Re: [Idr] Early allocation for wide communities [was: Re: BGP Attribute for Large communities (Attribute 30) was squatted on - Let's get a new attribute number (1 week WG call (10/18 to 10/25)]

Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org> Tue, 18 October 2016 20:27 UTC

Return-Path: <jhaas@pfrc.org>
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 46E5112984F for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 13:27:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.333
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.333 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.431, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 rR7JqQQznQDP for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 13:27:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from slice.pfrc.org (slice.pfrc.org [67.207.130.108]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 284A012947D for <idr@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 13:27:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dresden.attlocal.net (99-59-193-67.lightspeed.livnmi.sbcglobal.net [99.59.193.67]) by slice.pfrc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A59981E1F0; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 16:29:23 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.0 \(3226\))
From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
In-Reply-To: <20161018180650.GS95811@Vurt.local>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2016 16:27:13 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <8BC27C25-22D2-4B52-A1C8-D2C90E1D54A3@pfrc.org>
References: <01f401d22950$7f988470$7ec98d50$@ndzh.com> <3BC2E5A3-380D-4F60-A719-6FA5E19FC839@pfrc.org> <001801d22963$11733630$3459a290$@ndzh.com> <019F0FC9-6751-42CD-BA26-3CB0B374748E@juniper.net> <20161018180650.GS95811@Vurt.local>
To: Job Snijders <job@ntt.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3226)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/taLZJICNfizZRhJYeOCO874wIcc>
Cc: Sue Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, IETF IDR WG <idr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Early allocation for wide communities [was: Re: BGP Attribute for Large communities (Attribute 30) was squatted on - Let's get a new attribute number (1 week WG call (10/18 to 10/25)]
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Tue, 18 Oct 2016 20:27:16 -0000

> On Oct 18, 2016, at 2:06 PM, Job Snijders <job@ntt.net>; wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 01:25:25PM -0400, John G. Scudder wrote:
>>   c.  The specifications of these code points must be stable; i.e., if
>>       there is a change, implementations based on the earlier and later
>>       specifications must be seamlessly interoperable.
>> 
>> I am not sure this is true. Is it? 
> 
> I do not believe that to be true.

Wide comms was spec-wise pretty stable until recently when we tried to accommodate large comms as a header.  The amount things were perturbed wasn't much but still was still incompatible.

But I agree with the general sentiment: We want it to be at that stability point before proceeding with the actual early allocation.  

This also hits the interesting question about versioning to accept my own criticisms about incremental deployment.

What would be nice would be to hear the feedback from the implementors at Huawei as to their experiences in implementing the spec.  This would give insight to the level of maturity of the draft, along with being a lot more careful to avoid spec churn if it's actually getting traction.

-- Jeff