BGP Update Report
Interval: 25-Dec-14 -to- 01-Jan-15 (7 days)
Observation Point: BGP Peering with AS131072
TOP 20 Unstable Origin AS
Rank ASNUpds % Upds/PfxAS-Name
1 - AS 821079 16.6% 68423.2 -- RUSERVICE-LLC-AS LLC
RU-service,RU
2 - AS13105 350
This report has been generated at Fri Jan 2 21:14:20 2015 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/2.0 for a current version of this report.
Recent Table History
Date
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Jeff Tantsura
wrote:
> Keep in mind - some architectures, such as seamless MPLS would require a
> RR to be in the fast path.
>
+1
Also think physical topologies like ethernet rings. Where's the RR go in
this topology?
-Dan
On 02/01/2015 02:17, Ca By wrote:
> I agree, it makes some sense, especially if you are control plane bound.
> But, nearly all my routers run between 1% and 10% cpu.
1% and 10% on what will generally be older, slower cpus. Modern servers
have significantly faster CPUs than any RE/RP on the market
On 02/01/2015 18:24, Mark Tinka wrote:
> Wish I could - to be honest, these don't give me enough
> comfort for a production network.
It's not even possible for a vpn enabled network right now. Having said
that, I use bird in anger for ixp route server functionality (i.e. ebgp
route reflector) an
Does anyone have a contact for Level3 if you are a not a customer or can
someone from level3 please contact me off list. We're seeing and issue
with blocked subnets.
All of their public addresses are being replied to with "log into the
portal, open a customer ticket".
Thanks,
Bryan Socha
Netwo
On Friday, January 02, 2015 12:16:26 PM Andriy Bilous wrote:
> Given that you assign unique RD per PE, RR out of the
> forwarding path provides you with a neat trick for fast
> convergence (and debugging purposes) when CE has
> redundant paths to different PEs. Routes to those CEs
> will be seen a
On Friday, January 02, 2015 04:17:37 AM Ca By wrote:
> Ymmv. I have feeling that running a bgp rr on cheap /
> standard / commidity vm is pretty exotic from a support
> perspective.
Not really.
Since July last year.
The worst I've had was the HP server shutting down in a
London data centre due
On Friday, January 02, 2015 03:57:41 AM Mike Hammett wrote:
> Running various functions on a couple small VM clusters
> makes a lot of sense.
We treat our CSR1000v RR's as dedicated islands. No other
functions run on them, nor do we cluster them.
Don't want what fun could arise :-)...
Mark.
On Friday, January 02, 2015 03:54:32 AM Jeff Tantsura wrote:
> You don't need LDP on RR as long as clients support "not
> on lsp" flag (different implementation have different
> names for it)
The hack needed when running a Junos-based RR in an MPLS
network to allow route reflection of l3vpn rout
On Friday, January 02, 2015 12:09:36 AM Nick Hilliard wrote:
> there are patches for both code-bases and some
> preliminary support for vpnv4 in quagga, but other than
> that neither currently supports either ldp or the
> vpnv4/vpnv6 address families in the main-line code.
LDP support would not b
On Thursday, January 01, 2015 11:37:25 PM Baldur Norddahl
wrote:
> Is there a good reason to use actual router hardware for
> the route reflector role?
Nope.
It used to be code maturity - but major vendors are
supporting service-grade code on VM's.
> Even a cheap server has more
> CPU and mem
On Thursday, January 01, 2015 11:25:24 PM Tony Varriale
wrote:
> Most vendors today have the performance numbers
> (sometimes they aren't published publically) for routers
> acting as RRs. Ask your vendor and pick one that suits
> you. We generally buy the middle or most memory and
> pick a rea
On Thursday, January 01, 2015 12:46:23 PM Marcin Kurek
wrote:
> I am also aware of products like vMX or CSR1000v/XRv and
> the example given by Saku makes me more interested in
> licensing/pricing options.
Our network spans Africa, South Asia and Europe.
We have 2x RR's in each PoP running Cisc
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,
CaribNOG and the RIPE Routing Working Group.
Daily listings are sent to bgp-st...@lists.apnic.net
For hi
+100
Regards,
Jeff
> On Jan 2, 2015, at 5:29 AM, Rob Shakir wrote:
>
>
>> On 2 Jan 2015, at 01:54, Jeff Tantsura wrote:
>>
>> You don't need LDP on RR as long as clients support "not on lsp" flag
>> (different implementation have different names for it)
>> There are more and more reasons to
> On 2 Jan 2015, at 01:54, Jeff Tantsura wrote:
>
> You don't need LDP on RR as long as clients support "not on lsp" flag
> (different implementation have different names for it)
> There are more and more reasons to run RR on a non router HW, there are many
> reasons to still run commercial co
Given that you assign unique RD per PE, RR out of the forwarding path
provides you with a neat trick for fast convergence (and debugging
purposes) when CE has redundant paths to different PEs. Routes to those CEs
will be seen as different routes on RR.
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 1:08 PM, Marcin Kurek
Hi,
I need direct contact off list please.
Thanks !
Best regards,
Marco Paesani
M. +39 348 6019349
19 matches
Mail list logo
