Re: [Idr] Review of draft-ietf-large-community-06.txt

"Jakob Heitz (jheitz)" <> Sun, 06 November 2016 06:26 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A99C129608 for <>; Sat, 5 Nov 2016 23:26:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -16.017
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-16.017 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497, 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 pJqR3Y20bhhj for <>; Sat, 5 Nov 2016 23:26:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9812012960A for <>; Sat, 5 Nov 2016 23:26:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=4604; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1478413613; x=1479623213; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=A0UajCog+s0awWVWmBuateyNnQElGMbofTiHyfcyyYQ=; b=JSFDgDlL64ld1DBGRuFP0tUHw0oYNkwpUN8yoJzNLFo6/tjUW0IY1QcH qKLQyPmW4dZ0xIm+KN1DWcFpgxiEC/mWetFleB9Pk0C42pL9bZIA3uY/t RONnBeJqNSGgOH75tESFLLr8xH2hQvyPks+cXMMXYBbT9biO72VTQvIWo 8=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0CNAQAbzB5Y/5RdJa1cGgEBAQECAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QgBAQEBgy4BAQEBAR9YfI04ln6POIUaggglhX8CGoFvPxQBAgEBAQEBAQFiKIR?= =?us-ascii?q?iAQEEI1YQAgEGAgQ7AwICAjAUEQIEDgUUiESSSp0/gkCLMwEBAQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQEBAQEBARcFhj6BfYJYh0stgi8FjlSFc4VgAYY0ig+BboRwiTKNKoQFAR4?= =?us-ascii?q?3eoUqcodMAQEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.31,600,1473120000"; d="scan'208,217";a="342888567"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 06 Nov 2016 06:26:52 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id uA66QqX2032305 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Sun, 6 Nov 2016 06:26:52 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Sun, 6 Nov 2016 01:26:53 -0500
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Sun, 6 Nov 2016 01:26:53 -0500
From: "Jakob Heitz (jheitz)" <>
To: Zhuangshunwan <>
Thread-Topic: [Idr] Review of draft-ietf-large-community-06.txt
Thread-Index: AQHSNjBz6sRcMeSZxEiIR579im5tsaDIY72wgAB9DlKAAK2JAIAAA2sAgAAGW4D//8SNUIAAW0wA//+1BgCAAFpfAIAAvu4AgAABzgCAAV2lgA==
Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 06:26:53 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <20161104195346.GK961@Vurt.local> <20161104201631.GA35942@Vurt.lan> <> <20161104221030.GD37681@Vurt.lan> <> <20161104230536.GJ37681@Vurt.lan> <> <20161105103526.GM952@Vurt.local>
In-Reply-To: <20161105103526.GM952@Vurt.local>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_804168D312A6478AA39019A02791A0D0ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Review of draft-ietf-large-community-06.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: Sun, 06 Nov 2016 06:26:55 -0000


On Nov 5, 2016, at 3:35 AM, Job Snijders <<>> wrote:

On Sat, Nov 05, 2016 at 10:28:58AM +0000, Zhuangshunwan wrote:

Some customers from IDC/OTT complain that ISPs can not transmit their
community attributes, because ISPs do not transmit community
attributes in most cases.

I find it hard to make or accept quantative statements in this context,
I know some ISP that scrub all communities, and I know some ISPs that
pass on as much communities as possible. The market will decide.

Another reason is that some ISPs use private ASNs rather than their own ASN in the first 16 bits of the community, because there is not enough leftover bits to express the action. That makes it impossible for an ISP to transmit them to another ISP, because of name space clashes. That should no longer be a problem with large communities.
See<>/ for examples of communities. BTW, I don't recognize any Chinese ISPs on that site. Can you share some community specifications for any Chinese ISPs, please?