On 8/Sep/20 20:15, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> This does not require any more trust for say directly connected peers
> more then today when you publish communities on the web page.
I'd tend to disagree.
Trusting your direct peer to not send you default or to have a 24/7 NOC
to handle connectivity issues is not the same level of trust I'd afford
them to send me a community that told my network what to announce to my
other eBGP neighbors or not.
Of course, I am probably less trusting than most, so I'm not
recommending anyone follow my advice :-).
> It is not about opening up your network. It is about expressing your
> policy in a common way in the exact say amount as you would open up
> your network today.
I can express my policy, publicly. But I can also indicate who has the
power to implement that expression on my side.
> Notice that in addition to common types there is equal amount of
> space left for operator's define types. It is just that the structure
> of community can take number of arguments used during execution -
> that's all.
That is all good and well, and works beautifully within an operator's
network, which is the point of the capability.
Extending that to non-customer networks is not technically impossible.
It's just a question of trust.
It's not unlike trusting your customers to send you FlowSpec
instructions. No issues technically, but do you want to do it?
Mark.
