Hi Stavros,
I support this work. The Extended Communities for RS signaling were
always a kludge, so I'd like to see them go away.
On 15/03/2024 10:28, Stavros Konstantaras wrote:
Hi Jeff,
Thank you very much for your comment. As Job said, the draft is
targeting the Route Server infrastructure of Internet Exchange Points,
but do you believe that this is something that needs further
clarification in the draft?
There is still some inconsistency in the 01 text.
Section 3 talks about Extended Communities as a tool for "IXP Route
Server signaling purposes". However, section 4 advises on the use of
Extended Communities on the public Internet in general.
If I read the discussion correctly, your target for this draft is solely
the Route Server signaling case. Then, instead of the current two
recommendations, section 4 should only say:
"Route Server operators that match on route announcements with
Extended Communities for 4-octet ASNs SHOULD replace these
configurations with equivalent functionality implemented using Large
Communities [RFC8092]."
As an additional recommendation, RS operators should communicate a clear
timeline for their clients to transition from Extended to Large communities.
Finally, the document should update RFC7948, section 4.6.1 to:
"Prefixes sent to the route server are tagged with specific standard
BGP Communities [RFC1997] or Large BGP Communities [RFC8092]
attributes, based on predefined values agreed between the operator and
all clients."
Kind regards,
Martin
_______________________________________________
GROW mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
