[db-wg] Proxy proposal large communities
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] Proxy proposal large communities
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] Proxy proposal large communities
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Job Snijders
job at instituut.net
Mon Nov 13 10:40:52 CET 2017
On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 01:11:46AM +1030, Mark Prior wrote: > On 13/11/17 00:58, Job Snijders wrote: > > On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 at 15:17, Mark Prior via db-wg <db-wg at ripe.net > > <mailto:db-wg at ripe.net>> wrote: > > > > Wouldn't it be better to just change the definition of community in > > the RPSL dictionary so that a community of <digit>+ ":" <digit>+ ":" > > <digit>+ is valid and then have the tools either barf if they don't > > understand or do "the right thing"? That would seem more consistent > > with the current scheme where a community can either be an integer > > or <digit>+ ":" <digit>+. > > > > That goes against the documented recommendations on how to upgrade > > RPSL. > > That's not my reading of RFC 2622 section 10.1. My suggestions seems > consistent with the change to route damping mentioned in that section. Section 10.1 says: "We recommend updating the RPSL dictionary to include appropriate rp-attribute and protocol definitions as new path attributes or router features are introduced." Large BGP Communities [RFC 8092] are a new path attribute, so a new rp-attribute should be used. Old parsers will ignore the new (to them unknown) rp-attributes. Furthermore the section states: "When changing the dictionary, full compatibility should be maintained." When an 'old' parser encounters the following: mp-export: afi ipv6.unicast to AS13105 announce AS-RCNET-V6 AND NOT community.contains(21414:0:570) It'll be seen as a syntax error, because the parameters to 'community' are already defined, and "21414:0:570" doesn't meet that definition, so that is not backwards compatible. typedef: community_elm union integer[1, 4294967200], enum[internet, no_export, no_advertise], list[2:2] of integer[0, 65535] typedef: list of community_elm Section 10 of RFC 2622 should've used a different phrasing, instead of talking about "updating the dictionary" it could've been more explicit and stated "adding or removing rp-attributes from the dictionary". Changing existing entries of the dictionary is hard. Section 10.4 sums it up. Kind regards, Job
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] Proxy proposal large communities
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] Proxy proposal large communities
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ db-wg Archives ]