Re: Please help our simple bgp

> Hello > > Our router is running simple bgp. "one BGP router, two upstreams (each > 100M > from ISP A and ISP B) > We are getting full feeds tables from them > > We discover the routes is going to ISP A only even the bandwidth 100M is > full > > Can we set the weight to change to ISP B to use ISP

Re: Question about prefix list

> Ann, > the commas not withstanding, the le/ge operands as applicable to > prefix-lists simply mean "less-than or equal-to" or greater-than or > "equal-to" wrt netmasks in CIDR speak. > > In you prefix-list below, the le operand means - > allow following ranges: > > /22,/23,/24 deny all else > for

Re: bufferbloat videos are up.

On Feb 3, 2012, at 10:09 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > So basically I agree with your problem statement, however I think it would be > benficial if your proposed solution was a bit more specific, or at least > pointed more in that direction. To propose a solution that sounds more like > "lim

Re: bufferbloat videos are up.

On Fri, 3 Feb 2012, Jim Gettys wrote: 2. The longer version of the video Good visualisation. Just a little nitpicking, 802.11 is 54 megabit, not megahertz. It should also be pointed out that 802.11 is half duplex, which might affect things. Also, you might want to point out in your materia

Re: not excactly on-topic Server Cabinet question

On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 11:05:09PM -0600, Erik Amundson wrote: > I apologize for this being off-topic in the NANOG list, but I'm hoping some > of you have experience with the particulars of what I'm looking for... > > I am looking for a server cabinet which has an electric latching mechanism on

AT&T / prodigy.net mail admin

Hello, Can an AT&T mail admin contact me off-list please? I have attempted to get a resolution for an issue through the normal channels and have not gotten anywhere. Sincerely, Bobby Glover Director of Information Services SVI Incorporated

Re: IPv6 dual stacking and route tables

On Feb 3, 2012, at 12:10 PM, -Hammer- wrote: > So, we are preparing to add IPv6 to our multi-homed (separate routers and > carriers with IBGP) multi-site business. Starting off with a lab of course. > Circuits and hardware are a few months away. I'm doing the initial designs > and having some

Re: This network is too good...

On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 5:51 PM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote: > > Hi all, > > Any thoughts on products that screw up networks in deterministic (and > realistic found-in-the-wild) ways?  I'm thinking of stuff like > PacketStorm, Dummynet, etc.  Dial up jitter, latency, tail drop, RED, > whatever... > >

The Cidr Report

This report has been generated at Fri Feb 3 21:12:45 2012 AEST. The report analyses the BGP Routing Table of AS2.0 router and generates a report on aggregation potential within the table. Check http://www.cidr-report.org for a current version of this report. Recent Table History Date

BGP Update Report

BGP Update Report Interval: 26-Jan-12 -to- 02-Feb-12 (7 days) Observation Point: BGP Peering with AS131072 TOP 20 Unstable Origin AS Rank ASNUpds % Upds/PfxAS-Name 1 - AS840253901 3.1% 29.0 -- CORBINA-AS OJSC "Vimpelcom" 2 - AS28683 39445 2.3

Re: IPv6 dual stacking and route tables

On Feb 3, 2012, at 3:25 PM, Philip Dorr wrote: > You should accept the full v6 table, because some IPs may not, > currently, be reachable via one of the carriers. Definitely agreed here, and this is why we take full v6 tables. Especially since one of our upstreams does not peer with at least o

Re: IPv6 dual stacking and route tables

OK. Looking forward to getting the lab up. Since I can handle the volume I'll take both tables. At least in the lab. Looking forward to doing some experiments with DNS just to see what all the fuss is about. Looks like I'll need to order a Mac for the lab. No harm there. :) -Hammer- "I was a

Re: IPv6 dual stacking and route tables

On 2012-02-03 21:37 , -Hammer- wrote: > Thanks Jeroen (and Ryan/Philip/Cameron/Justin/Etc.) for all the online > and offline responses. That was fast. The struggle is that I'm having > trouble seeing how/why it would matter other than potential latency on > the IPv4 side. IPv6 conversations usually

Re: IPv6 dual stacking and route tables

Thanks Jeroen (and Ryan/Philip/Cameron/Justin/Etc.) for all the online and offline responses. That was fast. The struggle is that I'm having trouble seeing how/why it would matter other than potential latency on the IPv4 side. IPv6 conversations usually involve taking the full table when dealin

Re: IPv6 dual stacking and route tables

On 2012-02-03 21:10 , -Hammer- wrote: > So, we are preparing to add IPv6 to our multi-homed (separate routers > and carriers with IBGP) multi-site business. Starting off with a lab of > course. Dear "Hammer", Welcome to the 21th century. 2012 is going to "the year" (they claim, again ;) of IPv6

Re: IPv6 dual stacking and route tables

On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 12:10 PM, -Hammer- wrote: > So, we are preparing to add IPv6 to our multi-homed (separate routers and > carriers with IBGP) multi-site business. Starting off with a lab of course. > Circuits and hardware are a few months away. I'm doing the initial designs > and having some

Re: IPv6 dual stacking and route tables

On Fri, 3 Feb 2012, -Hammer- wrote: "If you have a specific route to a record but a less specific route to an A record the potential is for the trip to take longer." That was the premise of the thread. I swear I googled it for 20 minutes to link before giving up. Anyway, can anyone who's

Re: IPv6 dual stacking and route tables

You should accept the full v6 table, because some IPs may not, currently, be reachable via one of the carriers. On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 2:10 PM, -Hammer- wrote: > So, we are preparing to add IPv6 to our multi-homed (separate routers and > carriers with IBGP) multi-site business. Starting off with

Re: IPv6 dual stacking and route tables

On Feb 3, 2012, at 3:10 PM, -Hammer- wrote: > So, we are preparing to add IPv6 to our multi-homed (separate routers and > carriers with IBGP) multi-site business. Starting off with a lab of course. > Circuits and hardware are a few months away. I'm doing the initial designs > and having some d

IPv6 dual stacking and route tables

So, we are preparing to add IPv6 to our multi-homed (separate routers and carriers with IBGP) multi-site business. Starting off with a lab of course. Circuits and hardware are a few months away. I'm doing the initial designs and having some delivery questions with the carrier(s). One interestin

bufferbloat videos are up.

If people have heard of bufferbloat at all, it is usually just an abstraction despite having had personal experience with it. Bufferbloat can occur in your operating system, your home router, your broadband gear, wireless, and almost anywhere in the Internet. Most still think that if experience poo

Weekly Routing Table Report

This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan. The posting is sent to APOPS, NANOG, AfNOG, AusNOG, SANOG, PacNOG, LacNOG, TRNOG, CaribNOG and the RIPE Routing Working Group. Daily listings are sent to bgp-st...@lists.ap

Re: [rt-users] External Auth using Active Directory 2008

my apologies - fat fingered the email address james

Re: [rt-users] External Auth using Active Directory 2008

I would use ldapsearch on that machine to make sure you can bind to the AD server using the login credentials in your Site_Config. Make sure you are using the proper certificates to connect via the TLS you have configured. I've noticed that being one of the biggest problems with ldap and Windows

Re: [POLITICS] ICANN elections

What Bill said. Comments to the website (http://aso.icann.org/people/icann-board-elections/2012-elections/) are moderated, so any statements of support won't show up (except to the person who makes the statement) until the moderator has gotten a round tuit. The [s]electorate to be persuaded is he

RE: Thanks & Let's Prevent this in the Future.

Thanks for the reminder, Richard. Yes, as I announced earlier (see http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2012-January/044493.html - the message with the corrected date), there is an interim sidr meeting on Thu *9* Feb in San Diego. Registration is free. Registration is easy (email). Regis

Re: Verisign deep-hacked. For months.

On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 10:34 PM, Jeff Wheeler wrote: > On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 7:26 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > wrote: >> So what part of VRSN got broken into?  They do a lot more than just DNS. > > Indeed, VeriSign owns Illuminet, who are mission-critical for POTS. > Illuminet is also in the bus

[POLITICS] ICANN elections

There are four really good candidates. Please consider sending in a statement of support for one of them. /bill - Forwarded message - Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 09:38:06 +1000 To: Bill Manning Subject: Comment Period for ICANN Board Seat 9 Election Consistent with the ASO Memorandum of

Re: Verisign deep-hacked. For months.

- Original Message - > From: "Jeff Wheeler" > On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 7:26 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > wrote: > > So what part of VRSN got broken into? They do a lot more than just > > DNS. > > Indeed, VeriSign owns Illuminet, who are mission-critical for POTS. > Illuminet is also in th

Re: [#135346] Unauthorized BGP Announcements (follow up to Hijacked Networks)

On Thu, 2 Feb 2012, Dave Pooser wrote: ...and all we need is for billion-dollar corporations to start putting moral rectitude ahead of profits. Well, heck, that should start happening any day now! And then FedEx will deliver my unicorn! Your unicorn has been impounded by Customs. jms

Re: Thanks & Let's Prevent this in the Future.

In related news, the IETF working group that is writing standards for the RPKI is having an interim meeting in San Diego just after NANOG. They deliberately chose that place/time to make it easy for NANOG attendees to contribute, so comments from this community are definitely welcome.

Re: [#135346] Unauthorized BGP Announcements (follow up to Hijacked

Randy Bush writes: > well, not exactly. to quote myself from the other week in another forum > > [ 30 lines deleted ] > > Sorry to drone on, but these three really need to be differentiated. The truly wonderful thing about the evolution of BGP security is its elegant simplicity. It is good to

Re: Thanks & Let's Prevent this in the Future.

One option is to use RPKI and origin validation. But it won't help much unless prefix holders create their certificates and ROAs and networks operators use those to validate origins. It won't solve all the issues but at least some fat fingers/un-expierience errors. We are runni