What is the general concensus about passing communities in the "community"?
i could see a reason for a subscriber passing communities
through a mid-level provider to a top-level provider. but i'm
not sure if it makes sense [yet] for top-levels to pass
communities between themselves
> > > 1. Is COMMUNITY a transitive attribute only between me and my immediate
> > > upstream supplier or
> > > is it being propagated further into Internet (so I can influence how
> > > somebody ,say, 5 AS hops
> > > away from me sees my routes) ?
> >the attribute is defined as transitive (i.e., once associated
> >with a route it *stays* associated with the route). however, in
> Unless an intermediate provider deliberately changes the value, as
> opposed to appending to it.
these values aren't an end-to-end thing .. it's simply a
way for providers to more easily facilitate routing policies.
your comment implies somebody being a bad guy...
> >practice, many providers are configured to not send communities
> >to other providers
> Is this a conscious decision or just that they have not turned on
both. they don't turn on send-community so that others don't
see their communities. maybe they have some whiz-bang features
that make configing their neat really cool, and they don't want
others to see their communities because it might imply a way for
others to do the same thing without the same amount of work