I think the focus on RFC1998 Sec. 4 and the desire to be a practical example, rather than an exhaustive list of possibilities is important. With that in mind, I wonder if section 4.3 should really encourage *location-based* manipulation of LOCAL_PREF?
(I must humbly acknowledge that the original text of the idea here was part of a contribution I made). Location-based AS_PATH prepend, and general manipulation of LOCAL_PREF all fine and good, but would large-scale operators today really advise their customers to make use of features to signal degree of preference on sub-AS scale? The warning about preference -> selection -> advertisement seems definitely appropriate. There's a suggestion, for example, that I can put 2914:12:528 on my NTT port in Amsterdam to ensure that I only receive traffic from outside the Netherlands. I think we know that's not going to fly. The idea is probably interesting to a customer, but the harsh reality is that today's implementations don't cut it: the customer's BGP route is tightly coupled to the part of the SP's network to which he connects, and the route announcement is thus subject to the whims of the SP's BGP topology - which he likely reserves the right to change - from that point on. Realistically what I generally see are advertisement suppression knobs to influence inter-region (rather than country) propagation of a route. So, with those practical considerations in mind, does this specific technique really belong in a document that we'd like to be a best practice or good example guide to be read by those setting their policies for what Large Community attributes they will receive, process and act on? -- Adam. On 20 March 2017 at 18:26, Job Snijders <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Working group, > > Like RFC 1998 was a companion document for RFC 1997 "what can you do > with this communities thing", draft-ietf-grow-large-communities-usage > was written to offer a companion document for RFC 8092. > > This informational document will come in handy in the second half of > this year, when RFC 8092 functionality is expected to become available > on a number of commonly deployed platforms. > > draft-ietf-grow-large-communities-usage is _not_ intended to be a full > enumeration of everything that is possible (otherwise we'd never be > finished :-). But rather, to provide a concise set of examples which > highlight various angles on what network management with Large > Communities might look like. > > Feedback on this WGLC would be appreciated! > > Kind regards, > > Job > > On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 11:16:12AM -0400, Christopher Morrow wrote: > > Howdy wg folk, > > > > Please consider this the start of a WGLC for the subject draft > > (draft-ietf-grow-large-communities-usage), who's abstract is: > > > > "Examples and inspiration for operators to use BGP Large Communities." > > > > Please review the last update: > > <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-grow-large- > communities-usage-04> > > > > and send comments/complaints/etc to the list for the authors to address. > > > > Thanks! > > -chris > > co-chair > > > _______________________________________________ > > GROW mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow > > _______________________________________________ > GROW mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow > -- -- Adam.
_______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
