[168823] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Route Server Filters at IXPs and 4-byte ASNs
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jeffrey Haas)
Wed Feb 5 08:52:24 2014
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 08:52:03 -0500
From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
To: Martin Pels <martin.pels@ams-ix.net>
In-Reply-To: <20140205100631.479da729@fizzix>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Martin,
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 10:06:31AM +0100, Martin Pels wrote:
> > Wide communities is the wrong tool here. You want this:
> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-as4octet-extcomm-generic-subtype-06
>
> This draft does not cater for the use case of describing a 32-bit ASN peering
> with a 32-bit route server, which would require a 4-byte Global Administrator
> as well as a 4-byte Local Administrator sub-field.
I think that's the first clear articulation I've read about why some people
want wide comms vs. a simple replacement for existing regular communities as
extended communities. Thanks.
Wide comms can do that, but they're intended to be a somewhat bigger hammer.
This case is probably worth chatting with the authors and others in IDR at
IETF to see if we should do something simpler.
-- Jeff
