De-facto standards are as good as people implementing them, however in order to enforce non ambiguous implementations, it has to be de-jure (e.g. a standard track RFC). While I’m sympathetic to the idea, I’m quite skeptical about its viability. A well written BCP would be much more valuable, and perhaps when we get to a critical mass, codification would be a natural process, rather than artificially enforcing people doing stuff they don’t see value (ROI) in, discussion here perfectly reflects the state of art.
Cheers, Jeff > On Sep 8, 2020, at 17:57, 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
