Hello, > On 10. Oct 2017, at 05:46, Job Snijders <j...@instituut.net> wrote: > > Have you considered just updating RFC 7947 to resolve the described ambiguity > by stating that a route server SHOULD pass the NO_EXPORT community unaltered, > rather than interpret it or block it?
From my reading of RFC1997 and RFC7947 the ambiguity is not really one: RFC1997 states that any community-aware BGP speaker MUT NOT advertise prefixes received with NO_EXPORT --> a route server is a BGP speaker --> it is community aware RFC7947 uses wording SHOULD NOT and MAY which IMHO are weaker. > > > Why is there no consensus amongst route server operators on what the correct > behavior is? Can you provide a citation? > all that aside, DE-CIX already has all that functionality using our own communities (we actually have two, one for adding NO_EXPORT and one for adding NO_ADVERTISE, and also allow selective adding using Large Communities): https://www.de-cix.net/en/locations/united-states/dallas/routeserver-guide best regards Wolfgang -- Wolfgang Tremmel Phone +49 69 1730902 26 | Fax +49 69 4056 2716 | Mobile +49 171 8600 816 | wolfgang.trem...@de-cix.net Geschaeftsfuehrer Harald A. Summa | Registergericht AG Köln HRB 51135 DE-CIX Management GmbH | Lindleystrasse 12 | 60314 Frankfurt am Main | Germany | www.de-cix.net _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list GROW@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
