Hi guys (and others),
I couldn't find an official description/explanation of this (EQX docs only
mention that this should behave the same as their "set the no_export" TE
community.
We are using Equinix' IXP platform's routeserver service (MLPE) in a few
locations on the planet, and due to the nature of our anycast structure, we are
sending our prefixes with the well-known NO_EXPORT community attached.
It seems to me that, at least in some places (i.e. Warsaw, ex-PLIX), the
routeservers will not forward the routes further, being intransparent to the
NO_EXPORT setting.
My assumption was transparency, so the prefixes would be forwarded unchanged,
including the NO_EXPORT community attached.
It would be nice to hear directly from Equinix, of course, but if anybody on
this list has hard knowledge of this, please share, so that I can take the
appropriate measures...
Thanks in advance,
Elmar.
Hi Elmar,
it seems to be a not completely agreed/standardised question.
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7947#section-2.2.4
The BGP Communities [RFC1997] and Extended Communities [RFC4360]
attributes are intended for labeling information carried in BGP
UPDATE messages. Transitive as well as non-transitive Communities
attributes applied to an NLRI UPDATE sent to a route server SHOULD
NOT be modified, processed, or removed, except as defined by local
policy. If a Communities attribute is intended for processing by the
route server itself, as determined by local policy, it MAY be
modified or removed.
and
https://docs.ixpmanager.org/features/route-servers/#rfc1997-passthru
has some more background.
Hi Nick!
Frank
Re Frank, thanks for the quickie,
geier@geier.ne.tz (Frank Habicht) wrote:
it seems to be a not completely agreed/standardised question.
RFC 7947: Internet Exchange BGP Route Server
[...]
Route Servers - IXP Manager Documentation
[...]
Yeah, I know... I just don't know what Equinix actually does.
As said before, I assumed transparency (==passthru).
Any hard experience info would be helpful here 
Thanks again,
Elmar.