I would have thought that this lesson would still be fresh in the
minds of people, as we just passed 256K routes a little while ago
and broke a whole bunch of Catalyst 6500/7600 SUP720-3B's (etc).
I guess the pain isn't as memorable as I thought.
Not all of us forgot... I remember the day our
> It has been routinely observed in nanog presentations that settlement
> free providers by their nature miss a few prefixes that well connected
> transit purchasing ISPs carry.
just trying to understand what you mean,
o no transit-free provider actually has all (covering) prefixes needed
t
Stef Walter wrote:
> In this day of and age of wild-west, cowboy attitudes between some of
> the biggest players on the Internet, does protecting against these
> problems require a routing device that can handle multiple full routing
> tables? It would seem so...
It has been routinely observed in
I've decided to get transit from provider B independently of A, so I don't
create a conflict of interest as mentioned below. However I think that I will
have to use provider A's dark fibre network to connect to both peerings.
Provider A tells me that they will use different routes and differen
a...@baklawasecrets.com wrote:
> Actually thinking about this, I still need to understand the
> implications of not taking a full routing table to my setup. So what
> is the likely impact going to be if I take partial instead of full
> routing table. Would appreciate any feedback on this. My
> o
Aaron Hopkins wrote:
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009, Drew Weaver wrote:
If you have several transit providers connected to your network and much
of your traffic is generally directed by the "BGP tiebreaker" (i.e.
lowest
IP address) is there a way, without specifying on a per-prefix basis to
prefer the "
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009, Drew Weaver wrote:
If you have several transit providers connected to your network and much
of your traffic is generally directed by the "BGP tiebreaker" (i.e. lowest
IP address) is there a way, without specifying on a per-prefix basis to
prefer the "tie breaker winner" slig
We use multipath setups for our EIGRP and iBGP configurations for our
internal routing as well. Although for larger networks iBGP multipath
might be of use due to memory limitations on a lot of devices.
Doug Lane wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 3:50 AM, Matthew Petach wrote:
>
>> I've outlawe
Kanak,
NANOG moderators have requested this conversation go off list.
Jeff
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 1:50 PM, noc acrino wrote:
> Greetings!
>
> By the way, Jeffrey, by the 24th of October, when you posted the information
> that the RBN is located in our networks we couldn't even know about any
>
Greetings!
By the way, Jeffrey, by the 24th of October, when you posted the information
that the RBN is located in our networks we couldn't even know about any
malware redirectors on our clients resources -
http://www.stopbadware.org/reports/asn/44571. I'm trying to solve the Google
SB issue (stil
Sure, it still works however (for now).
-Drew
-Original Message-
From: jeffrey.l...@gmail.com [mailto:jeffrey.l...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
Jeffrey Lyon
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 1:34 PM
To: Drew Weaver
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: BGP Traffic Engineering question
Isn't Route
Isn't Route Science EOL?
Jeff
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 1:31 PM, Drew Weaver wrote:
> Howdy,
>
> If you have several transit providers connected to your network and much of
> your traffic is generally directed by the "BGP tiebreaker" (i.e. lowest IP
> address) is there a way, without specifying
Howdy,
If you have several transit providers connected to your network and much of
your traffic is generally directed by the "BGP tiebreaker" (i.e. lowest IP
address) is there a way, without specifying on a per-prefix basis to prefer the
"tie breaker winner" slightly less often? I don't want to
On 11/10/09 8:05 AM, John Peach wrote:
On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 18:15:09 -0500
David Ulevitch wrote:
On 11/9/09 6:06 PM, Alex Balashov wrote:
Anything else is COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE. I don't understand how or
why this could possibly be controversial.
Because some people want the ability and ch
On 11/10/09 9:04 AM, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
When the conficker worms phones home to one of the 50,000 potential
domains names it computes each day, there are a lot of IT folks out
there that wish their local resolver would simply reject those DNS
requests so that infected machines in their netw
> > When the conficker worms phones home to one of the 50,000 potential
> > domains names it computes each day, there are a lot of IT folks out
> > there that wish their local resolver would simply reject those DNS
> > requests so that infected machines in their network fail to phone
> > home.
>
>
AfNOG-11 and AfriNIC-12: Meetings 23 May-4 June, 2010
The African Network Operators' Group (AfNOG) and the African Network
Information Centre (AfriNIC) are pleased to announce that the 11th AfNOG
Meeting and the AfriNIC-12 Meeting would be held in Kigali, Rwanda
during May & June 2010.
About the
On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 06:15:09PM -0500,
David Ulevitch wrote
a message of 18 lines which said:
> When the conficker worms phones home to one of the 50,000 potential
> domains names it computes each day, there are a lot of IT folks out
> there that wish their local resolver would simply rejec
> > When the conficker worms phones home to one of the 50,000 potential
> > domains names it computes each day, there are a lot of IT folks out
> > there that wish their local resolver would simply reject those DNS
> > requests so that infected machines in their network fail to phone
> > home.
>
On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 18:15:09 -0500
David Ulevitch wrote:
> On 11/9/09 6:06 PM, Alex Balashov wrote:
>
> > Anything else is COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE. I don't understand how or
> > why this could possibly be controversial.
>
> Because some people want the ability and choice to block DNS
> response
On 10/11/2009 09:52, a...@baklawasecrets.com wrote:
3) Arrange for PI space and ASN myself, so become an LIR through RIPE.
You don't need to become a LIR to get PI space and an ASN.
Do I really lose a lot by asking Level3 or GBLX to get the PI and ASN
for me?
You lose relatively little. If
If nothing else by the time this deployment is finished I will surely have
become extremely cynical. Now reading through peoples answers, I think the
general consensus is that
I would be giving too much control to provider A in the scenario I suggested
below. So as someone mentioned they have
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 1:10 AM, Doug Lane wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 3:50 AM, Matthew Petach wrote:
>> I've outlawed the use of multihop eBGP for load-sharing here; when we get
>> multiple links off the same router to a peer or upstream, they are configured
>> with multipath. We've got hu
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 3:50 AM, Matthew Petach wrote:
> I've outlawed the use of multihop eBGP for load-sharing here; when we get
> multiple links off the same router to a peer or upstream, they are configured
> with multipath. We've got hundreds of BGP sessions across the network
> configured w
24 matches
Mail list logo
