On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 08:18:00AM -0700, Randy Bush wrote:
it strikes me as being a latter day "Go To Statement Considered
Harmful" sort of thing.
goto is harmful!
I don't disagree as a general principal, but also admit to secretly
using "set" to remove pre-existing communities from time to time, as
we all probably do, even if we don't like to admit it in public.
i use 'set' very deliberately, and with no shame. i expect(ed) it to
replace any existing communities. it's akin to using = as contrasted
with +=. i seemed a perfectly reasonable construct with clear and
useful semantics. until we found out its semantics were not so clear
to some implementor(s).
am i supposed to replace
set 666:42
with
remove *:*
add 666:42
like that's not gonna be error prone. and please do not tell me that
the remove *:* leaves a few special well-known communities some
implementor thought should be special snowflakes.
there is/was an IOS-XR bug related to exactly this scenario.
https://bst.cloudapps.cisco.com/bugsearch/bug/CSCve61393
Symptom:
Well-known BGP communities are declined using new format, but accepted using
name
EG: 65535:65283 value is not accepted but the name "local-as" is accepted.
randy, under-caffeinated and clearly grumpy
_______________________________________________
GROW mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
_______________________________________________
GROW mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
