Hi Elmar, it seems to be a not completely agreed/standardised question. https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7947#section-2.2.4 The BGP Communities [RFC1997] and Extended Communities [RFC4360] attributes are intended for labeling information carried in BGP UPDATE messages. Transitive as well as non-transitive Communities attributes applied to an NLRI UPDATE sent to a route server SHOULD NOT be modified, processed, or removed, except as defined by local policy. If a Communities attribute is intended for processing by the route server itself, as determined by local policy, it MAY be modified or removed. and https://docs.ixpmanager.org/features/route-servers/#rfc1997-passthru has some more background. Hi Nick! Frank On 28/10/2022 15:21, Elmar K. Bins wrote:

Hi guys (and others),

I couldn't find an official description/explanation of this (EQX docs only mention that this should behave the same as their "set the no_export" TE community.

We are using Equinix' IXP platform's routeserver service (MLPE) in a few locations on the planet, and due to the nature of our anycast structure, we are sending our prefixes with the well-known NO_EXPORT community attached.

It seems to me that, at least in some places (i.e. Warsaw, ex-PLIX), the routeservers will not forward the routes further, being intransparent to the NO_EXPORT setting.

My assumption was transparency, so the prefixes would be forwarded unchanged, including the NO_EXPORT community attached.

It would be nice to hear directly from Equinix, of course, but if anybody on this list has hard knowledge of this, please share, so that I can take the appropriate measures...

Thanks in advance, Elmar.