On 2010-03-15, at 4:37 PM, Asbjorn Hojmark - Lists wrote: > On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 13:08:03 -0400, you wrote: > >> aggregate-address may be a reasonable solution, but I can't seem to >> tag a community with an aggregate-address statement like I can with >> a network statement > > router bgp <asnr> > address-family ipv4 > aggregate-address A.A.A.A M.M.M.M attribute-map BGP-LOCAL > > route-map BGP-LOCAL permit 10 > set metric 10 > set local-preference 1000 > set origin igp > set community <whatever>
Indeed. That not withstanding, my problem with relying on aggregate-address is that the prefix isn't announced unless it, or a candidate prefix exists in the BGP table. When I did this all initially, my school of thought was that if there's no way to anchor these routes at the edge of the network, then an I[B]GP issue could cause a bunch of these routes to flap. In contrast, if they are attached to a network statement and redistributed by the static null route, I[B]GP instability doesn't result in a flap of the affected prefixes. Sure, it black holes once it hits your AS, but isn't that more desirable than a bunch of flaps? Maybe my logic is outdated, I dunno. If it is, I'd love to know what others are doing. _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
