On 20 Jun 2016, at 9:13, Mark Tinka wrote:
>> Telecity Manchester (UK), now Equinix Manchester, have charged MRC for
>> internal cabling since forever (in my case, forever being 2001 when I
>> first became customer).
>> They normally run their cables through their switches but when the
>> distance
http://exa.net.uk/about/contact-us
On 17 Jun 2016, at 17:50, Dave Temkin wrote:
And with Equinix buying Telecity, how long until we see US-style XCs
in
Europe?
Telecity Manchester (UK), now Equinix Manchester, have charged MRC for
internal cabling since forever (in my case, forever being 2
Hey!
New message, please read <http://akijukido.com/spite.php?eb6p6>
Thomas Mangin
Hello Randy,
The current configuration parser is currently progressive: what exists
when the neighbor is created (or in the neighbor group) is what will be
associated (which is not really ideal) hence why I have passed the last
three weeks totally rewriting it in view of version 4.0. This is s
Hello Pavel,
Using ExaBGP as an SDN already has been done (and in a very large
scale). But I would agree with Nick; It is not something I would
recommend to everyone.
Once more to echo Nick, to add/remove route/fw entries on Linux please
do use netlink. The lastest ExaBGP master has some sta
Hello,
Because :
- Exa has been under attack way too much these last weeks
- We hate to have to deal with it
Because:
- Andrisoft seems cool but does not do FlowSpec
- Arbor is known for its price (and features)
- I am from Yorkshire (How much do you pay me to find bugs in your shinny
appli
On 23 Aug 2012, at 15:04, Raymond Burkholder wrote:
> To expand the opinion set, how do Quagga, Bird, exaBGP, OpenBGPd hold up for
> handling Multi-Protocol BGP Route Reflector duties in a BGP/MPLS environment
> for a smaller ISP?
I am using BIRD as a RR between a busy VRF and our core and will
Fell free to contact me if you have any questions about ExaBGP as I am
painfully aware it's documentation is nowhere near what it should be.
Thomas
Sent from my iPad
On 23 Aug 2012, at 08:52, Andy Davidson wrote:
>
> On 22 Aug 2012, at 18:42, David Hubbard wrote:
>
>> Of those who have use
On 16 May 2012, at 00:01, Tom Hill wrote:
> I've been itching to try Freeswitch ever since I read this:
> http://www.freeswitch.org/node/117
Using FreeSwitch to provide trunk services for nearly a year. Very happy with
it. Just does what it says on the tin.
Currently installing a CudaTel as our
I (in the UK) had the same letter from LLNW yesterday, word for word.
When the peering was established, I had transit providers with strict peering
policy (TATA/L3), now I have two with more open policy (HE/KPN). I assume LLNW
now sees me via what is for them a peer, and see no financial reason
Hi Fredy,
On 30 Mar 2012, at 22:48, Fredy Kuenzler wrote:
> Now, obviously, the French regulator sees the trouble and trys to understand
> and 'regulate' it the way they do it usually. From our perspective certainly
> not a good way, but why blaming the regulator? Blame those which made it all
>
>> On Dec 8, 2010, at 10:10 PM, Thomas Mangin wrote:
>>
>>> Until this is sorted I believe flowspec will be a marginal solution.
>>
>> We're seeing a significant uptick in flowspec interest, actually, and S/RTBH
>> has been around for ages.
>
>
On 8 Dec 2010, at 15:40, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
> On Dec 8, 2010, at 10:36 PM, Thomas Mangin wrote:
>
>> If you are a smaller network, you need the filtering to be performed by your
>> transit provider, as your uplink will otherwise be congested.
>
> Actually, most
On 8 Dec 2010, at 15:12, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
>
> On Dec 8, 2010, at 10:10 PM, Thomas Mangin wrote:
>
>> Until this is sorted I believe flowspec will be a marginal solution.
>
> We're seeing a significant uptick in flowspec interest, actually, and S/RTBH
> has
A less common action is to use flowspec (if you have some Juniper gear) to drop
only the attack and hopefully not any legitimate traffic.
What is really missing atm is a way to filter flowspec announcements (limit the
number and make sure they are for routes the peer is announcing). Until this is
On 6 Dec 2010, at 15:34, David Ulevitch wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 6:10 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>> On Dec 6, 2010, at 4:07 AM, Jonas Frey (Probe Networks) wrote:
>>
>>> Besides having *alot* of bandwidth theres not really much you can do to
>>> mitigate. Once you have the bandwidth yo
FYI
Begin forwarded message:
> From: Pascal Gloor
> Date: 8 September 2010 11:25:18 GMT+01:00
> To: "swi...@swinog.ch"
> Subject: [swinog] IP address are now personal data
>
> Dear community,
>
> something important for us happened today that may have some impact on our
> daily business.
>
> On Mon, 2010-08-30 at 10:58 +0200, Thomas Mangin wrote:
>> http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc4271.html section 4.2
>>
>> So unless you know something I don't, I believe you are totally mistaken :)
>
> updates serve as implicit keepalives.
Rule #1 do not post when you
> Apart from one big vendor most BGP speaker only send KEEPALIVES when they
> need to. So on my full feeds I see sessions running for more then 1 month
> which received less then 300 KEEPALIVE packets.
The negociaged holdtime is always the lower value presented between two
routers. The default
> It would seem to me that there should actually be a better option, e.g.
> recognizing the malformed update, and simply discarding it (and sending the
> originator an error message) instead of resetting the session.
>
> Resetting of BGP sessions should only be done in the most dire of
> circumsta
> It seems that creating a worst case BGP test suite for all kinds of nastiness
> (in light of the recent RIPE thing) might not be a bad idea - so that we can
> all test the implementation ourselves before we deploy new code.
Normally those things are done by vendors - that what we pay them good
> I agree correctly framed invalid packet should be discarded without tearing
> the session down.
This statement is way to simplistic.
I would be interested if anyone has pointers toward any work which was done to
sort this issue.
Thanks.
Thomas
We had ASN4, AS-PATH and this one. More or less we hit this session reset
problem once a year but nothing was done yet to change the RFC.
So I am to blame as much as every network engineer to not have pushed for a
change or at least a comprehensive explanation on the session teardown
behaviour
Ytti wrote:
> On (2010-08-28 13:23 +0200), Thomas Mangin wrote:
>
>> Those tools are not suitable for regression testing ( I know I wrote exabgp
>> ) not saying they could not be adapted though.
>>
>> Fizzing may return crashes or issues with the daemon bu
Those tools are not suitable for regression testing ( I know I wrote exabgp )
not saying they could not be adapted though.
Fizzing may return crashes or issues with the daemon but it is unlikely. You
need predictable input for regression testing and in our particular case how do
you detect a co
> Quagga is even worse that Cisco when it comes to packet validation but it
> should not surprise anyone :p
To substantiate my claim, my mercurial log tells me that for MPRNLRI and
MPURNLRI having the flag set as Transitive instead of Optional did not cause
Quagga to complain. It just took the
On 28 Aug 2010, at 08:56, Randy Bush wrote:
> imiho, researchers injecting data into the control plane are responsible
> to have tested it at least against major bgp speakers. and, considering
> its placement in the net (big core), i consider ios xr to be a major
> speaker.
>
> i suspect that th
> I'm assuming that they weren't really expecting this to cause issues... Where
> does one draw the line? I'm planning on announcing x.y.z.0/20 later in the
> week -- x, y and z are all prime and the sum of all 3 is also a prime. There
> is a non-zero chance that something somewhere will go floo
On 27 Aug 2010, at 20:03, Grzegorz Janoszka wrote:
> On 27-08-10 20:41, Thomas Mangin wrote:
>>> I think most of the impact was limited to Europe, especially Amsterdam area.
>> Yes, It had an effect on ISPs which are connected to RIS.
>> http://www.ripe.net/ris/
>>
So much for "better left off public mailing lists" ! sigh !
Thomas
On 27 Aug 2010, at 19:42, Lucy Lynch wrote:
> FYI:
>
> --
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> On Friday 27 August, from 08:41 to 09:08 UTC, the RIPE NCC Routing
> Informati
On 27 Aug 2010, at 19:27, Grzegorz Janoszka wrote:
> On 27-08-10 19:31, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 19:27:06 +0200, Kasper Adel said:
>>> Havent seen a thread on this one so thought i'd start one.
>>>
>>> Ripe tested a new attribute that crashed the internet, is that tru
Looking at the graph of at least one of the european exchange where RIS
connect, it had an impact. Now saying it was nothing is like saying that the
YouTube incident was nothing as you were not affected as you do not use YouTube.
Some people did feel the pain - lucky it was not you :)
Thomas
--
> During the discussion, a developers of Bird said that their filtering code
> _may_ still have bugs (when performing community based filtering).
Someone rightly pointed to me that the commenter was not a BIRD developer .. my
mistake sorry.
I will "recall" my statement until I can watch to the w
> Quagga does not really behave well with lots of peers (lots >> 200), but
> there will be an optimized route server version soon.
This was discussed today at Linx 68. Linx is very pleased with Bird - they
could not get Quagga working due to load issues.
With large numbers of peers, the update pr
http://www.uknof.org.uk/uknof15/
Has quite a few talk about Quagga/Bird as they are used as route servers in
Europe.
For a route server use, BGP under very high number of peers, it seems bird now
behave better than anything else.
so for "normal" use, it would seems that whatever you pick will wo
Hi,
I juste added some preliminary support for FlowSpec (RFC5575) to my BGP route
injector http://bgp.exa.org.uk/
As I am not aware of any other project allowing to inject flow route into a
network, I am taking the liberty to plug it here.
You can access the SVN repository at: http:/svn.exa.org
I do not know about arin but ripe changed it's policy so you only have
to say "pretty please" to receive your allocation. It better that way
anyway.
Thomas Mangin
On 14 Aug 2009, at 16:17, Jeroen Massar wrote:
Chris Gotstein wrote:
We are a small ISP that is in the proces
37 matches
Mail list logo
