Best practices for BGP Communities
Hello everybody, A while back I read somewhere that transit providers shouldn't delete communities unless the communities have a specific impact to their network, but my google-fu is failing me and I can't find any sources. Is this still the case? Does anyone have a source for the practice of leaving unknown communities alone or deleting them? Best, Josh
On Sun, Mar 03, 2019 at 08:42:02PM -0500, Joshua Miller wrote:
A while back I read somewhere that transit providers shouldn't delete communities unless the communities have a specific impact to their network, but my google-fu is failing me and I can't find any sources.
Is this still the case? Does anyone have a source for the practice of leaving unknown communities alone or deleting them?
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7454#section-11 Kind regards, Job
On 3/5/19, 6:04 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Job Snijders" <nanog-bounces+courtney_smith=comcast.com@nanog.org on behalf of job@instituut.net> wrote: On Sun, Mar 03, 2019 at 08:42:02PM -0500, Joshua Miller wrote: > A while back I read somewhere that transit providers shouldn't delete > communities unless the communities have a specific impact to their > network, but my google-fu is failing me and I can't find any sources. > > Is this still the case? Does anyone have a source for the practice of > leaving unknown communities alone or deleting them? https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7454#section-11 Kind regards, Job Remember policies between two peers may not be same as customer policies. Example: Customers_of_transit_X >>> Transit X >>> Peer_A >> Customers_of_Peer_A Customers_of_Peer_A may use community A:50 to set local pref to 50 in Peer_A network. But that doesn’t not mean Customers_of_transit_X can send A:50 to set lpref on their routes in Peer_A's network. Peer_A's policy with Transit X likely does not take action on customer communities since they are 'peers' not customers. Transit X can send A:50 to Peer_A but nothing would happen. What's the benefit of Transit X preserving A:50 from its customers if it means nothing in Transit X?
On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 8:32 Smith, Courtney <Courtney_Smith@comcast.com> wrote:
On 3/5/19, 6:04 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Job Snijders" <nanog-bounces+courtney_smith=comcast.com@nanog.org on behalf of job@instituut.net> wrote:
On Sun, Mar 03, 2019 at 08:42:02PM -0500, Joshua Miller wrote: > A while back I read somewhere that transit providers shouldn't delete > communities unless the communities have a specific impact to their > network, but my google-fu is failing me and I can't find any sources. > > Is this still the case? Does anyone have a source for the practice of > leaving unknown communities alone or deleting them?
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7454#section-11
Remember policies between two peers may not be same as customer policies.
Example: Customers_of_transit_X >>> Transit X >>> Peer_A >> Customers_of_Peer_A
Customers_of_Peer_A may use community A:50 to set local pref to 50 in Peer_A network. But that doesn’t not mean Customers_of_transit_X can send A:50 to set lpref on their routes in Peer_A's network. Peer_A's policy with Transit X likely does not take action on customer communities since they are 'peers' not customers. Transit X can send A:50 to Peer_A but nothing would happen. What's the benefit of Transit X preserving A:50 from its customers if it means nothing in Transit X?
OP didn’t specify what kind of BGP communities they were referring to. In general we can separate communities into two categories: “Informational” and “Action”. You are right that preserving/propagating “action” communities (such as in your example) probably isn’t that interesting. “informational” communities on the other hand can be very valuable. See https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8195 for more information on how the two types differ. Kind regards, Job
Thanks for all the feedback. Follow up questions: How does one distinguish "informational" and "action" of unknown communities? Also, why would a transit provider go out of their way to remove unknown communities that don't have any meaning within their network? What benefit would it serve the transit provider? Best, Josh On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 8:18 PM Job Snijders <job@instituut.net> wrote:
On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 8:32 Smith, Courtney <Courtney_Smith@comcast.com> wrote:
On 3/5/19, 6:04 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Job Snijders" <nanog-bounces+courtney_smith=comcast.com@nanog.org on behalf of job@instituut.net> wrote:
On Sun, Mar 03, 2019 at 08:42:02PM -0500, Joshua Miller wrote: > A while back I read somewhere that transit providers shouldn't delete > communities unless the communities have a specific impact to their > network, but my google-fu is failing me and I can't find any sources. > > Is this still the case? Does anyone have a source for the practice of > leaving unknown communities alone or deleting them?
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7454#section-11
Remember policies between two peers may not be same as customer policies.
Example: Customers_of_transit_X >>> Transit X >>> Peer_A >> Customers_of_Peer_A
Customers_of_Peer_A may use community A:50 to set local pref to 50 in Peer_A network. But that doesn’t not mean Customers_of_transit_X can send A:50 to set lpref on their routes in Peer_A's network. Peer_A's policy with Transit X likely does not take action on customer communities since they are 'peers' not customers. Transit X can send A:50 to Peer_A but nothing would happen. What's the benefit of Transit X preserving A:50 from its customers if it means nothing in Transit X?
OP didn’t specify what kind of BGP communities they were referring to. In general we can separate communities into two categories: “Informational” and “Action”. You are right that preserving/propagating “action” communities (such as in your example) probably isn’t that interesting. “informational” communities on the other hand can be very valuable.
See https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8195 for more information on how the two types differ.
Kind regards,
Job
How does one distinguish "informational" and "action" of unknown communities?
the action ones are divisible by 3 </sarcasm> you are in a twisty maze where there are no formnally defined semantics, only a #:# syntax. if there were general formal semantics, it could have been put directly in bgp attributes. steaming pile
On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 7:53 PM Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
How does one distinguish "informational" and "action" of unknown communities?
"if the community is unknown why would you take any action except to strip it?"
the action ones are divisible by 3
</sarcasm>
you are in a twisty maze where there are no formnally defined semantics, only a #:# syntax. if there were general formal semantics, it could have been put directly in bgp attributes.
isn't it really that the communities (well known aside) mean what you want them to mean? you get to be creative and have fun!! imagine the fun you'll leave behind with your follow on networking folks at your job!! great times!
participants (5)
-
Christopher Morrow -
Job Snijders -
Joshua Miller -
Randy Bush -
Smith, Courtney