nanog mailing list archives
Re: Upstream BGP community support
From: Joe Maimon <jmaimon () ttec com>
Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2009 09:45:26 -0500
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?
Current thread:
- Re: Upstream BGP community support, (continued)
- Re: Upstream BGP community support Joel Jaeggli (Nov 02)
- Re: Upstream BGP community support Jack Bates (Nov 02)
- RE: Upstream BGP community support Brian Dickson (Nov 02)
- Re: Upstream BGP community support Steve Meuse (Nov 05)
- Re: Upstream BGP community support Jack Bates (Nov 05)
- Re: Upstream BGP community support Richard A Steenbergen (Nov 02)
- Re: Upstream BGP community support Daniel Roesen (Nov 05)
- Re: Upstream BGP community support Richard A Steenbergen (Nov 05)
- Re: Upstream BGP community support Daniel Roesen (Nov 06)
- Re: Upstream BGP community support Richard A Steenbergen (Nov 06)
- Re: Upstream BGP community support joel jaeggli (Nov 03)