Subject: [OPSEC] Fwd: Re: widely adopted communities presentation at nanog 49

From: Robert Raszuk <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 10:21:59 +0200

Subject: Re: widely adopted communities presentation at nanog 49
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 09:17:21 +0200
From: Robert Raszuk <[email-masked]>
Reply-To: [email-masked]
To: Joel Jaeggli <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
CC: [email-masked]' <[email-masked]>

Hi Joel/Chris,

Many thx for forwarding the pointer to opsec WG. I guess I need to
subscribe now :) The up to date version can be found here:

ftp://ftpeng.cisco.com/raszuk/bgp_wide_comms/

Based on the input received after Nanog to avoid any misinterpretations
I have changed the semantics of the pre-defined communities from
"well-known" to simply "registered".

The point of defining them is not to enforce global support both by
operators or by vendors, but simply to make it easier to apply commonly
used policies intra and inter-domians.

It is just to serve as an informational collection of community
templates which could be used if fits in the contractual agreements.

Another point is that subset of defined communities are AS specific -
today communities are of common execution type. That means that AS
specific communities would be executed only on the boundary to or by
target AS specified in the community therefor passing those could be
much less troublesome as compared with today's standard BGP communities.

Feedback is welcome !

Many thx,
R.

> While I have some personal ambivialence to the idea of specifiying
> well-known communities, I noted this presentation with some interest at
> nanog and since the subject has been discussed here before I would drop
> a pointer to the presentation.
>
> http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog49/presentations/Tuesday/Raszuk-Wide_BGP_Communities_00_2.pdf
>