[168445] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Route Server Filters at IXPs and 4-byte ASNs
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jakob Heitz)
Sat Jan 25 14:26:56 2014
From: Jakob Heitz <jakob.heitz@ericsson.com>
To: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2014 19:26:35 +0000
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
I would support that.=0A=
http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-raszuk-wide-bgp-communities-03=0A=
How would you modify it?=0A=
=0A=
To me, that draft looks hugely complicated, like everything you=0A=
could possibly think of was thrown in. I would support a simplified=0A=
version (and be able to code it without bugs) if it contained just useful s=
tuff.=0A=
--=0A=
=0A=
Jakob Heitz.=0A=
=0A=
________________________________________=0A=
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2014 18:37:42 +0000=0A=
From: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>=0A=
To: Sebastian Spies <s+Mailinglisten.nanog@sloc.de>, nanog@nanog.org=0A=
Subject: Re: Route Server Filters at IXPs and 4-byte ASNs=0A=
Message-ID: <52E40476.20200@foobar.org>=0A=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3DISO-8859-1=0A=
=0A=
On 25/01/2014 15:48, Sebastian Spies wrote:=0A=
> To make things worse: even if the IXPs ASN is 2-byte, I would assume,=0A=
> that RS implementors chose to interpret extended community strings as=0A=
> always being in the format 4-byte:2-byte (see RFC5668).=0A=
=0A=
some ixp operators (e.g. me) are rather enthusiastic about the idea of a=0A=
modified form of draft-raszuk-wide-bgp-communities getting more traction.=
=0A=
This would solve this particular problem and many others.=0A=
=0A=
Nick=0A=
