[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 ]
Mark Prior
mrp at mrp.net
Mon Nov 13 12:01:28 CET 2017
In this particular case I would suggest that you do want the tool to complain rather than ignore the new rp-attribute. Mark. On 13/11/17 20:10, Job Snijders wrote: > 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 ]