nanog mailing list archives
Re: Upstream BGP community support
From: Jack Bates <jbates () brightok net>
Date: Mon, 02 Nov 2009 13:38:00 -0600
Joel Jaeggli wrote:
A standardized set means it can be cooked into documentation, training, and potentially even products.
Communities (except the standardized well known ones) are extremely diverse. For those that support even more granular traffic engineering by limiting which of their peers your routes might be transiting, I believe there are 2 distinct methods of using communities.
The nature of communities, and the different levels of support and traffic engineering capabilities makes it difficult for it to be standardized. It would take even longer for anyone to adopt such a standard due to the sheer volume of routers and customers who would have to adapt from long term established policies.
Jack Bates
Current thread:
- Re: Upstream BGP community support, (continued)
- Re: Upstream BGP community support Steve Bertrand (Nov 01)
- Message not available
- Re: Upstream BGP community support Matthew Petach (Nov 01)
- 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 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)