Re: [Idr] Question about BGP Large Communities

[Brian Dickson <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Jakob,
I'm interested/willing to co-author and/or review as needed.
(FYI: it looks like your bit field is mis-aligned, there should be 6 bits
above the 2-bit T value, then 8 bits of WKC.)

I agree that 256 (0-255) is more than enough WKC values, given that like 3
or 4 have been used in old community space.

Brian

On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 12:45 PM Jakob Heitz (jheitz) <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> A set of well known large communities could be useful.
>
> I have a draft that I never submitted attached to this email.
>
> Does anyone want to co-author and suggest changes?
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Jakob.
>
>
>
> *From:* Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed) <[e-mail]>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 4, 2020 10:22 AM
> *To:* Jakob Heitz (jheitz) <[e-mail]>; Job Snijders <[e-mail]>;
> Nick Hilliard <[e-mail]>; John Heasly <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Brian Dickson <
> [e-mail]>
> *Subject:* Question about BGP Large Communities
>
>
>
> In the route leaks solution draft,
>
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-grow-route-leak-detection-mitigation-02
>
> we (the authors) have proposed using BGP Large Community.
>
> We specify this to be a "well-known transitive Large Community".
>
>
>
> Question:
>
> Can the draft simply make an IANA request for
>
> a Global Administrator ASN value for Route Leaks Protection (RLP) type
>
> and request that it be published in IANA registry
>
> as a "well-known Transitive Large Community"?
>
>
>
> There is no IANA registry for Large Communities yet;
>
> we have requested IDR and GROW Chairs to facilitate that.
>
>
>
> ----------------
>
> Details/background:
>
>
>
> We've read the following RFCs related to Large Communities:
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8092
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8195
>
>
>
> RFC 8195 has this table:
>
>
>                  +-------------------------------+-------------------------+
>
>                  |       RFC8092                    | RFC
> 8195                |
>
>
> +-------------------------------+--------------------------+
>
>                  | Global Administrator    |      ASN                     |
>
>                  |  Local Data Part 1           |    Function
> |
>
>                  |  Local Data Part 2           |   Parameter            |
>
>
> +--------------------------------+-------------------------+
>
> which is instructive. In the examples that RFC 8195 offers,
>
> it appears it is *assumed* that the Large Communities are transitive.
>
>
>
> For comparison, in Extended Communities (RFC 7153), there are
>
> explicit Type values assigned for Transitive, Non-transitive, etc.
>
>
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-extended-communities/bgp-extended-communities.xhtml
>
> However, there is no such explicit Type specification
>
> for Large Communities (in RFC 8092 or elsewhere).
>
>
>
> Thank you.
>
> Sriram
>
>
>
>
>
>
>