On Feb 5, 2014, at 8:52 AM, Jeffrey Haas <jh...@pfrc.org> wrote: >> 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.
I suspect the operator confusion is that’s how they’ve been using 16-bit ASNs all along, so how did the IETF end up with something different. http://www.onesc.net/communities/ is a fairly comprehensive list of how they are used today. - jared
