WHAT? I'm suggesting that you not treat routes with the ANYCAST community
learned from R&E peers as if they are R&E routes, but as if they are
normal internet routes.

I don't think you want to require or even recommend the removal of the
ANYCAST community at an EBGP boundary.

Thanks

On Thu, Jul 7, 2022 at 1:19 PM Robert Raszuk <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi David,
>
> Your case works only when subject routes coming over different R&E
> network would not carry such community. Proposed NO_EXPORT does not help as
> it would block advertisement of the entire prefix marked as such.
>
> So to fulfil your observation the draft should perhaps suggest that
> ANYCAST community SHOULD (or maybe even MUST) be removed when propagating
> routes over egress EBGP (from the perspective of first upstream transit).
>
> Many thx,
> R.
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 7, 2022 at 8:08 PM David Farmer <farmer=
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I think this is a useful proposal and I support it moving forward.
>>
>> Another use case;
>>
>> In the Research and Education (R&E) networking community, it is
>> commonplace to set a higher local preference for routes learned from
>> another R&E network, on the premise that these R&E paths will be higher
>> bandwidth and/or lower congestion, even if the AS-Path is longer. However,
>> if an Anycast prefix is included by another R&E network this can result in
>> preferring a remote version of an Anycast service over a more local version
>> of the same Anycast service.  In this scenario, it is not uncommon for the
>> remote Anycast service to be very remote, such as on a different continent,
>> thereby defeating the purpose of Anycast. This community would easily allow
>> these Anycast prefixes to either be set to normal (default) local
>> preference, to be set to a lower local preference than normal assuming they
>> will be remote, or even to drop the remote Anycast route altogether
>> assuming they will. be very remote.
>>
>> Related to the trust discussion, I will note; that using this community
>> to signal a lower preference for, or even dropping, a remote Anycast route
>> is less of a trust issue than using the community to signal a higher
>> preference for a local Anycast route. That is if the community is used to
>> demote routes, it is less likely to be abused by someone seeking to
>> increase traffic toward them.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 5, 2022 at 5:40 AM Maximilian Wilhelm <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Hey folks,
>>>
>>> after some discussion at RIPE84 we took the time to formalize a draft
>>> to define a well-known BGP community to indicate a given prefix is
>>> carrying Anycast traffic. The intent is to allow ISPs to do well
>>> informed TE, especially in cases where they want to diverge from the
>>> hot potato principle.
>>>
>>> You can find the draft at
>>>
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wilhelm-grow-anycast-community/
>>>
>>> Happy to share this at the upcoming meeting and hear your thoughts!
>>>
>>> Thanks and best,
>>> Max
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> GROW mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> ===============================================
>> David Farmer               Email:[email protected]
>> Networking & Telecommunication Services
>> Office of Information Technology
>> University of Minnesota
>> 2218 University Ave SE        Phone: 612-626-0815
>> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
>> ===============================================
>> _______________________________________________
>> GROW mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
>>
>

-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:[email protected]
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE        Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================
_______________________________________________
GROW mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow

Reply via email to