Route Server Filters at IXPs and 4-byte ASNs
jhaas at pfrc.org
Wed Feb 5 13:52:03 UTC 2014
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-06
> 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.
More information about the NANOG