On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 08:21:55AM -0500, Mike Hammett wrote:
> I'm waiting for the client to verify (again) that their route server
> configurations are the same, but I've got a network that's peered with two
> route servers in v4 and v6. Their advertisements are being seen in v4 on both
> RSes
I'm waiting for the client to verify (again) that their route server
configurations are the same, but I've got a network that's peered with two
route servers in v4 and v6. Their advertisements are being seen in v4 on both
RSes and in v6 on one RS.
Here's the problem peer:
v6BridgeMaxx 63060 2
* Stuart Henderson [2015-04-16 22:41]:
> (filtering is just slow rather than buggy afaik; but then AIUI this
> wasn't supposed to be the final implementation of filters ;)
amazing how long "temporary" solutions can last...
--
Henning Brauer, h...@bsws.de, henn...@openbsd.org
BS Web Services Gmb
Hi,
at BCIX we still use OpenBGPd as transparent route server. With about 120 (IPv4
+ IPv6) peering sessions it's still stable.
We have multiple RIBS per peer but we don't have IRRDB prefix filtering per
peer applied,
as we know this brings issues regarding performance and convergence times.
Whe
On 2015-04-16, Mike Hammett wrote:
> I had seen some complaints about OpenBGPd for IX RS usage, but they were all
> 2009 - 2011 area. I had assumed the most egregious of them had been fixed by
> now.
I think most of the medium/larger ones have simply stopped using it
unfortunately.
I think mo
5 1:48:29 AM
Subject: Re: OpenBGPd Route Server
On 2015-04-15, Mike Hammett wrote:
> With the decline of OpenBGPd's popularity among IXPs, it's difficult
> to track down examples of how IXPs are configuring their servers. I saw
> a couple presentations in the 2010 - 2011 ti
On 2015-04-15, Mike Hammett wrote:
> With the decline of OpenBGPd's popularity among IXPs, it's difficult
> to track down examples of how IXPs are configuring their servers. I saw
> a couple presentations in the 2010 - 2011 timeframe with new things that
> were coming for 32 bit communities among
On 4/15/15 3:37 PM, Hrvoje Popovski wrote:
> On 15.4.2015. 19:45, Mike Hammett wrote:
>> What do you have $my_ip4_net and $my_ip6_net set to? I assume the IPv4 and
>> IPv6 blocks that the IX is using?
>
> yes, that's IX network..
>
You could add as well the 192/24 filter also from RFC's as wel
On 15.4.2015. 19:45, Mike Hammett wrote:
> What do you have $my_ip4_net and $my_ip6_net set to? I assume the IPv4 and
> IPv6 blocks that the IX is using?
yes, that's IX network..
, April 15, 2015 4:34:19 AM
Subject: Re: OpenBGPd Route Server
On 15.4.2015. 5:23, Mike Hammett wrote:
> With the decline of OpenBGPd's popularity among IXPs, it's difficult to track
> down examples of how IXPs are configuring their servers. I saw a couple
> presentations
On 15.4.2015. 5:23, Mike Hammett wrote:
> With the decline of OpenBGPd's popularity among IXPs, it's difficult to track
> down examples of how IXPs are configuring their servers. I saw a couple
> presentations in the 2010 - 2011 timeframe with new things that were coming
> for 32 bit communities
With the decline of OpenBGPd's popularity among IXPs, it's difficult to track
down examples of how IXPs are configuring their servers. I saw a couple
presentations in the 2010 - 2011 timeframe with new things that were coming for
32 bit communities among other things.
I have a route server con
So the guys at PLIX actually send me an email that the feature I was
talking about already has a Internet-Draft. For this to become a RFC, it
needs at least two implementations before June 2009.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-add-paths-00
Kind regards,
Arnoud
On 3/18/09 11:00 AM,
The 'standard' (for at least one vendor's definition of standard) way
to get around this, is to slap a different route distinguisher (RD) on
each of the desired 'duplicate' paths. BGP then sees these as
individual paths and will happily communicate both concurrently.
Separate but related, i
In that case, if this is the only work-around possible, then I would
like to send in a feature request for per-filtered-peer local-RIB.
Currently it is the only thing blocking us from putting OpenBGPD in
production as a route server. Filtering is just an absolute requirement
for us at AMS-IX, a
Hi,
>
> The LINX route servers currently support this. For what it's worth we took
> a straw poll at the last LINX meeting of the ~100 attendees only 1 network
> was doing any filtering on the route server. Everyone else was being
> 'promiscuous'. It may be different at AMSIX however although LINX
Hi,
The LINX route servers currently support this. For what it's worth we took a
straw poll at the last LINX meeting of the ~100 attendees only 1 network was
doing any filtering on the route server. Everyone else was being
'promiscuous'. It may be different at AMSIX however although LINX staff
ass
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 11:00:32AM +0100, Arnoud Vermeer wrote:
> I have a problem with filtering on the current route server
> implementation. I currently have the following setup:
>
> >* 10.0.1.0/24 10.0.1.0/24
>
> +---+ +---+
> |AS1|
I have a problem with filtering on the current route server
implementation. I currently have the following setup:
>* 10.0.1.0/24 10.0.1.0/24
+---+ +---+
|AS1| |AS2|
| 10.0.0.50 | | 10.0.0.51
19 matches
Mail list logo
