[j-nsp] "community set" vs "community add"

[Michael Hallgren]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Le 01/11/2013 06:32, Mark Tinka a écrit :
> On Thursday, October 31, 2013 10:38:18 PM Michael Hallgren
> wrote:
>
>> I apologize for not having followed this thread in
>> detail, but generally we've avoided to allow
>> iBGP route reflectors to manipulate a fair amont of
>> attributes in out policies... Now, this being
>> in an Internet routing context, your VP* needs may be
>> different? For my culture, please let
>> know.
>
> Modifying or updating communities on outbound sessions on
> route reflectors is routine. If you're referring to other
> BGP attributes, perhaps.

Maybe I used a sledge hammer, promoting being conservative. Such use
of BGP communities, may be ``good'' or ``bad'' depending on how they
are then used, I think.

>
>
> When running NG-MVPN on Juniper's, I had to rewrite the
> communities that NG-MVPN's set on ingress or egress PE
> routers because the routes that were reflected to Cisco
> routers that didn't understand these communities - at the
> time - meant they could not route unicast correctly within
> the l3vpn's that carried the NG-MVPN traffic. Rewriting the
> community (really, making it conform more to what Cisco
> could understand) was a tricky, sneaky fix that worked.

Which appears being a ``good'' reason (in spite of being forced).

Cheers,
mh
>
> IOS XE and IOS XR now have very good support for NG-MVPN's,
> but I haven't checked how it would respond to such an issue
> these days. Suffice it to say, that was IOS, then.
>
> Mark.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iEYEARECAAYFAlJza84ACgkQZNZ/rrgsqafTEgCgm658C7s/m+6hVFOcP/7Eyh4s
UuwAnAxavfvGmtgUO99XB4mmB4zGi076
=n+Rd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----