Arie, The way the draft reads, it is quite clear that IANA allocated Link Bandwidth Ext. Community (0x4004) should be used (and formally changed to transitive), I'd be rather surprised if it is not the case ( that would make implementations non interoperable). I'm in the process of reviewing all existing implementations and will come back on this one. Implementers - please do respond (FRR incl) Practically - if there's wg consensus (I don't think this is needed, given there's a number of working implementations) to use a new extended community the document should become standard track with the formal IANA allocation request.
Thanks, Jeff On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 1:16 PM Arie Vayner <[email protected]> wrote: > Jeff, > > Actually, the way this draft is written, and how the implementations I'm > aware of are implemented, this is not really a transitive community. It is > a new community that is being generated on the AS boundary. > The community value is not carried over, but is calculated based on an > cumulative value of other received communities, and then advertised as a > new value across the AS boundary. > > Tnx, > Arie > > On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 12:55 PM Jeff Tantsura <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I support adoption of the draft as Informational, please note, that >> request to change transitivity characteristics of the community is >> requested in another draft. >> Gyan - please note, while pretty much every vendor has implemented the >> community and relevant data-plane constructs, initial draft defines the >> community as non transititive, some vendors have followed that while some >> other have implemented it a transitive (to support obvious use case - eBGP >> in DC). >> >> >> Cheers, >> Jeff >> On May 22, 2021, 8:38 AM -0700, Satya Mohanty (satyamoh) <satyamoh= >> [email protected]>, wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> >> >> On behalf of all the authors, we request a discussion of the draft >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-mohanty-bess-ebgp-dmz-03 >> and subsequent WG adoption. >> >> This draft extends the usage of the DMZ link bandwidth to scenarios where >> the cumulative link bandwidth needs to be advertised to a BGP speaker. >> >> Additionally, there is provision to send the link bandwidth extended >> community to EBGP speakers via configurable knobs. Please refer to section >> 3 and 4 for the use cases. >> >> >> >> This feature has multiple-vendor implementations and has been deployed by >> several customers in their networks. >> >> >> >> Best Regards, >> >> --Satya >> _______________________________________________ >> BESS mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess >> >> _______________________________________________ >> BESS mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess >> >
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
