nanog mailing list archives
Re: Communities
From: Bradley Reynolds <brad () b63695 student cwru edu>
Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 03:53:25 -0500 (EST)
On Sun, 2 Nov 1997, Kirby Files wrote:
Can you be a little more precise? Most providers probably use communities to tag subsets of the routes they carry, and some set of those communities, either through inclusion or exclusion, almost certainly describes the set of customer routes carried by that provider. (I'm sure this can be stated more clearly.) GTE certainly does, I'm pretty sure MCI still does, etc.
What the basic question involved was whether providers have some sort of community in place to distribute to customers concerning their customer/internal routes. Also, it would be nice if the provider would distribute this information to the customer. Therefore, I was wondering which providers had such communities and which providers were willing to distribute said communities to customers.
Another question is, "Why do you want this info?" Taking full transit routes from a provider and trying to set localpref or MED based on whether the destination is a customer or peer network? If you are taking transit, there are good arguments for *not* running default-free.
It would seem to me to be helpful when coming up with policy to route traffic bound for internal/customer networks of an upstream to that upstream (unless that link is down). Sometimes the path selection does not allow this and we are forced to use foolish kludges like as path prepending and other neanderthalic clubbings. Bradley Reynolds brad () iagnet net No Inflated Title Internet Access Group
Current thread:
- Re: NAT etc. (was: Spam Control Considered Harmful) Tim Salo (Nov 01)
- Communities Bradley Reynolds (Nov 01)
- Re: Communities Kirby Files (Nov 01)
- Re: Communities Bradley Reynolds (Nov 02)
- Re: Communities Sean M. Doran (Nov 03)
- Message not available
- Re: Communities James A. Farrar (Nov 02)
- Re: Communities Bradley Dunn (Nov 05)
- Re: Communities Kirby Files (Nov 01)
- Communities Bradley Reynolds (Nov 01)
- Re: NAT etc. (was: Spam Control Considered Harmful) Jay R. Ashworth (Nov 02)
- Re: NAT etc. (was: Spam Control Considered Harmful) Alan Hannan (Nov 02)
- Message not available
- Re: NAT etc. (was: Spam Control Considered Harmful) Jay R. Ashworth (Nov 02)
- Re: NAT etc. (was: Spam Control Considered Harmful) Sean M. Doran (Nov 03)
- Message not available
- Re: NAT etc. (was: Spam Control Considered Harmful) Jay R. Ashworth (Nov 03)
- Re: NAT etc. (was: Spam Control Considered Harmful) Yakov Rekhter (Nov 03)
- Message not available
- Re: NAT etc. (was: Spam Control Considered Harmful) Jay R. Ashworth (Nov 03)