Re: Wanted: one more well-known BGP community

Vince Fuller <vaf@valinor.barrnet.net> Wed, 09 August 1995 23:15 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa21611; 9 Aug 95 19:15 EDT
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa21607; 9 Aug 95 19:15 EDT
Received: from interlock.ans.net by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa21995; 9 Aug 95 19:15 EDT
Received: by interlock.ans.net id AA02252 (InterLock SMTP Gateway 3.0 for iwg-out@ans.net); Wed, 9 Aug 1995 18:48:54 -0400
Message-Id: <199508092248.AA02252@interlock.ans.net>
Received: by interlock.ans.net (Protected-side Proxy Mail Agent-2); Wed, 9 Aug 1995 18:48:54 -0400
Received: by interlock.ans.net (Protected-side Proxy Mail Agent-1); Wed, 9 Aug 1995 18:48:54 -0400
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 95 15:49:14 PDT
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Vince Fuller <vaf@valinor.barrnet.net>
To: Paul Traina <pst@cisco.com>
Cc: bgp@ans.net
Phone: (415) 528-7227
Usmail: 3801 East Bayshore Rd, Palo Alto, CA, 94303
Subject: Re: Wanted: one more well-known BGP community
In-Reply-To: Your message of Wed, 09 Aug 1995 15:41:20 -0700

    It is an internet-draft, so it is approrpiate to discuss a flaw in the
    protocol here,  but in point of fact the protocol is not flawed.

    My point is that a careful reading of the definition would indicate that
    no-advertise already does exactly what you want of it...rather we just
    weren't consistent,  since neighbor-route-maps were added later in
    the game as an afterthought.

Understood. The reason I mentioned it in this forum is because I was assuming
that the cisco behavior was intentional; depending on how one interprets
"no-advertise" (and admittedly, I didn't re-read the Internet-Draft before
I sent my note, mea culpa), one could interpret the current cisco behavior as
perfectly reasonable.

(now that may be a first, I'm assuming that odd behavior is a feature rather
than a bug...:-)

	--Vince