Communities are not sent by default (eg Cisco). Route leaks come for free on Cisco too.
Jared Mauch > On Jul 25, 2014, at 3:12 PM, Tony Tauber <[email protected]> wrote: > > How is this different than tagging with communities today? > In either case, the provider's correct action on the semantics is needed (and > can go awry through misconfiguration). > > Tony > >> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Doug Montgomery <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> The last point that Sriram made is important to the higher level discussion >> of the problem. >> >> Semantically what we are proposing is that a BGP speaker can ad a semantic >> tag to a route that describes restrictions on the intent of the >> authorization that is implicit in sending a peer a BGP route. >> >> Note that the one tag we suggested was not "DOWN" or "CUSTOMER" it was the >> intent that the sender expects that you will not redistribute this update to >> transit providers. >> >> "I am sending you this route, but I do not wish it propagated to your >> providers" >> >> So discussing the semantics of the tag: what that tag applies to (e.g., >> specific route, vs peering session), what the tags attempt to signal, what >> the security properties of such a tag should be, and what policies might one >> build using such tags ... is the important part. >> >> The specific encoding proposed was the result of one attempt to think >> through these issues ... but not all the thoughts made it into the draft. >> >> >> >> dougm >> -- >> DougM at Work >> >> _______________________________________________ >> GROW mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow > > _______________________________________________ > GROW mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
_______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
