I also get that intent from the OP. However I disagree that there should be a 'de facto' standard created for such things. All flavors of BGP community specifications are designed to be flexible so that different networks can design a system that is tailored to their needs.
Having 'de facto' standards does not simplify in my opinion. I believe it just creates more work for operators trying to navigate around different opinions of what 'de facto' means. On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 2:35 PM Mike Hammett <na...@ics-il.net> wrote: > How I see the OP's intent is to create a BCP of what defined communities > have what effect instead of everyone just making up whatever they draw out > of a hat, simplifying this process for everyone. > > > > ----- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > Midwest-IX > http://www.midwest-ix.com > > ------------------------------ > *From: *"Tom Beecher via NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org> > *To: *"Douglas Fischer" <fischerdoug...@gmail.com> > *Cc: *"NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org> > *Sent: *Tuesday, September 8, 2020 1:30:19 PM > *Subject: *Re: BGP Community - AS0 is de-facto "no-export-to" marker - > Any ASN reserved to "export-only-to"?' > > BGP Large Communities ( https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8195 ) already > provides for anyone to define the exact handling you wish. > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 11:57 AM Douglas Fischer via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> > wrote: > >> Most of us have already used some BGP community policy to no-export some >> routes to some where. >> >> On the majority of IXPs, and most of the Transit Providers, the very >> common community tell to route-servers and routers "Please do no-export >> these routes to that ASN" is: >> >> -> 0:<TargetASN> >> >> So we could say that this is a de-facto standard. >> >> >> But the Policy equivalent to "Please, export these routes only to that >> ASN" is very varied on all the IXPs or Transit Providers. >> >> >> With that said, now comes some questions: >> >> 1 - Beyond being a de-facto standard, there is any RFC, Public Policy, or >> something like that, that would define 0:<TargetASN> as "no-export-to" >> standard? >> >> 2 - What about reserving some 16-bits ASN to use <ExpOnlyTo>:<TargetASN> >> as "export-only-to" standard? >> 2.1 - Is important to be 16 bits, because with (RT) extended communities, >> any ASN on the planet could be the target of that policy. >> 2.2 - Would be interesting some mnemonic number like 1000 / 10000 or so. >> >> -- >> Douglas Fernando Fischer >> Engº de Controle e Automação >> > >
