> > Does anyone want to co-author and suggest changes? I would also be glad to participate in that effort.
I have looked at the proposals in the two drafts (Jacob and John H). There are a few observations I would like to share. As Alvaro pointed out, RFC 8092 says: This document defines the BGP Large Communities attribute as an optional transitive path attribute of variable length. That means *all* BGP Large Communities are transitive. Do you agree? RFC 8195 seems to be written in that spirit as well. The first 32 bits together are a Global Administrator (GA) ID. So, it seems it would not be possible to use any part of it as data. Otherwise, collisions (ambiguity) could happen when other LCs use 4-octet ASNs in the Global Administrator field. Agree? I see Jacob's draft proposes using some portion of the first 32 bits as data. The draft that John Heasly shared sets the first 32-bits to ASN value 0 to designate WK-LC; so no part of the first 32-bits is data. Another idea to consider: Why not request IANA to assign a range of 256 or 1024 or some number (?) of 4-byte ASN values to be allocated and used as GA ID for transitive WK-LCs? A function (e.g., route-leak protection) that requires transitive WK-LC will be allocated one these ASN values. Then we don't waste any part of the first 32-bits to designate "type" of LC. That cleanly leaves 64 bits for local data (as RFC 8092 specifies) which can accommodate two 4-byte ASNs if needed. Sriram > -----Original Message----- > From: John Heasly <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2020 5:55 PM > To: Jakob Heitz (jheitz) <[email protected]> > Cc: Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed) <[email protected]>; Job Snijders > <[email protected]>; Nick Hilliard <[email protected]>; John Heasly > <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; Brian Dickson > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Question about BGP Large Communities > > Tue, Feb 04, 2020 at 08:45:40PM +0000, Jakob Heitz (jheitz): > > 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? > > Hey Jacob, > I'd work on that with you. Job, Morrow and I also started a draft for > Large WKCs, but we have not submitted anything - nor made any recent > progress. > > IIRC, the direction we were intending to use 0 (zero) as the ASN, then > define local data part 1 as WKC itself, and local data part 2 to be a > value associated. > > I've attached that I have written so far. Job and Morrow may or may not > endorse this approach at this point. > > -heas _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
