Yes, but with large communities, that’s called RFC-8092 and in general, RFC-8642 has some good data.
There’s also BGP extended communities (RFC-7153 and the IANA registry it creates). Creating an ad hoc BCP vs. using the existing RFC process seems ill-advised. Owen > On Sep 8, 2020, at 11:35 AM, Mike Hammett via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> wrote: > > How I see the OP's intent is to create a BCP of what defined communities have > what effect instead of everyone just making up whatever they draw out of a > hat, simplifying this process for everyone. > > > > ----- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > Midwest-IX > http://www.midwest-ix.com > > From: "Tom Beecher via NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org> > To: "Douglas Fischer" <fischerdoug...@gmail.com> > Cc: "NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org> > Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2020 1:30:19 PM > Subject: Re: BGP Community - AS0 is de-facto "no-export-to" marker - Any ASN > reserved to "export-only-to"?' > > BGP Large Communities ( https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8195 > <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8195> ) already provides for anyone to define > the exact handling you wish. > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 11:57 AM Douglas Fischer via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org > <mailto:nanog@nanog.org>> wrote: > Most of us have already used some BGP community policy to no-export some > routes to some where. > > On the majority of IXPs, and most of the Transit Providers, the very common > community tell to route-servers and routers "Please do no-export these routes > to that ASN" is: > > -> 0:<TargetASN> > > So we could say that this is a de-facto standard. > > > But the Policy equivalent to "Please, export these routes only to that ASN" > is very varied on all the IXPs or Transit Providers. > > > With that said, now comes some questions: > > 1 - Beyond being a de-facto standard, there is any RFC, Public Policy, or > something like that, that would define 0:<TargetASN> as "no-export-to" > standard? > > 2 - What about reserving some 16-bits ASN to use <ExpOnlyTo>:<TargetASN> as > "export-only-to" standard? > 2.1 - Is important to be 16 bits, because with (RT) extended communities, any > ASN on the planet could be the target of that policy. > 2.2 - Would be interesting some mnemonic number like 1000 / 10000 or so. > > -- > Douglas Fernando Fischer > Engº de Controle e Automação >
