BGP network command add extcommunity

[ez9]

Hello,

I am trying to "tag" with an extcomm a route via a route-policy in network command and I am getting the following error:

router bgp 65501
address-family ipv4 unicast
network 192.168.0.0/24 route-policy TAG_INBOUND(EXT_1, EXT_2, EXT_3)
!!% Could not find entry in list: Policy [TAG_INBOUND] uses 'add rt'. 'set' is not a valid operator for the 'rt' attribute at the bgp network-dflt attach point.

The command that I used is the following

router bgp 65501

address-family ipv4 unicast

network 192.168.0.0/24 route-policy TAG_INBOUND(EXT_1, EXT_2, EXT_3)

The route-policy is the following:

route-policy TAG_INBOUND($VAR1, $VAR2, $VAR3)
set extcommunity rt $VAR1 additive
set extcommunity rt $VAR2 additive
set extcommunity rt $VAR3 additive
end-policy

Any thoughts?

[MHM Cisco World]

OK, how we config the BGP between router server client and router server ? are it VRF ? or are it VPNv4?
this my point.
he need to config it as VPNv4 and then he can config R3 (in my example) as route server. 
otherwise how we jump between multi VRF. 
correct me if I am wrong.
thanks  

[Harold Ritter]

Not a vpnv4 not vrf session. It is a simple bgp ipv4 unicast session. Please refer to the configuration example I provided earlier in this discussion.

Regards,

[Harold Ritter]

Hi @ez9 ,

Please let us know if the proposed solution solves the issue.

https://community.cisco.com/t5/xr-os-and-platforms/bgp-network-command-add-extcommunity/m-p/4794871#M13981

Regards,

[ez9]

Hello,

Yes, Large communities is a solution. I just wanted to understard why the extended communities are not allowed in the bgp network command.

[Harold Ritter]

Hi @ez9 ,

As mentioned before, the RT extended community is normally used in a VPNv4 context and applied via the VRF export statement or VRF export route policy.  Using it outside of the intended context can be seen as a hack more than a validated use case. That is most probably why it is not explicitly allowed via the network statement route policy. I am even surprised that it works with the outbound route policy in the address family ipv4 unicast context.

It looks like the large community is a much better solution in your scenario and the recommended solution according to the AMS IX.

Regards,