[127904] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Standard for BGP community lists
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Brad Fleming)
Tue Jul 20 00:46:22 2010
From: Brad Fleming <bdflemin@gmail.com>
To: "nanog@nanog.org >> nanog list" <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <4C44D731.5010709@ipv6canada.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 23:45:55 -0500
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
I don't know about anyone else, but I use:
9999:9999 for local rtbh
9999:8888 for local + remote rtbh
Basically, 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 they
> trust so much that they'd enable them to null a block for you
> globally,
> via community list?
>
> Steve
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
