Upstream BGP community support

Joel Jaeggli joelja at
Mon Nov 2 13:57:30 CST 2009

Jack Bates wrote:
> Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>> A standardized set means it can be cooked into documentation, training,
>> and potentially even products.
> Communities (except the standardized well known ones) are extremely
> diverse. For those that support even more granular traffic engineering
> by limiting which of their peers your routes might be transiting, I
> believe there are 2 distinct methods of using communities.
> The nature of communities, and the different levels of support and
> traffic engineering capabilities makes it difficult for it to be
> standardized. It would take even longer for anyone to adopt such a
> standard due to the sheer volume of routers and customers who would have
> to adapt from long term established policies.

You're not going to get any argument from me about the diversity of
implmentations or the needs arising out of network specific optimization.

That said, our previous conclusion was also that we couldn't reasonably
do this for a subset of them so I don't have to go very far to be
convinced. That said standardization would likely make some features
more accessible and therefore more likely to be used, I don't think
traffic engineering is something I particularly want to encourage to
excess but RTBH is a know that more people need access to quite frankly.


> Jack Bates

More information about the NANOG mailing list