So this questions we have approached from time to time. Is there some worth to be had in finding some consensus (assuming such a thing is possible) on a subset of the features that people use communities for that could be standardized? particularly in the context of source based remote triggered blackholing this seemed a like a worthwhile effort. A standardized set means it can be cooked into documentation, training, and potentially even products. it doesn't mean that everyone will enable it, but if they do it would be nice to agree on some basi grounds rules. it should also be understood that many if not most localized community signaling uses would remain localized in terms of their documentation and use. joel jim deleskie wrote:
Here is the problem as I see it. Sure some % fo the people using BGP are bright nuff to use some upstreams communities, but sadly many are not. So this ends up breaking one or more networks, who in turn twist more dials causing other changes.. rinse, wash and repeat. But like Randy said who am I to stop anyone from playing... just means those of us with clue will be able to continue to earn a pay check for a very long time still :)
-jim
On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 9:25 PM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
while i can understand folk's wanting to signal upstream using communities, and i know it's all the rage. one issue needs to be raised.
bgp is a brilliant information hiding protocol. policy is horribly opaque. complexity abounds. and it has unfun consequences, e.g. see tim on wedgies etc.
and this just adds to the complexity and opacity.
so i ain't sayin' don't do it. after all, who would deny you the ability to show off your bgp macho?
just try to minimize its use to only when you *really* need it.
randy