draft-ietf-grow-wkc-behavior-06.txt   draft-ietf-grow-wkc-behavior-07.txt 
Network Working Group J. Borkenhagen Network Working Group J. Borkenhagen
Internet-Draft AT&T Internet-Draft AT&T
Updates: 1997 (if approved) R. Bush Updates: 1997 (if approved) R. Bush
Intended status: Standards Track Internet Initiative Japan Intended status: Standards Track IIJ & Arrcus
Expires: December 12, 2019 R. Bonica Expires: December 12, 2019 R. Bonica
Juniper Networks Juniper Networks
S. Bayraktar S. Bayraktar
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
June 10, 2019 June 10, 2019
Well-Known Community Policy Behavior Well-Known Community Policy Behavior
draft-ietf-grow-wkc-behavior-06 draft-ietf-grow-wkc-behavior-07
Abstract Abstract
Well-Known BGP Communities are manipulated differently across various Well-Known BGP Communities are manipulated differently across various
current implementations; resulting in difficulties for operators. current implementations; resulting in difficulties for operators.
Network operators should deploy consistent community handling across Network operators should deploy consistent community handling across
their networks while taking the inconsistent behaviors from the their networks while taking the inconsistent behaviors from the
various BGP implementations into consideration.. This document various BGP implementations into consideration.. This document
recommends specific actions to limit future inconsistency, namely BGP recommends specific actions to limit future inconsistency, namely BGP
implementors must not create further inconsistencies from this point implementors must not create further inconsistencies from this point
forward. forward.
Requirements Language Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" are to "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119] only when they "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
appear in all upper case. They may also appear in lower or mixed 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
case as English words, without normative meaning. capitals, as shown here.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
skipping to change at page 4, line 51 skipping to change at page 4, line 51
communities. communities.
4.1. Note on an Inconsistency 4.1. Note on an Inconsistency
The IANA publishes a list of Well-Known Communities [IANA-WKC]. The IANA publishes a list of Well-Known Communities [IANA-WKC].
Cisco IOS XR's set of Well-Known communities that "set community" Cisco IOS XR's set of Well-Known communities that "set community"
will not overwrite diverges from the IANA's list of Well-Known will not overwrite diverges from the IANA's list of Well-Known
communities. Quite a few Well-Known communities from IANA's list do communities. Quite a few Well-Known communities from IANA's list do
not receive special treatment in Cisco IOS XR, and at least one not receive special treatment in Cisco IOS XR, and at least one
specific community on Cisco IOS XR's special treatment list (internet community on Cisco IOS XR's special treatment list, internet == 0:0,
== 0:0) is not really on IANA's list -- it's taken from the is not formally a Well-Known Community as it is not in [IANA-WKC];
"Reserved" range [0x00000000-0x0000FFFF]. but taken from the Reserved range [0x00000000-0x0000FFFF].
This merely notes an inconsistency. It is not a plea to 'protect' This merely notes an inconsistency. It is not a plea to 'protect'
the entire IANA list from "set community." the entire IANA list from "set community."
5. Note for Those Writing RFCs for New Community-Like Attributes 5. Note for Those Writing RFCs for New Community-Like Attributes
> When establishing new [RFC1997]-like attributes (large communities, When establishing new [RFC1997]-like attributes (large communities,
wide communities, etc.), RFC authors should state explicitly how the wide communities, etc.), RFC authors should state explicitly how the
> new attribute is to be handled. > new attribute is to be handled.
6. Action Items 6. Action Items
Network operators are encouraged to limit their use of the "set" Network operators are encouraged to limit their use of the "set"
directive (within reason), to improve consistency across platforms. directive (within reason), to improve consistency across platforms.
Unfortunately, it would be operationally disruptive for vendors to Unfortunately, it would be operationally disruptive for vendors to
change their current implementations. change their current implementations.
skipping to change at page 6, line 27 skipping to change at page 6, line 27
[RFC1997] Chandra, R., Traina, P., and T. Li, "BGP Communities [RFC1997] Chandra, R., Traina, P., and T. Li, "BGP Communities
Attribute", RFC 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC1997, August 1996, Attribute", RFC 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC1997, August 1996,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1997>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1997>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Jay Borkenhagen Jay Borkenhagen
AT&T AT&T
200 Laurel Avenue South 200 Laurel Avenue South
Middletown, NJ 07748 Middletown, NJ 07748
United States of America United States of America
Email: jayb@att.com Email: jayb@att.com
Randy Bush Randy Bush
Internet Initiative Japan IIJ & Arrcus
5147 Crystal Springs 5147 Crystal Springs
Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
United States of America US
Email: randy@psg.com Email: randy@psg.com
Ron Bonica Ron Bonica
Juniper Networks Juniper Networks
2251 Corporate Park Drive 2251 Corporate Park Drive
Herndon, VA 20171 Herndon, VA 20171
US US
Email: rbonica@juniper.net Email: rbonica@juniper.net
 End of changes. 8 change blocks. 
12 lines changed or deleted 16 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/