D50391@tsinghua.org.cn> <012b01d7170f$7ec90310$7c5b0930$@tsinghua.org.cn> <BYAPR11MB3207D4E973EE9ED170687E1EC06F9@BYAPR11MB3207.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <015601d7171a$036be470$0a43ad50$@tsinghua.org.cn> <CAH1iCiqy3uu0SF2i9TyTRwCdt2d2Ud9+nUCtRG+vc2E-gwfLPQ@mail.gmail.com> <000501d71940$e9b87420$bd295c60$@tsinghua.org.cn> <BYAPR11MB320799969ECFDA66B32F2BBBC06C9@BYAPR11MB3207.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <002901d71971$ed947f90$c8bd7eb0$@tsinghua.org.cn> <BYAPR11MB320729520FD51C969744AC7BC06B9@BYAPR11MB3207.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <4768288b-d0dd-f078-e304-6f42e539a267@foobar.org> <CAOj+MME3Dq3=rGUZtYLx12uBgtgJt7ceWZo7NzSGWXh+ZSio0A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOj+MME3Dq3=rGUZtYLx12uBgtgJt7ceWZo7NzSGWXh+ZSio0A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2021 05:37:02 -0400
Message-ID: <CABNhwV23QwuLE13ysX3jUV___R_avLYeSDbh8G0Z-8J-G_08oQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Cc: IETF IDR <idr@ietf.org>, "Jakob Heitz (jheitz)" <jheitz=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000031977205be450b61"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/t0N8HFeDZml8DpNYznMMvzAcbkE>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Adoption call for draft-heitz-idr-wklc-02 (3/9 to 3/23)
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 24 Mar 2021 09:37:20 -0000

+1

Cheers,

Gyan

On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 12:02 PM Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> wrote:

>
> I must agree with Nick point of view in 100% here.
>
> Indeed when discussions on LC were going on there was strong support from
> operators stating this is what we want and it is good enough. Let's keep it
> simple.
>
> For more advanced including well known actions let's focus on wide
> communities as they have public and private use of communities build in
> from day one.
>
> Many thx,
> R.
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 4:01 PM Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> wrote:
>
>> Jakob Heitz (jheitz) wrote on 16/03/2021 00:03:
>> > This draft is a proposal to use large communities to make a better
>> > extended community.
>>
>> the original LC RFC specifies a global administrator field.  This draft
>> attempts to retrofit semantics into various bits in that field.  I can
>> see why it's tempting to attempt this, but it introduces a significant
>> degree of interpretation semantics and, more importantly, backwards
>> incompatibility.
>>
>> At the time when we were still discussing
>> draft-heitz-idr-large-community, the issue of future flexibility and
>> semantic interpretation was extensively discussed, and the consensus of
>> the authors + working group was that it was more important to get a
>> draft out there which implemented "deployed + simple" rather than going
>> for a slightly more complex design which would have allowed future
>> extensibility.
>>
>> The opportunity to use a more flexible structure was not taken at the
>> time, for good reasons, and we knew at the time what those long term
>> consequences of those decisions would be.
>>
>> Retrofitting this complexity into rfc8092 reopens these arguments, but
>> from the point of view of watching the ship after it's sailing past the
>> horizon.
>>
>> If we need a better asn32-compatible extended community, then we should
>> define a better, asn32-compatible extended community and do the job
>> properly.  We should not try to claim that rfc8092 provides an
>> appropriate framework for this, because it doesn't and because if we try
>> to bend LCs in this way, it will leave us with a legacy of perpetual
>> dysfunction.
>>
>> Nick
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Idr mailing list
>> Idr@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>
-- 

<http://www.verizon.com/>

*Gyan Mishra*

*Network Solutions A**rchitect *

*Email gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com <gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com>*



*M 301 502-1347*