[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Comments on <draft-van-beijnum-v6ops-pa-mhome-community-01.txt>



Hi Iljitsch,
 
Its a pitty that this document didn't got airtime anymore today at the v6ops meeting.
 
I had a quick hack read trough this document and have some thoughts to ventilate:
 
1) The suggestion to use community in the way proposed is quite controversial in the way communities are currently used on the internet. They are typically not sent from ISP to ISP to ISP etc... In most cases community simply stays within AS itself (there are some exeptions, but that is typically just between peers)
 
2) I do not like that statement that default behaviour should change in order to sent this 'multihoming' community by default even if the community exchange is not explicitly enabled. This changes basic default BGP routing behaviour and implicitly assumes that everybody wants to do this?
 
3)  If the goal is to have information with the BGP NLRI about its origin, would it not be better in that case to create a new value for the origin attribute in addition to the IGP, EGP and unknown values? (This would at least give back some degree of usage of this attribute)
 
Brgds,
G/