The route servers are performing the action of not advertising. It shouldn't be on all IX participants to perform action on these communities or they wouldn't work as intended.

If an IX participant wants to control traffic directly with another peer, they would work with that participant to use their possibly pre existing action communities.

---

On 05/18/2016 12:03 PM, Chris Wopat wrote:

On 05/18/2016 11:53 AM, Doug McIntyre wrote:

Would you want the export function to
clear any communities it had at the end? (Something that is NOT done
right now).

Yes, I would consider it standard practice to clear action communities after the action was taken so they don't propagate/leak beyond AS 53679.

IX members may wish to filter them on import as well [1]. Both is probably the most sane outcome.

[1] - ras's BGP community presentation is always good to review - https://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog40/presentations/BGPcommunities.pdf

Perhaps I don't understand the specific question?  But, I would prefer that the communities not be stripped.  If they are stripped, how would we pass action communities onto other MICE members that require action on their networks?  Perhaps just strip out the 53679:* communities would be a better choice?

---

To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link:
http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1