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/