Re: BGP Community - AS0 is de-facto "no-export-to" marker - Any ASN reserved to "export-only-to"?'

2020-10-03 Thread Owen DeLong
Sounds like you need a template based configuration management system and better automation more than you need to inflict an ad-hoc standardization of additional communities on the world. Owen > On Sep 9, 2020, at 12:21 AM, Robert Raszuk via NANOG wrote: > > Mark, > > Nope .. it is the

Re: BGP Community - AS0 is de-facto "no-export-to" marker - Any ASN reserved to "export-only-to"?'

2020-10-03 Thread Owen DeLong
In my comments, it’s more about avoiding de facto “standards” in favor of having actual “standards” or following existing actual “standards”. There are RFCs that cover what the OP wants. There is an IANA well-known Communities registry that can be expanded to record any additional functionality

Re: BGP Community - AS0 is de-facto "no-export-to" marker - Any ASN reserved to "export-only-to"?'

2020-10-03 Thread Owen DeLong
> Using 2-byte communities in today's age of explosive "assignment" of > 4-byte ASN's is similar to the price-hike of IPv4 space. In the long > term. Standard BGP communities and IPv4 will not be worth the required > effort/investment (unless you want to "cripple" yourself from the > get-go). And

Re: BGP Community - AS0 is de-facto "no-export-to" marker - Any ASN reserved to "export-only-to"?'

2020-10-03 Thread Owen DeLong
Yes, but with large communities, that’s called RFC-8092 and in general, RFC-8642 has some good data. There’s also BGP extended communities (RFC-7153 and the IANA registry it creates). Creating an ad hoc BCP vs. using the existing RFC process seems ill-advised. Owen > On Sep 8, 2020, at 11:35

Re: BGP Community - AS0 is de-facto "no-export-to" marker - Any ASN reserved to "export-only-to"?'

2020-10-03 Thread Owen DeLong
> On Sep 8, 2020, at 9:22 AM, Mark Tinka via NANOG wrote: > > > > On 8/Sep/20 17:55, Douglas Fischer via NANOG wrote: > >> Most of us have already used some BGP community policy to no-export some >> routes to some where. >> >> On the majority of IXPs, and most of the Transit Providers,

Re: IPv4 Mismanagement

2020-10-03 Thread Wayne Bouchard
Groups that have such things I can only presume do not do a good job of periodically going through and auditing their IP allocations or, if they do, then they don't do a good enough job of cleaning up all the details. On Fri, Oct 02, 2020 at 05:44:13PM -0400, Justin Streiner wrote: > I suspect

Re: Consolidation of Email Platforms Bad for Email?

2020-10-03 Thread Owen DeLong
> On Sep 8, 2020, at 4:38 AM, Eliot Lear via NANOG wrote: > > I'm sure Dave Crocker has thoughts about this, but it has come up elsewhere. > There are both positives and negatives about having such a consolidation. > The positive is that it a small club can establish ground rules for how