Re: [Idr] Request to adopt draft-heitz-idr-large-community - Working Group Adoption call (9/6 to 9/20)

[Christopher Morrow <[e-mail]>]

(shortcut; I'd like to see -large get finished, some reasoning below)

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 12:56 PM, Randy Bush <[e-mail]> wrote:

> is
>     0                   1                   2                   3
>     0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
>    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>    |                      Autonomous System number                 |
>    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>    |                          Local Data Part 1                    |
>    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>    |                          Local Data Part 2                    |
>    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>
> sufficient?  that is a binary question.  i am interested in answers from
> operators such as nick, gert, ...
>
> iff your answer is "no," what would be sufficient?
>

I'll bite... So, it seems to me that a minimum answer for compatibility
going forward is 4:4, it also seems that if we're adding more bits to this,
4:8 is attractive for some of the use-cases Jared brings up above.

The -large option seems like a good step to bring parity to tooling/etc
that we use today in the network.

The -wide option is... complex. I don't favor that, today.

It also seems to me that we can live in a world with -wide and -large. For
folk that need the extra parts that -wide has they'll be able to do what
they want, for folk that need to keep and grow their current deployments
-large seems like a good fit.

Does this have to be an either/or? Why can't it be 'and'?

I think jeff's single header option is an attractive abstraction layer,
will that be finalized and ready for deployment in before -large could be?
  o I expect it's at least 24 months away from 'on my network' (likely 36
to 48 given another year of discussion here before ietf-lc)

Can we move all of the use-cases for -large or -wide under -common-header
when that's arrived?
  o maybe? probably? again in 36-48 months + migration time...

Operationally, having no answer for; "my new asn needs to express policy as
I did in my old ASN" is .. bad.

-chris