Job Snijders wrote: > OK, but you are not explaining to me why the current set of RFC's can't > be updated to encourage different NO_EXPORT behaviour on route servers > (compared to the rest of the BGP speakers), but instead a new community > is required.
it's because there is no consensus in the IXP world and there are a lot of deployed instances which would need to be changed one way or another. >>> > > 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 > > This doesn't tell me why there is no consensus :) because: - the RFCs are formally ambiguous, dating way back to RFC1863 (which is acknowledged to be experimental, but documented the practices going back to the mid 1990s) - each IXP which has gone one way or the other has carefully considered reasons for doing what they did - because of this, it will not be possible to reach consensus on interpreting NO_EXPORT or passing it through (we have tried) - the authors of this ID believe that the only way to fix this problem is to acknowledge that it cannot be fixed, then move on. Nick _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list GROW@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
