Hi All,
On Thursday, June 4th, 2026 at 09:28, Mikael Abrahamsson <[email protected]> wrote: > having been through some quite bothersome problems in the past year > regarding the spread of ext-communities, I think we should increase the > urgency regarding this draft. +1 > Current text: > -- > * Scrub the BGP Extended Communities at the inbound direction which > are intendend for L3VPN purposes. That concerns the Extended > communities where the sub-type value has been set to 0x02 (Route > Target). > > * Allow the rest of the BGP Extended Communities to transit > transparently through the Route Servers. > -- > > I think the recommendation instead should be to blanket drop all ext-comms > between operators unless they're specifically agreed on being used. We also suffer because extended communities are used by the IXPs we peer at. It makes our route filtering more complex to develop, test, and troubleshoot. I agree the scope should be extended -> the recommendation in my opinion should be that extended communities simply aren't negotiated by IXP route servers with IXP participants. There is simply no need for them in this day and age. If two networks want to exchange ext communities over a private bi-lateral peering they can (or PNI, also fine), but I don't think the RS should even negotiate the capability (to avoid the risk that the IXP RS propagates them across the LAN, or the IXP RS operator forgets to filter them, or makes a config mistake in their filters allow them to pass). With kind regards, James.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ GROW mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
