Hi, > Considering what RFC8212 does for prefixes, I'd like to discuss doing the > same for communities (incl extended and large).
I think that could be easily done. But what about BGP Attributes which should never be sent interdomain ? As you can see from csv there are lots of them and the list keeps growing. I think if not already then soon we may also need clarity on which AFI/SAFIs should be enabled in the true Interdomain case and which should be rather avoided. Thx, R. On Sat, May 23, 2026 at 5:31 PM Mikael Abrahamsson <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, 23 May 2026, Robert Raszuk wrote: > > > It is highly amazing how much "stuff" carried by BGP today is not > > recommended to be used inter-domain !!! > > Considering what RFC8212 does for prefixes, I'd like to discuss doing the > same for communities (incl extended and large). If a policy doesn't > modify/touch/mention extended/large communities, then default should be to > drop these on accepted prefixes. > > Controlling this behavior could be either a global setting, a peer-group > setting, or a per-neighbor setting. > > Also, considering where a lot of the datacenter is going, differentiating > on EBGP/IBGP is not as effective today as it used to be, so forcing the > user to set up a policy to propagate routes (RFC8212), but also have that > policy decide (default drop/permit) what to do about communities, would be > a good thing. > > I've seen DC implementors who definitely want "full open, no filtering" on > EBGP, but for the ISP inter-network space, allowing extended/large by > default is dangerous. > > -- > Mikael Abrahamsson email: [email protected] >
_______________________________________________ GROW mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
