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) <[email protected]> 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) <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Tuesday, February 4, 2020 10:22 AM > *To:* Jakob Heitz (jheitz) <[email protected]>; Job Snijders <[email protected]>; > Nick Hilliard <[email protected]>; John Heasly <[email protected]> > *Cc:* [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; Brian Dickson < > [email protected]> > *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 > > > > > > >
_______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
