Martin, On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 10:06:31AM +0100, Martin Pels wrote:
Wide communities is the wrong tool here. You want this: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-as4octet-extcomm-generic-subtype-0...
This draft does not cater for the use case of describing a 32-bit ASN peering with a 32-bit route server, which would require a 4-byte Global Administrator as well as a 4-byte Local Administrator sub-field.
I think that's the first clear articulation I've read about why some people want wide comms vs. a simple replacement for existing regular communities as extended communities. Thanks. Wide comms can do that, but they're intended to be a somewhat bigger hammer. This case is probably worth chatting with the authors and others in IDR at IETF to see if we should do something simpler. -- Jeff