[118938] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Upstream BGP community support
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joe Maimon)
Tue Nov 3 09:46:29 2009
Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2009 09:45:26 -0500
From: Joe Maimon <jmaimon@ttec.com>
To: Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
In-Reply-To: <4AEF341D.7050009@bogus.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> So this questions we have approached from time to time. Is there some
> worth to be had in finding some consensus (assuming such a thing is
> possible) on a subset of the features that people use communities for
> that could be standardized? particularly in the context of source based
> remote triggered blackholing this seemed a like a worthwhile effort.
>
> A standardized set means it can be cooked into documentation, training,
> and potentially even products.
>
> it doesn't mean that everyone will enable it, but if they do it would be
> nice to agree on some basi grounds rules. it should also be understood
> that many if not most localized community signaling uses would remain
> localized in terms of their documentation and use.
>
> joel
>
It might be a holy grail to have it completely automatable, but it would
seriously help just to have a couple standard ways to do things
published, product support could follow that.
I dont know if communities is really the best thing to keep overloading
this way. Whats wrong with dedicating a new attribute for automating policy?
