Re: [Idr] WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-large-community-03.txt (10/17/2016 to 10/31/2016)

[Peter Hessler <[e-mail]>]

On 2016 Oct 21 (Fri) at 17:42:37 +0200 (+0200), Robert Raszuk wrote:
:Hi Martijn,
:
:> Secondly, there's literally no way for the vendor to check whether an
:> ASN belongs to "the entity that defines the meaning of the rest of the
:> Large Community"
:
:Why not ?
:
:If you do not make those 4 octets configurable by spec and always fill it
:with AS number defined in your BGP instance you will have assurance it
:is ASN of the entity that defines the rest 8 octets of the LC as otherwise
:you will likely not establish any EBGP sessions to your peers.
:
:So there is very easy way to enforce it today in any BGP implementation.

Say I am AS 1234, and I want to control AS 5678.  My transit ISP is AS
9876.

If I set

local-as 1234
peer-as 9876
set large-community 5678:666:1

How is the implementation supposed to know to allow it?

Limitations in the implementation completely defeat the purpose of this
spec.


:However the question is should it be enforced at all ?
:

MUST NOT is a very important part of this spec, and is enforced a few
times in the document.


:Best,
:R.
:




-- 
The moving cursor writes, and having written, blinks on.