[j-nsp] BGP extended community attribute

[jjsyed at aol.com]

Pedro,
 
Along the same line, what if i do not use extended community at all and just rely on standard community. That will work too ? any thoughts ? wdo you see any issue with it in terms of troubleshooting , scaling etc...
 
js 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Pedro Roque Marques <roque at juniper.net>
To: jjsyed at aol.com
Cc: juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
Sent: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 10:11:09 -0700
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] BGP extended community attribute


jjsyed  writes:

> 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.
 
Kind of depends a lot of what you are trying to identify: a network
wide property or system specific.

For instance, if you are talking about a Route Target extended
community (used to identify a VPN), most xSPs use the AS:VAL format
where VAL is some sort of numeric customer id.

Route Targets are meaninful network wide.

If one the other hand you are assigning Route Distinguishers (which
are not extended communities but also have the same format choice)
then, if the assignment policy is one RD per PE, the format
<lo0-address>:<num> is more common (you can get that done for you via
[routing-options route-distinguisher-id]).

  Pedro.