nanog mailing list archives
Re: Standard for BGP community lists
From: Brad Fleming <bdflemin () gmail com>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 23:45:55 -0500
I don't know about anyone else, but I use: 9999:9999 for local rtbh 9999:8888 for local + remote rtbhBasically, whether I should blockhole the traffic to a capture box on my network for user analysis -OR- whether I should blackhole within my network AND make a best effort to blackhole within my direct peers as well. Its obviously a sticky case since some of my direct peers don't support blackhole routing. I allow users to signal either case to me and I also offer to inject the routes on their behalf.
I didn't have much reason for selecting 9999 other than it was easy to identify visually. And obviously, I have safe-guards to not leak those communities into other networks.
brad On Jul 19, 2010, at 5:52 PM, Steve Bertrand wrote:
Many ISPs publish community lists that go above-and-beyond standard route selection. Is there a standard for this? ie. I want my clients to utilize my s/rtbh setup as they see fit, for themselves. I'd also like my upstreams to do the same if necessary. Is there a consensus on which communities are used for these purposes? If so, which ones? otoh, is there such an engineer/network that has a client that theytrust so much that they'd enable them to null a block for you globally,via community list? Steve
Current thread:
- Standard for BGP community lists Steve Bertrand (Jul 19)
- Re: Standard for BGP community lists Brad Fleming (Jul 19)
- Re: Standard for BGP community lists Saku Ytti (Jul 20)
- Re: Standard for BGP community lists Danny McPherson (Jul 20)
- Re: Standard for BGP community lists Joe Provo (Jul 20)
- Re: Standard for BGP community lists Saku Ytti (Jul 20)
- Re: Standard for BGP community lists Brad Fleming (Jul 19)