Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] [GROW] [IPFIX] WG adoption poll fordraft-li-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community-02

From: Jared Mauch <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 12:08:23 -0500

On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 07:53:23PM +0800, 李振强 wrote:
> Thank you P.J. Aitken.
> 
> The length of IPFIX message is sufficient for BGP standard communities, since the length of standard community is 4 octets. But the sizes of extended community, large community and wide community are bigger than the size of standard community. If the working group agrees to cover the above all kinds of communities in this draft, do you think we should open the discussion for IPFIX
> 

	I believe there should be coverage for 1997 as well as the upcoming large communities.

	- Jared

---

From: Job Snijders <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 18:43:08 +0100

On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 12:08:23PM -0500, Jared Mauch wrote:
> > The length of IPFIX message is sufficient for BGP standard
> > communities, since the length of standard community is 4 octets. But
> > the sizes of extended community, large community and wide community
> > are bigger than the size of standard community. If the working group
> > agrees to cover the above all kinds of communities in this draft, do
> > you think we should open the discussion for IPFIX
> > 
> 

Agreed. There certainly is merit in covering RFC 1997 (32-bit), RFC 4360
(64-bit) and RFC 8092 (96-bit). For each of these one can fit (at least
a few) of such communities in the 16 bits worth of length of the 'outer
enveloppe' that is the IPFIX record. Should be pretty straight forward.

On the other hand, the current version of the Wide communities draft has
a container mechanism, the outer layer at that level also has a 16-bit
field, like IPFIX has. One can't fit a 16-bit thing in a 16-bit + with
space left for leading / trailing IPFIX related data. I don't
immediately have suggestions how to fit this reliably.

Kind regards,

Job

---

From: Peter Schoenmaker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 18:18:12 +0000

Hi mail thread folks:

It appears that this thread had [email-masked] added to the email list (and subsequently [email-masked] was add).  This was causing the emails sent to bounce, and not make it to the grow mailing list.  Please make sure [email-masked] is not in the to/cc, and [email-masked] is included when responding.

thanks

Peter