Well-Known Community Policy Behavior
AT&T
200 Laurel Avenue South
Middletown
NJ
07748
United States of America
jayb@att.net
Internet Initiative Japan
5147 Crystal Springs
Bainbridge Island
WA
98110
United States of America
randy@psg.com
Juniper Networks, Inc.
1133 Innovation Way
Sunnyvale
CA
94089
US
jgs@juniper.net
Cisco Systems
170 W. Tasman Drive
San Jose
CA
95134
United States of America
dward@cisco.com
Well-Known BGP Communities are manipulated inconsistently by
current implementations. This results in difficulties for
operators. It is recommended that removal policies be applied
consistently to Well-Known Communities.
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL
NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL"
are to be interpreted as described in RFC
2119 only when they appear in all upper case. They may
also appear in lower or mixed case as English words, without
normative meaning.
The BGP Communities Attribute was specified in which introduced the concept of Well-Known
Communities. In hindsight, it did not prescribe as fully as it
should have how Well-Known Communities may be manipulated by
policies applied by operators. Currently, implementations differ in
this regard, and these differences can result in inconsistent
behaviors that operators find difficult to identify and resolve.
This document describes the current behavioral differences in
order to assist operators in generating consistent
community-manipulation policies in a multi-vendor environment, and
to prevent the introduction of additional divergence in
implementations.
says:
"A BGP speaker receiving a route with the COMMUNITIES path
attribute may modify this attribute according to the local
policy."
One common operational need is to add or remove one or more
communities to the current set. Another common need is to replace
all received communities with a new set as defined by policy. All
BGP policy implementations we know of provide a "set community"
directive that operators use to mean "remove any/all communities
present on the update received from the neighbor, and apply this
set of communities instead."
Vendor implementations differ in the treatment of certain
Well-Known communities when modified using the "set community"
directive. Some replace all communities including the Well-Known
ones with the new set, while others replace all non-Well-Known
Communities but do not modify any Well-Known Communities that are
present.
These differences result in what would appear to be identical
policy configurations having very different results on different
platforms.
In Juniper Networks' JunOS, "set community" removes all received
communities, Well-Known or otherwise.
In Cisco Systems' IOS-XR, "set community" removes all received
communities except for the following:
Numeric
Common Name
0:0 internet
65535:0 graceful-shutdown
65535:1 accept-own rfc7611
65535:65281 NO_EXPORT
65535:65282 NO_ADVERTISE
65535:65283 NO_EXPORT_SUBCONFED (or local-AS)
Communities not removed by Cisco IOS/XR
IOS-XR does allow Well-Known communities to be removed one at a
time (with a tweezers) by explicit policy; for example, "delete
community accept-own". Operators are advised to consult IOS-XR
documentation and/or Cisco Systems support for full details.
Care should be taken when establishing new -like attributes (large communities, wide
communities, etc) to avoid repeating this mistake.
Unfortunately, it would be operationally disruptive for vendors
to change their current implementations.
Vendors SHOULD share the behavior of their implementations for
inclusion in this document, especially if their behavior differs
from the examples described.
Vendors MUST NOT create additional communities that the "set
community" directive would not modify.
Surprising defaults and/or undocumented behaviors are not good
for security. This document attepts to remedy that.
This document has no IANA Considerations other than to be aware
that any future Well-Known Communities will be subject to the policy
treatment described here.