nanog mailing list archives
Re: Standard for BGP community lists
From: Saku Ytti <saku () ytti fi>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 10:26:53 +0300
On (2010-07-19 23:45 -0500), Brad Fleming wrote: Hey,
9999:9999 for local rtbh 9999:8888 for local + remote rtbh 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.
I would recommend against using other public ASNs for internal signalling, ASN part should be considered property of given ASN. AS9999 might want to use 9999 to signal particular source where route was learned and your customer might want to do TE with it. Now you must delete them on ingress and rob your customers of this possibility. Hopefully future community (*wink*wink*blink*blink* Raszuk) standards will explicitly state that this is faux pas. -- ++ytti
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)