nanog mailing list archives
Re: Upstream BGP community support
From: Jack Bates <jbates () brightok net>
Date: Mon, 02 Nov 2009 14:02:58 -0600
Joel Jaeggli wrote:
more accessible and therefore more likely to be used, I don't think traffic engineering is something I particularly want to encourage to excess but RTBH is a know that more people need access to quite frankly.
I think creating a standard or at least a template might push more people to adopt communities support and to use them. There are definitely times it is useful to redirect traffic 2 ASN's away through a longer route. In some cases (like my small self, I try to adopt policies that allow communities to me to also be rewritten to the corresponding peers communities to alter things as far as 3 ASN's away from my customer.
Jack
Current thread:
- Re: Upstream BGP community support, (continued)
- Re: Upstream BGP community support Steve Bertrand (Nov 01)
- Re: Upstream BGP community support Randy Bush (Nov 02)
- Re: Upstream BGP community support Richard A Steenbergen (Nov 02)
- Re: Upstream BGP community support Andy B. (Nov 02)
- Re: Upstream BGP community support Randy Bush (Nov 02)
- Re: Upstream BGP community support Patrick W. Gilmore (Nov 02)
- Re: Upstream BGP community support Randy Bush (Nov 02)
- Re: Upstream BGP community support Steve Meuse (Nov 05)
- Re: Upstream BGP community support Steve Bertrand (Nov 01)
- Re: Upstream BGP community support Jack Bates (Nov 02)
- 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 joel jaeggli (Nov 03)