RE: What are these Google IPs hammering on my DNS server?

2023-12-05 Thread Michael Hare via NANOG
y Engineer :: Google :: AS15169 On Sun, Dec 3, 2023 at 1:22 PM Michael Hare via NANOG mailto:nanog@nanog.org>> wrote: John- This is little consolation, but at AS3128, I see the same thing to our downstream at times, claiming to come from both 13335 and 15169 often simultaneously

RE: What are these Google IPs hammering on my DNS server?

2023-12-03 Thread Michael Hare via NANOG
John- This is little consolation, but at AS3128, I see the same thing to our downstream at times, claiming to come from both 13335 and 15169 often simultaneously at the tune of 25Kpps , "assuming it's not spoofed", which is pragmatically impossible to prove for me given our indirect relationshi

RE: Long hops on international paths

2022-01-18 Thread Michael Hare via NANOG
Paul- You said: "... would decide to configure MPLS paths between Chicago and distant international locations ..." AS3128 runs MPLS and it's probable someone might correct me here, but for a IGP backbone area I think it's common for there to be a full mesh of LSPs via either LDP, RSVP, SR etc.

RE: BGP Route Monitoring

2022-01-06 Thread Michael Hare via NANOG
Re: Adam's advice about IOS/XR SNMP access to VRF, while this experience may be a bit dated [IOS XR 5.x], in production we have used "snmp-server community-map $x context $y". I will say we weren't pleased, we noticed that context switches didn't work well. For example if our poller tried to s

RE: Partial vs Full tables

2020-06-11 Thread Michael Hare via NANOG
Mark (and others), I used to run loose uRPF on peering/transit links for AS3128 because I used to think that tightening the screws was always the "right thing to do". I instrumented at 60s granularity with vendor J uRPF drop counters on these links. Drops during steady state [bgp converged]

RE: Partial vs Full tables

2020-06-05 Thread Michael Hare via NANOG
Saku- > In internal network, instead of having a default route in iBGP or IGP, > you should have the same loopback address in every full DFZ router and > advertise that loopback in IGP. Then non fullDFZ routers should static > route default to that loopback, always reaching IGP closest full DFZ >