>> question for ops: >> >> did you even know this was happening, that "set community" might not >> replace ALL well known communities?" >> >> the reasom i ask is, as you see in the draft, we are hesitant to >> propose changing behavior for existing wks as it might impact ops. >> but if we were not aware of this behavior, then maybe change is ok, >> in fact desirable. >> >> i did not realize this was going on. jay, who discovered it, was >> surprised. > > NTT noticed this type of inconsistency between some vendors somewhere > in July 2016. A customer used a combination of NTT-specific BGP > communities to influence traffic, together with > NO_ADVERTISE. Unbeknownst to us, this combination of communities > resulted in network behavior that made the customer happy. > > Further down the timeline, the customer was migrated to another > vendor's routing platform (or got a new circuit on a new platform, > don't recall) and suddenly noticed that the previously working > combinatory trick no longer worked. At that point investigation showed > that "set community" does not do the same thing on all platforms, and > we had to figure out a way to make things consistent. > > Our currently routing policy is to allow (not delete) some of the > well-known communities, and squash (remove) a bunch of > not-so-well-know communities and unsupported well-known communities, > and let potential-future-well-known communitie pass-through to try to > not stiffle innovation. For each new well-known community we'll have > to decide whether to remove it or let it pass-through.
not sure if you and/or your customer(s) would be made unhappy if current behavior in some vendor(s), where "set" does not remove some wkcs, was changed to remove all. randy _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
