NANOGers -
ARIN has opened a consultation on removing support for FTP as an access method
(in preference to HTTP/HTTPS) for our data archive –
please see the attached consultation and provide feedback to the arin-consult
mailing list if you have strong opinions on such a change.
Thanks!
/John
On Fri, Sep 20, 2024 at 2:36 PM, wrote:
> Why would a single homed customer not take a default route?
>
1: They are concerned about bandwidth — if a customer sends a packet and
there is no global route, they can drop and not "waste" the transit
bandwidth. This is actually useful in some specific
Why would a single homed customer not take a default route?
> On Sep 20, 2024, at 1:25 PM, Tarko Tikan wrote:
>
> hey,
>
>> Yeah, no. Provided they are singlehomed customers who generally set (or
>> take) a
>> default route to that transit, they are completely fine. Their transit knows
>> the
On Sep 20, 2024, at 8:59 AM, Elmar K. Bins wrote:
> We're deploying enough nodes to be able to run it that way, and we have - of
> course - a few nodes that advertise a supernet without NO_EXPORT to service
> whoever isn't peering with us.
>
The supernet piece of this is key.
NO_EXPORT can be
*Video — "Why NANOG?" Hear from a Newcomer *
*We asked Newcomer ISOC's João Aguiar About His Experience*
Newcomers bring fresh ideas and energy to the conversation, while seasoned
members provide expertise and mentorship, fostering a dynamic exchange of
knowledge.
See what Internet Society's Agui
This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Global
IPv4 Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan.
The posting is sent to APOPS, NANOG, AfNOG, SANOG, PacNOG, SAFNOG
UKNOF, TZNOG, MENOG, BJNOG, SDNOG, CMNOG, LACNOG and the RIPE Routing WG.
Daily listings are sent to bg
hey,
Yeah, no. Provided they are singlehomed customers who generally set (or take) a
default route to that transit, they are completely fine. Their transit knows
the prefix and will use it. It gets more problematic for multihomed customers.
Well I have no idea why do you say that all such cust
Hi Tarko, folks,
ta...@lanparty.ee (Tarko Tikan) wrote:
> This can be very harmful. Consider IP transit customer of said transit
> provider that is single homed to said transit provider.
>
> Transit provider will select the aggregate prefix with no-export as best and
> will not propagate it to it
Right. Just because someone with whom you have an eBGP connection established
is also a transit provider doesn't mean you have to or even want to make use of
transiting into other networks across that connection.
We've done exactly this to avoid trombone routing to get to a set of customers.
-
hey,
But are there good reasons when an AS might announce a prefix
(route) to a transit provider with NO_EXPORT attached? The IP
address space in consideration here is meant to have global
reachability.
This can be very harmful. Consider IP transit customer of said transit
provider that is s
On 9/19/24 19:26, Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed) via NANOG wrote:
I know it makes sense for an AS to announce an aggregate less-specific prefix
to transit providers and peers without NO_EXPORT while announcing some
more-specific prefixes (subsumed under the aggregate) with NO_EXPORT towards
cu
Hey Nanog,
Some of you reached out to us to tell us that you needed a Google account
to send the data. We removed this constraint, so feel free to fill the
survey again if you have time!
Thanks for your help!
Best regards,
Omar Darwich, Kevin Vermeulen, Cristel Pelsser
Le lun. 9 sept. 2024 à 1
12 matches
Mail list logo
