Correction
BGP communities are optional transitive. If all communities were not
transitive the knob would not exist in any implementation such as Cisco and
maybe others that have a “send-community” knob requirements manual CLI
command to propagate communities.
BGP communities going between admi
> The point Jakob follows up with in this thread strongly suggests
> communities are not a viable mechanism.
communities are rarely a viable mechanism. too malleable, forgable,
... once again, see our paper.
randy
___
GROW mailing list
GROW@ietf.org
On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 7:57 AM Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed) <
kotikalapudi.sri...@nist.gov> wrote:
> Hi Sue,
>
> Thanks for the detailed thoughts you have shared on the IDR list about the
> WKLC draft and route leaks solution draft (while also responding to Brian’s
> post).
>
> At one point in the
Sriram,
On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 05:16:47PM +, Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed) wrote:
> >You can thus just get a FCFS extended community from a
> >transitive space TODAY and
> >it'd probably do most of what you want. One of the beneficial properties
> >that extended communities have is the transiti
On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 06:02:52PM +, Jakob Heitz (jheitz) wrote:
> No community is transitive.
> Not even the transitive extended communities.
>
> In all BGP code I've worked in, not just Cisco, a configuration
> is required to send communities of any kind to an ebgp session.
> By default, no
No community is transitive.
Not even the transitive extended communities.
In all BGP code I've worked in, not just Cisco, a configuration
is required to send communities of any kind to an ebgp session.
By default, no communities are sent to ebgp sessions.
That's a good thing, because network opera
Jeff,
Thank you for the response. My comments inline.
>You can thus just get a FCFS extended community from a
>transitive space TODAY and
>it'd probably do most of what you want. One of the beneficial properties
>that extended communities have is the transitivity is at least understood
>and well
Sriram,
(Clearly I'm not Sue...)
Extending the observation I've just made to Gyan, the headache you're going
through is trying to avoid the work of creating a new attribute. A result
of this is a lot of work trying to proscriptively change how people operate
their networks for more general featu
Hi Sue,
Thanks for the detailed thoughts you have shared on the IDR list about the WKLC
draft and route leaks solution draft (while also responding to Brian’s post).
At one point in the past, the route leaks solution needed 8 bytes of user data
space to accommodate two ASNs but then there was a
