One more thing, RFC7999 has category Informational
El 31/1/19 a las 16:21, Theodore Baschak escribió: > >> On Jan 31, 2019, at 1:28 PM, Roel Parijs <roel.par...@gmail.com >> <mailto:roel.par...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> For our BGP customers the problem is more complex. Our BGP customers >> can send us the RTBH community, and we will drop the traffic at our >> borders. Since we're only running a small network, we don't have the >> capacity to deal with large attacks. If we would be able to forward >> (and maybe alter it) this RTBH community towards our upstream >> providers, the impact on our network would be limited. However, the >> RFC states that an announcement tagged with the blackhole community >> should get the no_advertise or no_export community. >> >> What is your opinion on this ? >> > > In RFC7999 section 3.2 the first paragraph talks about what you're > mentioning, NO_EXPORT and/or NO_ADVERTISE. It uses the word SHOULD. > SHOULD has special meaning in RFCs, its not MUST. Its also not MAY. > RFC2119 talks about the way these words should be interpreted. > > In the next paragraph it says that extreme caution should be used when > "purposefully propagating IP prefixes tagged with the BLACKHOLE > community outside the local routing domain, unless policy explicitly > aims at doing just that." > > So if your local routing policy is to propagate those blackholes on to > your upstreams (and its mutually agreed and they're configured to > accept them), then it can be done. Nothing technical in the RFC > stopping that. > > Theo >
