Re: [GROW] Choice of Large vs. Extended Community for Route Leaks Solution

2021-04-01 Thread Jeffrey Haas
[Note, commenting as an individual contributor...] On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 03:10:08PM -0700, Brian Dickson wrote: > On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 7:57 AM Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed) < > kotikalapudi.sri...@nist.gov> wrote: > > We (authors of the WKLC draft) can continue working on creating an IANA > >

Re: [GROW] [Idr] Choice of Large vs. Extended Community for Route Leaks Solution

2021-04-01 Thread Jeffrey Haas
On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 04:26:06PM -0700, Randy Bush wrote: > > The point Jakob follows up with in this thread strongly suggests > > communities are not a viable mechanism. > > communities are rarely a viable mechanism. too malleable, forgable, > ... once again, see our paper. Randy adds

Re: [GROW] Choice of Large vs. Extended Community for Route Leaks Solution

2021-04-01 Thread Brian Dickson
On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 6:11 AM Jeffrey Haas wrote: > [Note, commenting as an individual contributor...] > > On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 03:10:08PM -0700, Brian Dickson wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 7:57 AM Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed) < > > kotikalapudi.sri...@nist.gov> wrote: > > > We (authors

Re: [GROW] Choice of Large vs. Extended Community for Route Leaks Solution

2021-04-01 Thread Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed)
There may be a knob that AS operators have for permitting transitivity, but we need to look at measurements to understand whether or not operators actually allow transitivity to EC and LC. NIST BGP measurements (thanks to my colleague Lilia Hannachi) were shared on the GROW list in May 2020:

Re: [GROW] Choice of Large vs. Extended Community for Route Leaks Solution

2021-04-01 Thread Brian Dickson
On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 2:06 PM Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed) < kotikalapudi.sri...@nist.gov> wrote: > There may be a knob that AS operators have for permitting transitivity, > but we need to look at measurements to understand whether or not operators > actually allow transitivity to EC and LC. > >

Re: [GROW] Choice of Large vs. Extended Community for Route Leaks Solution

2021-04-01 Thread Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed)
Brian, >We would like to continue proceeding with use of a LC range for >implementation, using a single (or small number) of Global Administrator >values. I should have clarified. I am not opposed to staying on course with a WKLC based solution. I only thought transitivity readily came with

Re: [GROW] [Idr] Choice of Large vs. Extended Community for Route Leaks Solution

2021-04-01 Thread Job Snijders
On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 06:09:42PM -0400, Jeffrey Haas wrote: > > There is already a separate draft in IDR that has passed WGLC, and it uses > > a new transitive BGP Path Attribute 'Only to Customer (OTC)': > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-open-policy-15 > > We view that as a