Standard for BGP community lists
Brad Fleming
bdflemin at gmail.com
Tue Jul 20 04:45:55 UTC 2010
I don't know about anyone else, but I use:
9999:9999 for local rtbh
9999:8888 for local + remote rtbh
Basically, whether I should blockhole the traffic to a capture box on
my network for user analysis -OR- whether I should blackhole within my
network AND make a best effort to blackhole within my direct peers as
well. Its obviously a sticky case since some of my direct peers don't
support blackhole routing. I allow users to signal either case to me
and I also offer to inject the routes on their behalf.
I didn't have much reason for selecting 9999 other than it was easy to
identify visually. And obviously, I have safe-guards to not leak those
communities into other networks.
brad
On Jul 19, 2010, at 5:52 PM, Steve Bertrand wrote:
> Many ISPs publish community lists that go above-and-beyond standard
> route selection.
>
> Is there a standard for this?
>
> ie. I want my clients to utilize my s/rtbh setup as they see fit, for
> themselves. I'd also like my upstreams to do the same if necessary.
>
> Is there a consensus on which communities are used for these purposes?
> If so, which ones?
>
> otoh, is there such an engineer/network that has a client that they
> trust so much that they'd enable them to null a block for you
> globally,
> via community list?
>
> Steve
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
More information about the NANOG
mailing list