[j-nsp] BGP extended community attribute

[Harry Reynolds]

>From what I have seen, the latter format is preferred because it can
identify the related PE router, as the IP portion is normally set to
that PE's lo0 address.  This can assist with troubleshoot/operational
monitoring.

Cheers


> -----Original Message-----
> From: juniper-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net 
> [mailto:juniper-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of 
> jjsyed at aol.com
> Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 9:30 AM
> To: juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> Subject: [j-nsp] BGP extended community attribute
> 
> Hi,
>  
> There are two format to define extended community value, 
> AS:VAL and ip-address-VAL
>  
> Which one is better then other entirely depend upon the 
> design and specific requirements. I am wondering if any of 
> you have any thoughts which one is  widely used in the 
> industry and also shed some lights on pros and cons for each other. 
>  
> thanks in advance 
>  
> JS
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net 
> http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>