Subject: Re: [Idr] 4-byte AS community encoding (was re: wide communities)

From: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 07:11:50 +0000

As Enke and Dhananjaya have pointed out, not only did I lose track of which
group we were targeting for the draft, it was adopted as a WG item.

Dhananjaya also notes that there is an implementation already done. :-)

Thanks for the reminders.

-- Jeff

----- Forwarded message from Enke Chen <[email-masked]> -----

Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 10:10:47 -0700
From: Enke Chen <[email-masked]>
To: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
CC: Enke Chen <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [Idr] 4-byte AS community encoding (was re: wide communities)

Hi, Jeff:

The draft has been adopted as an IDR WG document a while back.  The last  
expired version is the following:

   draft-ietf-idr-as4octet-extcomm-generic-subtype-01.txt

-- Enke

---

From: Robert Raszuk <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 20:42:56 +0200

Hi Jeffrey,

Thx for forwarding the correspondence with Enke to the IDR WG mailing list.

But I would like to ask the chairs if this or any draft can violate the 
recommednations of RFC it is based on and still quote it as normative 
reference ? That would be an interesting precedence here ....

Your draft says:

    Similarly, a 2-octet AS number may have two valid representations as
    either a standard community or a 4-octet extended community with the
    upper two octets of the AS number set to zero.

and

[RFC5668]  Rekhter, Y., Sangli, S., and D. Tappan, "4-Octet AS
            Specific BGP Extended Community", RFC 5668, October 2009.

While the RFC 5668 as already once pointed out is pretty clear in it's 
section 3 to say:

    Therefore, for backward compatibility with existing deployments and
    to avoid inconsistencies between 2-octet and 4-octet specific
    extended communities, Autonomous Systems that use 2-octet Autonomous
    System numbers SHOULD use 2-octet AS specific extended communities
    rather than 4-octet AS specific extended communities.

IMHO there are two solutions to this to resolve the issue ... you either 
fix RFC or remove the sentence above from your draft.

Cheers,
R.

> ----- Forwarded message from Enke Chen<[email-masked]>  -----
>
> From: Enke Chen<[email-masked]>
> To: Jeffrey Haas<[email-masked]>
> CC: Enke Chen<[email-masked]>
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>