North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: Global BGP community values?
> Hank's suggestion requires no change to the BGP protocol in that > use of communities which aren't known are ignored (i.e. won't > break old speakers). But making speakers act on it requires > changes to the implementation. In practice however, the fact > inter-AS peerings do not normally have send-community enabled > means that the information will often be dropped across the > net without widescale changes. > > Your suggestion also requires no change to the BGP protocol in > that use of optional transitive attributes which aren't known > just results in them being ignored, so won't break old speakers. > But making speakers act on it requires changes to the > implementation. In practice however, the fact that non-fixed > speakers may well drop the attribute means the information > is likely to be dropped without widescale deployment of new > code. > > Also, your scheme has another advantage over Hank's: The code > changes to make Hank's scheme work are probably larger in > various router vendor's code. Take Cisco: route-map handling > of communities is really dumb. Let's say Hank's pref-prefix > is (say) 1234:xxxx (where xxxx is the preference). You cannot > easilly filter out 1234:anything and *just* drop that community > from a string, and substitute in your own pref, nor do arithmetic > operations (like add 5 to the pref). You can't even delete > individual communities. > > I think better implement it properly. what he said but there is an underlying problem. i have a business relationship with my direct neighbors under which we can negotiate traffic patterns. i do not have a business relationship with a 'distant' network. hence i am rather reluctant to allow them to influence my policies when those decisions my be costing me money, or my customers performance, or ... randy