> On Oct 21, 2015, at 3:05 PM, Chad Myers <chad.my...@theice.com> wrote: > > Please don't go the IOS/EOS/non-Junos method for rpd where each protocol is > completely independent and isolated from the others. It is extremely helpful > to be able to do things like put communities on static routes. Even > protocols that don't use communities can leverage them in the export policy, > the community just isn't announced. Ditto for import policies. > > Sacrificing that flexibility and simplicity to multithread rpd and shifting > to explicit route redistribution with limited route attributes per protocol > would be a huge loss.
I always found using communities on non-BGP routes a little weird, but everyone has their favorite operational tricks. (And I try to seek out people to talk about them at conferences. It often leads to small features.) That said, we are preserving the One JUNOS paradigm. Even if we did go multi-process with disjoint protocol implementation (that's not what we're doing), we'd be keeping the same source base. Thus, static routes could have communities, or color or your unusual mechanism of choice. :-) -- Jeff _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
