Nick, > [moving this to a new thread as it's unrelated to draft-ietf-grow-ixp-ext-comms]
Well IMO it is very much related as that draft recommends a move from ExtComms to LargeComms. For anyone taking it seriously a new encoding should be provided as a hint. Jeff, Actually what seems to be sort of lost in translation from what I intended to say was not so much well known large communities .. but well know IXP large communities. I think we all agree that IXPs (especially IXP RS policies) are creating their own universe and IMO it is worth to a bit unify that space. Many thx, R. PS. But if GROW WG thinks otherwise I rest my case. It was just light suggestion - no more. On Sat, Jun 8, 2024 at 12:58 AM Jeffrey Haas <[email protected]> wrote: > [Not a specific gripe at you, Nick.] > > > On Jun 7, 2024, at 6:45 PM, Nick Hilliard <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > [moving this to a new thread as it's unrelated to > draft-ietf-grow-ixp-ext-comms] > > > > Robert Raszuk wrote on 07/06/2024 22:29: > >> True. But we there is clear opportunity to define those scoped for IXP > use case. > >> > >> This is BCP so IMO good place to encourage using common encoding for > most common needs. > > > > I'm not convinced this is a good plan. The semantics of the existing > WKCs have turned out to be unexpectedly complex in production environments, > and the semantics for candidate route server WKCs that have been discussed > by RS operators are a good deal more so. There have been proposals in the > past about this, but none have ended up with rigorous definitions or sample > code. > > Far more importantly, "well known" needed to have the semantics baked into > the spec at the beginning. > > The torches and pitchforks operator crowd that rammed through large > communities in the current form weren't interested in slowing down and > discussing how that'd work. > > Thus, there is no such thing and the term should simply stop being used in > this fashion. > > At best, a registry could be set aside for entries from a specifically > allocated AS number and implementors can get special semantics added to > their code for the specs over time. Not so much "well known" (and generally > supported) as it becomes registered. > > When it finally gets around to happening, I find it likely that either AS > 65535 or 4294967295 get used. > > -- Jeff (I assert no IPR over this.) > >
_______________________________________________ GROW mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
