On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 05:05:48PM +0200, Randy Bush wrote: > >> I do not feel comfortable overloading locally administrated bits with > >> something that represents global significance. The 64xxx communites > >> come dangerously close to codepoints we use internally. I'd prefer > >> that the local portion of BGP Communities remains truely local. > > > > only problem is that completely blows the purpose of the exercise, a > > global tagging to help ops and researchers be more sure of what they > > are seeing in the collectors. > > i think i misunderstood you. you are suggesting using 42-44 or > whatever, not 65000 space. sure. i do not care what the numbers > are.
I suggest to take the codepoint(s) from 0xFFFF0000 - 0xFFFFFFFF http://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-well-known-communities/bgp-well-known-communities.xhtml as we then at least have made the most effort to avoid clashes with locally significant values. At the very least I see operational value in having a well-known community to tag "customer" prefixes with, this is something I'd use internally, in public documentation and BCOPs/guides how to set up a BGP transit network. A "CUSTOMER" community could benefit a group braoder then the research community. Kind regards, Job _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
