Sorry I think I was sleep-typing or something. Correction:
> Also, if a >> > MPLS provider wishes to allow a customer to use a specific set of >> > communities all they would have to do is add them to the export policy, >> so >> > this doesn't really answer the question. >> >> Not sure I follow? And, BTW: I did not discuss the OP's question about >> getting standard communities across an MPLS-SP-service, this is different >> and straight-forward (only requires the SP allows to send standard >> communities across its core). Just wanted to reply to your comment about the >> danger accepting ext-comms. >> > > Ok, np. If I read your RFC snippet correctly it says compliance requires > that communities not included in the export policy are dropped. I was > trying to infer that if the provider added the community advertised by the > customer the export policy for the vrf and it was accepted and advertised > by the PE router then that should be compliant with the RFC. Did I > misunderstand the language? I have to admit it's been about three years > since I read through an RFC. > _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
