Upstream BGP community support

Joe Maimon jmaimon at ttec.com
Tue Nov 3 08:45:26 CST 2009


Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> So this questions we have approached from time to time. Is there some
> worth to be had in finding some consensus  (assuming such a thing is
> possible) on a subset of the features that people use communities for
> that could be standardized? particularly in the context of source based
> remote triggered blackholing this seemed a like a worthwhile effort.
> 
> A standardized set means it can be cooked into documentation, training,
> and potentially even products.
> 
> it doesn't mean that everyone will enable it, but if they do it would be
> nice to agree on some basi grounds rules. it should also be understood
> that many if not most localized community signaling uses would remain
> localized in terms of their documentation and use.
> 
> joel
> 

It might be a holy grail to have it completely automatable, but it would 
seriously help just to have a couple standard ways to do things 
published, product support could follow that.

I dont know if communities is really the best thing to keep overloading 
this way. Whats wrong with dedicating a new attribute for automating policy?





More information about the NANOG mailing list