RE: 4-Byte AS Number soon to come?

> Is it common or uncommon to fire up 'ethereal' or 'tcpdump' to debug > a BGP problem? I have done that a few times in my life (not that i have lived long enough like others in this list) > > Would it be problematic to have to either a) clear sessions for your > analyser to fully understand th

IP Prefixes are allocated ..

to different Autonomous systems. Is there a central/distributed database somewhere that can tell me that this particular IP prefix (say x.y.z.w) has been given to foo AS number? I tried searching through all the WHOIS records for a domain name. I get the IP address but i dont get the AS number.

Receiving route with metric 0

Nanogers, We are running RIP on one of our small cutomer routers and we are receiving routes with RIP metric 0. Is this valid? I thought each RIP router sends a metric of atleast 1, which is also what the RIP RFC seems to suggest. Has anyone ever come across such a scenario, i.e seeing RIP route

Re: Receiving route with metric 0

means it's a directly connected route. Valid metrics are > 1 - 15, with 16 used as "dead". > > TV > ----- Original Message - > From: "Glen Kent" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "NANOG list" > Sent: Monday, December 05, 2005 4:09 AM > Subje

Re: Receiving route with metric 0

Am all the more confused now :) > > > > In pre-RFC1058 implementations the sender increments the metric, so a > > directly-connected route's metric is 1 on the wire. > > > > In post-RFC1058 implementations the receiver increments the metric, so > > a directly-connected route's metric is 0 on the

Security inside AS

Hi, I understand that in theory we need to protect our IGPs from all sorts of attacks. But do we really have service providers who enable authentication (MD5, etc) inside their ASes for their IGPs (OSPF/IS-IS)? Thanks, Glen

Re: Security inside AS

Thanks to everyone for replying! I am overwhelmed with the response that i received offline. Thanks once again! Cheers, Glen On 1/20/06, Jared Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 12:17:01PM +0530, Glen Kent wrote: > > I understand that in theory we need

Re: Security inside AS

Yes - we do for IBGP, IS-IS, OSPF (where relevent), also LDP, HSRP, and anything else that offers the feature (even cleartext). It proves a useful guard against misconfiguration, as well as preventing certain security issues. -- > Just one more question. What kind of misconfiguration isues does us

Split flows across Domains

Hi, Are there any ISPs that do, or desire, splitting traffic across different ASes for prefixes learnt via an exterior gateway protocol (say BGP)? For example, an ISP can learn two different equal cost routes to a foo.com server via two different autonomous domains. It can thus split different f

Mutual Redistribution

Hi, There is a provider who is running ISIS in its core and they are using RIP for the management interface. Is it valid to redistribute all the ISIS routes into RIP and all the RIP routes into ISIS? Cant this create a loop or something? Thanks, Kent

RFC 3107

Hi, Is there any application that uses RFC 3107 (Label info inside BGP) encoding other than RFC 2547? I mean, is there any application that advertises BGP labels along with the NLRIs? Is anybody using this? Thanks! Kent

Re: Multihomed to 2 ISPs - Load Balance?

I'd be interested in the technical implementation as well... I vaguely remember Joel presenting a proposal in the Iast IETF which talked about being able to do more or less the same. A bit of googling gives me the drafts that were presented: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-bhatia-

Multiple BGP Routes in FIB

Hi, There is an interesting discussion going on in the IDR WG and i am cross posting a mail on Nanog to hear from the operators, if what is described below, a common practise followed by them: >> I don't think its correct to advertise one while using both for >> forwarding. >> NOTE: I am assum

Transition Planning for IPv6 as mandated by the US Govt

Hi, I was just reading http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/egov/b-1-information.html#IPV6, released some time back in 2005, and it seems that the US Govt. had set the target date of 30th June 2008 for all federal govt agencies to move their network backbones to IPv6. This deadline is almost here. Are w

Re: Kenyan Route Hijack

Unlike the Youtube outage where PTA had issued a directive asking all ISPs to block Youtube - What is the reason most often cited for such mishaps? The reason i ask this is because the ISPs that "inadvertently" hijack someone elses IP space, need to explicitly configure *something* to do this. So

Re: Routing Loop

Wow! Its close to 20 hours now, and folks have still not fixed the problem! I hope they're not many IPs NATed behind that unfortunate /24 that has been cherry picked by AboveNet. On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 9:31 AM, Bill Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 7018 is still seeing announcements from

Re: Kenyan Route Hijack

Paul, > Also: I have seen instances where a static route points to a next > hop that (inadvertently) may be "redistribute-static" injected into > BGP. This happens occasionally due to ad hoc configurations, back- > hole null routing, etc. And why would an ISP locally try to blackhole traffic

Operators Penalized? (was Re: Kenyan Route Hijack)

> > > > Usually unintentional. See Pakistan Telecom for recent example. > > Pakistan's blackhole was semi-unintentional, kind of like you tried to > shoot your spouse but the bullet went through the wall and > "unintentionally" hit a neighbor. Do ISPs (PTA, AboveNet, etc) that "unintention

Superfast internet may replace world wide web

says the solemn headline of Telegraph. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/04/06/ninternet106.xml Also related to this one, here: "Web could collapse as video demand soars" http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/04/07/nweb107.xml .. and we in Nanog are