[25314] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Global BGP community values?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Peter Galbavy)
Tue Oct 5 09:28:43 1999
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 14:25:53 +0100
From: Peter Galbavy <Peter.Galbavy@knowledge.com>
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
Cc: Alex Bligh <amb@gxn.net>, Vadim Antonov <avg@kotovnik.com>,
hank@ibm.net.il, nanog@merit.edu
Message-ID: <19991005142553.A22979@office.knowledge.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <E11YU2H-0003Db-00@roam.psg.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Tue, Oct 05, 1999 at 05:49:41AM -0700, Randy Bush wrote:
> 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 ...
You don't have to. The original proposal was for a community value
which *hinted* to the routeing policy that the originator would prefer
that return traffic went "thata way" if poossible. Those of use who
run simplistic networks (we only currently have one upstream, but
clients we help manage networks for still only have 2 to 4 upstreams)
would see this hint to the policy engine as "good enough" for most
circumstances. Those with more complex network can just ignore (and
transit on please) the communities proposed.
That's my understaning anyhow.
Regards,
--
Peter Galbavy
Knowledge Matters Ltd
http://www.knowledge.com/
