On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 03:21:18PM +0000, [email protected] wrote: > > I'm somewhat inclined to proceed with the gshut concept as a well-known > > transitive rfc 1997 community. What do others think? > > I agree with you. > Until now, in order to capture all the options, waiting for > draft-ietf-idr-as4octet-extcomm-generic-subtype seemed reasonable (at the > cost of waiting for years, but this was not expected as we though vendors > would implement it to accommodate 4-octects AS deployments). It's not > anymore, so I guess we'll update the draft to follow this proposed path.
I have no issues with a well known RFC 1997 community. The generic as4-octet could be used as well. It's just an extended community code point. End of the day, it's whatever gets the feature shipped.[1] -- Jeff [1] You've been able to do arbitrary extended communities in Junos for a while. They don't necessarily display right in show commands, but the transitivity flag is respected. _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
