<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto">Robert,<div><br></div><div>This is not whether you should do it, but, should you have decided to, how to do it in the best possible way, without making mistakes someone else has made and learnt from.<br><br><div dir="ltr">Regards,<div>Jeff</div></div><div dir="ltr"><br><blockquote type="cite">On Sep 9, 2020, at 11:40, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> wrote:<br><br></blockquote></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="auto">And use of BGP without IGP left and right when even today bunch of DCs can do just fine with current IGPs scaling wise is IMO not a good thing.<div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Thx</div><div dir="auto">R.</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Sep 9, 2020, 10:55 Jeff Tantsura via NANOG <<a href="mailto:nanog@nanog.org">nanog@nanog.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto"><div dir="ltr">I don’t think, anyone has proposed to use ‘’reserved ASNs” as a BCP, example of “ab”use of ASN0 is a de-facto artifact (unfortunate one).</div><div dir="ltr">My goal would be to provide a viable source of information to someone who is setting up a new ISP and has a very little clue as where to start. Do’s and don’t’s wrt inter-domain communities use. </div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">I really enjoyed the difference RFC7938 (<span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"PT Mono",Monaco,monospace;font-size:14px;background-color:rgb(255,253,245)">Use of BGP for Routing in Large-Scale Data Centers</span>) made, literally 100s of companies have used it to educate themselves/ implemented their DC networking.</div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">Cheers,<div>Jeff</div></div><div dir="ltr"><br><blockquote type="cite">On Sep 9, 2020, at 10:04, adam via NANOG <<a href="mailto:nanog@nanog.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">nanog@nanog.org</a>> wrote:<br><br></blockquote></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span>I don’t agree with the use of reserved ASNs, let alone making it BCP, cause it defeats the whole purpose of the community structure.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span>Community is basically sending a message to an AS. If I want your specific AS to interpret the message I set it in format YOUR_ASN:<community value>, your AS in the first part of the community means that your rules of how to interpret the community value apply.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span>Turning AS#0 or any other reserved AS# into a “broadcast-AS#” in terms of communities (or any other attribute for that matter) just doesn’t sit right with me (what’s next? multicast-ASNs that we can subscribe to?).<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span>All the examples in Robert’s draft or wide community RFC, all of them use an example AS# the community is addressed to (not some special reserved AS#).<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span>Also should something like this become standard it needs to be properly standardized and implemented as a well-known community by most vendors (like RFCs defining the wide communities or addition to standard communities like no_export/no_advertise/…). This would also eliminate the adoption friction from operators rightly claiming “my AS my rules”. <u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span>adam<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span><u></u> <u></u></span></p><div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt"><div><div style="border:none;border-top:solid #e1e1e1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in"><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US">From:</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> NANOG <nanog-bounces+adamv0025=<a href="mailto:netconsultings.com@nanog.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">netconsultings.com@nanog.org</a>> <b>On Behalf Of </b>Douglas Fischer via NANOG<br><b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, September 8, 2020 4:56 PM<br><b>To:</b> NANOG <<a href="mailto:nanog@nanog.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">nanog@nanog.org</a>><br><b>Subject:</b> BGP Community - AS0 is de-facto "no-export-to" marker - Any ASN reserved to "export-only-to"?'<u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Courier New",serif">Most of us have already used some BGP community policy to no-export some routes to some where.<br><br>On the majority of IXPs, and most of the Transit Providers, the very common community tell to route-servers and routers "Please do no-export these routes to that ASN" is:<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Courier New",serif"> -> 0:<TargetASN><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Courier New",serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Courier New",serif">So we could say that this is a de-facto standard.<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Courier New",serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Courier New",serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Courier New",serif">But the Policy equivalent to "Please, export these routes only to that ASN" is very varied on all the IXPs or Transit Providers.<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Courier New",serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Courier New",serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Courier New",serif">With that said, now comes some questions:<br><br>1 - Beyond being a de-facto standard, there is any RFC, Public Policy, or something like that, that would define 0:<TargetASN> as "no-export-to" standard?<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Courier New",serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Courier New",serif">2 - What about reserving some 16-bits ASN to use <ExpOnlyTo>:<TargetASN> as "export-only-to" standard?<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Courier New",serif">2.1 - Is important to be 16 bits, because with (RT) extended communities, any ASN on the planet could be the target of that policy.<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Courier New",serif">2.2 - Would be interesting some mnemonic number like 1000 / 10000 or so.<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><p class="MsoNormal">-- <u></u><u></u></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New",serif">Douglas Fernando Fischer<br>Engº de Controle e Automação</span><u></u><u></u></p></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote></div>
</div></blockquote></div></body></html>