nanog mailing list archives
Re: Upstream BGP community support
From: Randy Bush <randy () psg com>
Date: Sun, 01 Nov 2009 09:25:34 +0900
while i can understand folk's wanting to signal upstream using communities, and i know it's all the rage. one issue needs to be raised. bgp is a brilliant information hiding protocol. policy is horribly opaque. complexity abounds. and it has unfun consequences, e.g. see tim on wedgies etc. and this just adds to the complexity and opacity. so i ain't sayin' don't do it. after all, who would deny you the ability to show off your bgp macho? just try to minimize its use to only when you *really* need it. randy
Current thread:
- Upstream BGP community support Andy B. (Oct 31)
- Re: Upstream BGP community support Jeffrey Lyon (Oct 31)
- Re: Upstream BGP community support Richard A Steenbergen (Oct 31)
- Re: Upstream BGP community support Andy B. (Oct 31)
- Re: Upstream BGP community support Christopher Morrow (Oct 31)
- Re: Upstream BGP community support Randy Bush (Oct 31)
- Re: Upstream BGP community support jim deleskie (Oct 31)
- Re: Upstream BGP community support Randy Bush (Oct 31)
- Re: Upstream BGP community support jim deleskie (Oct 31)
- Re: Upstream BGP community support Andy B. (Oct 31)
- Re: Upstream BGP community support Paul Wall (Oct 31)
- Re: Upstream BGP community support Richard A Steenbergen (Oct 31)
- Re: Upstream BGP community support Dorian Kim (Oct 31)
- Re: Upstream BGP community support Richard A Steenbergen (Oct 31)
- Re: Upstream BGP community support Dorian Kim (Oct 31)
- Re: Upstream BGP community support Richard A Steenbergen (Oct 31)
- Re: Upstream BGP community support Richard A Steenbergen (Oct 31)