bgp 4 asdot
Hi, I would like to know if there is still people using asdot format in real world? If do, would you please send me that line of output from a cisco router's show ip bgp? Also the show version of the cisco router please. We are writing a script to parse the output of cisco show ip bgp, would like to cover the corner case. Is asdot a corner case, anyway? Thanks, Jingshao Chen
Re: What else shall we test?
Mike, Not familiar with JDSU product. But if you are serious about IP routing and packet forwarding test, you need to take a look at test tools. Do you hear of IXIA? They have a full set of test tools that test routers. I would suggest you try IxNetwork for control plane and forwarding plan. Their web site is http://www.ixiacom.com/ Thanks, Jingshao On 07/22/09, Michael J McCafferty wrote: > All, > We are putting together a test plan to test a pair of Cisco 7206 VXR's, > each with with NPE-G2. The purpose of the test is just to make sure we > know where their realistic limits are with a real configuration, full > route tables from two providers, etc. We have one JDSU T-Berd 8000 test > system with interfaces and software to test a single stream through > multi-mode fiber interfaces. We plan to test through the interfaces on > the NPE and through PA-GE cards with a variety of packet sizes > (especially 64 Byte). > I'd be interested in any thoughts on additional testing or testing > methodologies we might want to do, to help us set our expectations for > this setup and to plan when we need to go bigger as we grow traffic, > hosts, etc. > We plan to get 1 to 3 additional full tables and peer with Any2 Easy on > this network within the next year. We want to determine how this > platform will behave under moderate DoS attacks, BGP updates, etc. Is > there anything else we need to be mindful of? Can we get a realistic > test of the routers with the T-Berd? What else should we test while we > have the maintenance window and the test system on hand? > > Your thoughts and experience are appreciated! > > Thanks ! > Mike > > -- > > Michael J. McCafferty > Principal, Security Engineer > M5 Hosting > http://www.m5hosting.com > > You can have your own custom Dedicated Server up and running today ! > RedHat Enterprise, CentOS, Ubuntu, Debian, OpenBSD, FreeBSD, and more > > >
Triple play in Tier 1 carriers
Hi, My friend is constructing an ISP that provide data, video and voice services. He wanted to know a little bit information on how do the big ones such as ATT, Verizon, Sprint, Comcast design their infrastructures to support Voice and Video. Any pointer will be very appreciated. Thanks, Jingshao
Re: Triple play in Tier 1 carriers
Right now we're using Asterisk, Bluetop/Blonder Tongue, and cable modems with a sip interface to provide triple play in large apartment complexes 300+ units). not really core infrastructure but the phones have to ring. Andrew jings...@teekoo.com wrote: > Hi, > > My friend is constructing an ISP that provide data, video > and voice services. He wanted to know a little bit > information on how do the big ones such as ATT, Verizon, > Sprint, Comcast design their infrastructures to support > Voice and Video. > > Any pointer will be very appreciated. > > Thanks, > Jingshao > >
Re: Weekly Routing Table Report
Apologies if this is too naive to ask but is there some detail available about the items listed in the summary? 1) In particular, what exactly is the difference between the "BGP routing table entries examined (292961)" and "Unique aggregates announced to Internet (145391)"? 2) I believe 292961 is the worst case routing table size for any router. If the unique aggregates announced to the Internet is 145391, how does the routing table size anywhere may exceeds this number? Is the word "Internet" the key here? 3) Is aggregation done at a particular router for (i) reducing the table size in that router, or (ii) reducing the number of announced prefixes by that router, or (iii) both? Zartash On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 11:12 PM, Routing Analysis Role Account < csc...@apnic.net> wrote: > This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet > Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan. > Daily listings are sent to bgp-st...@lists.apnic.net > > For historical data, please see http://thyme.apnic.net. > > If you have any comments please contact Philip Smith . > > Routing Table Report 04:00 +10GMT Sat 01 Aug, 2009 > > Report Website: http://thyme.apnic.net > Detailed Analysis: http://thyme.apnic.net/current/ > > Analysis Summary > > > BGP routing table entries examined: 292961 >Prefixes after maximum aggregation: 138493 >Deaggregation factor: 2.12 >Unique aggregates announced to Internet: 145391 > Total ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 31852 >Prefixes per ASN: 9.20 > Origin-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 27681 > Origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 13518 > Transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:4171 > Transit-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:105 > Average AS path length visible in the Internet Routing Table: 3.6 >Max AS path length visible: 24 >Max AS path prepend of ASN (12026) 22 > Prefixes from unregistered ASNs in the Routing Table: 456 >Unregistered ASNs in the Routing Table: 130 > Number of 32-bit ASNs allocated by the RIRs:220 > Prefixes from 32-bit ASNs in the Routing Table: 81 > Special use prefixes present in the Routing Table:0 > Prefixes being announced from unallocated address space:340 > Number of addresses announced to Internet: 2082757696 >Equivalent to 124 /8s, 36 /16s and 92 /24s >Percentage of available address space announced: 56.2 >Percentage of allocated address space announced: 65.0 >Percentage of available address space allocated: 86.4 >Percentage of address space in use by end-sites: 78.5 > Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 140414 > > APNIC Region Analysis Summary > - > > Prefixes being announced by APNIC Region ASes:70058 >Total APNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation: 24829 >APNIC Deaggregation factor:2.82 > Prefixes being announced from the APNIC address blocks: 69476 >Unique aggregates announced from the APNIC address blocks:31605 > APNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:3717 >APNIC Prefixes per ASN: 18.69 > APNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 1012 > APNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:579 > Average APNIC Region AS path length visible:3.5 >Max APNIC Region AS path length visible: 16 > Number of APNIC addresses announced to Internet: 475903680 >Equivalent to 28 /8s, 93 /16s and 182 /24s >Percentage of available APNIC address space announced: 88.6 > > APNIC AS Blocks4608-4864, 7467-7722, 9216-10239, 17408-18431 > (pre-ERX allocations) 23552-24575, 37888-38911, 45056-46079 > APNIC Address Blocks58/8, 59/8, 60/8, 61/8, 110/8, 111/8, 112/8, > 113/8, 114/8, 115/8, 116/8, 117/8, 118/8, 119/8, > 120/8, 121/8, 122/8, 123/8, 124/8, 125/8, 126/8, > 180/8, 183/8, 202/8, 203/8, 210/8, 211/8, 218/8, > 219/8, 220/8, 221/8, 222/8, > > ARIN Region Analysis Summary > > > Prefixes being announced by ARIN Region ASes:124431 >Total ARIN prefixes after maximum aggregation:66173 >ARIN Deaggregation factor:
Re: What is the most standard subnet length on internet
Since this old thread recently became alive (momentarily), and I read through the posts, (perhaps, again!) ... Patrick, I would like to understand why you said that routers handling 10G traffic in DFZ are not bothered (much) by a few extra prefixes? Isn't this counter-intuitive? For example, for the worst case packet size of 40 bytes, a router has only 32ns to completely process a packet (including lookup!) in order to support 10Gb/s line rates. The higher rates leave with even smaller time, which makes me think that it's the "slow running" routers that should not be bothered *much* by a small increase in the number of prefixes. Or, were you referring to 10G routers "slow running" by comparing them with 100G routers? I do not except anyone to have such a long memory, so you may want to skim through the following :) Zartash On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 9:37 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: > On Dec 19, 2008, at 10:48 AM, Joe Greco wrote: > > As for routing table size, no router which can handle 10s of Gbps is >>> at all bothered by the size of the global table, >>> >> >> ... as long as it isn't something like a Cisco Catalyst 6509 with SUP720 >> and doesn't have a PFC3BXL helping out ... >> >> ... or if we conveniently don't classify a Catalyst 65xx as a router >> because it was primarily intended as a switch, despite how ISP's commonly >> use them ... >> >> so only edge devices >>> or stub networks are in danger of needing to filter /24s. And both of >>> those can (should?) have something called a "default route", making it >>> completely irrelevant whether they hear the /24s anyway. >>> >> >> A more accurate statement is probably that "any router that can handle >> 10s of Gbps is likely to be available in a configuration that is not at >> all bothered by the current size of the global table, most likely at some >> substantial additional cost." >> > > Good point! I should have said "10s of Gbps and tables associated with > default-free networks". > > Or are there lots of people using 6500s without 3BXLs in the DFZ? I admit > I have not audited every router in the DFZ, so perhaps someone with factual > info can help out here. > > If not, then we're back to where we started. The DFZ isn't worried about > table size this cycle, and the edges can (should?) have default. I'm sure > that will change in a couple years, but everything always does. > > Oh, and before anyone jumps all over me, I am NOT implying you should > deaggregate and blow up the table. Just that 300K prefixes is the DFZ is > not a reason to start filtering /24s. Today. :) > > -- > TTFN, > patrick > > >
