[43542] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Communities
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jeffrey Haas)
Thu Oct 18 12:48:58 2001
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 12:39:25 -0400
From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com>
To: nanog@merit.edu
Message-ID: <20011018123925.F18141@nexthop.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10110161252100.32004-100000@s1.yuriev.com>; from alex@yuriev.com on Tue, Oct 16, 2001 at 01:00:45PM -0400
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Tue, Oct 16, 2001 at 01:00:45PM -0400, alex@yuriev.com wrote:
> > > On a side note, A's possibilities of influencing inbound routing
> > > decisions - given that B acts on communities set by A, like `Prepend own
> > > ASN a few times before sending over just this link' or `Don't announce
> > > to D at all' - are already technically possible. Frankly, if I were B
> >
> > Correct. And a few upstreams allow this.
>
> It is very simple to do. Create a set of 'advertise-me' communities and
> 'pad-me' communities.
Although it did a few other things as well, an attempt at standardizing
parts of this failed:
draft-bonaventure-bgp-redistribution-01
This draft included:
IDRP style DIST_LIST_INCL, DIST_LIST_EXCL
Proxied NO_EXPORT
Proxied Prepending
The IDRP-style DIST_LISTs seem to generate most of the heat. We never
got a firm feel for why the other two componenents were disliked.
Geoff Huston proposed draft-huston-nopeer-00.txt to attempt to address
some of the route propagation issues that the DIST_LISTs were intended
to address.
> Alex
--
Jeff Haas
NextHop Technologies
