North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: BGP4 COMMUNITY attribute
> What is the general concensus about passing communities in the "community"? i could see a reason for a subscriber passing communities through a mid-level provider to a top-level provider. but i'm not sure if it makes sense [yet] for top-levels to pass communities between themselves > > > 1. Is COMMUNITY a transitive attribute only between me and my immediate > > > upstream supplier or > > > is it being propagated further into Internet (so I can influence how > > > somebody ,say, 5 AS hops > > > away from me sees my routes) ? > > > >the attribute is defined as transitive (i.e., once associated > >with a route it *stays* associated with the route). however, in > > Unless an intermediate provider deliberately changes the value, as > opposed to appending to it. these values aren't an end-to-end thing .. it's simply a way for providers to more easily facilitate routing policies. your comment implies somebody being a bad guy... > >practice, many providers are configured to not send communities > >to other providers > > Is this a conscious decision or just that they have not turned on > "send-community"? both. they don't turn on send-community so that others don't see their communities. maybe they have some whiz-bang features that make configing their neat really cool, and they don't want others to see their communities because it might imply a way for others to do the same thing without the same amount of work /jws - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|