Re: [Idr] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-idr-large-community-11.txt

"Jakob Heitz (jheitz)" <> Mon, 05 December 2016 02:16 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D7E41296A2 for <>; Sun, 4 Dec 2016 18:16:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.418
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.418 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.896, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EMbhO6p8Ssb3 for <>; Sun, 4 Dec 2016 18:16:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 437E4129477 for <>; Sun, 4 Dec 2016 18:16:54 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=2227; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1480904214; x=1482113814; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=nTQUTXvsduBMxsU9ITXC79L5WIAhJyO8ARoFI25MZdo=; b=iwc32/spHqPQoY/LQUTRGCGLCwnVttwTA8nSb0wkqS1UYsd5uW0ATIxB tarSLt8pigWHc7fMt9heZd+tveJ/cRlZCPm3OHmgVZlFHHsl0TH2EcVHN r+WSwAQMLmhldO+Wppsc+KuDLu3CqsN4yIFbaLv0JggmmXozm5iU0V6qy o=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.33,302,1477958400"; d="scan'208";a="355715250"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 05 Dec 2016 02:16:53 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id uB52Gru3029482 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 5 Dec 2016 02:16:53 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Sun, 4 Dec 2016 20:16:52 -0600
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Sun, 4 Dec 2016 20:16:52 -0600
From: "Jakob Heitz (jheitz)" <>
To: David Freedman <>
Thread-Topic: [Idr] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-idr-large-community-11.txt
Thread-Index: AdJNTgXIg6oTqyNoQkmKlN+gSmWq4AABKgA3AFK9s4Y=
Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2016 02:16:52 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>, <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-idr-large-community-11.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: Mon, 05 Dec 2016 02:16:56 -0000

No new text is required to cover this: 23456 is not an ASN.
Besides, if anyone were to put it into a large community, no harm would be done other than what would happen if any other unassigned ASN were used.

About reserving values, we don't reserve values because the values are unusable, but because we may want to use them for other purposes later. There is no need to reserve another value. 3 is more than enough.


> On Dec 3, 2016, at 2:53 AM, David Freedman <> wrote:
> just had an offlist conversation with job, and he has recommended that I elaborate on this point as it may be non obvious to some.
> The GA is intended to be an ASN, but IMHO AS_TRANS is not an ASN, it is a signal between peers in an OPEN exchange and a signal between hops that information is missing in some way, it is not an ASN in the sense that it should (or perhaps now even *could*) be used by anybody as a local ASN for a router.
> As such I'm aware of code that exists which discriminates against AS_TRANS, there are various libraries which handle data structures like ASNs (which could be used in , say , creating or validating a GA field) which would be very unhappy if fed AS_TRANS as their initial input.
> I understand we want to progress the draft , and that and a line has to be drawn between what could be unwise in implementations , vs what could be unwise to be seen on the internet , and that a registry can exist for the latter , but this is something I feel strongly should live on the former side , and if a list of values is going to be specified in the draft , I feel this should be in it (irony aside).
> Dave 
>> On 3 Dec 2016, at 10:14, David Freedman <> wrote:
>> last minute nit: if we are going to recommend that particular reserved ASNs are avoided for the global administrator, can we please include AS_TRANS (RFC6793), there is probably a certain irony in not doing so.
>> Dave
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list