Re: bgp question

On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 6:27 AM, Deric Kwok wrote: > We are planning to have 3 x 1G bgp connections (full tables) eg: Path A, B, C > > Can I say that we have 3G output totally? Sure. > From my understanding, the bgp chooses the best path to route automatically It doesn't. It typically chooses

Re: bgp question

Hi Thank you all of you Can I have one question? We are planning to have 3 x 1G bgp connections (full tables) eg: Path A, B, C Can I say that we have 3G output totally? >From my understanding, the bgp chooses the best path to route automatically If the path A is best route and that path 1G ba

Re: bgp question

On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 5:58 AM, Deric Kwok wrote: > ls it supporting equally multipath in different bgp connections? Most software routing protocols have support for this in their RIBs, but the actual forwarding ability of the underlying kernel will determine the support for this. What platform

Re: bgp question

On Wed, 18 Jan 2012, Deric Kwok wrote: Could you tell me more about "routing registries"? I would like to learn it In a nutshell, Internet Routing Registries (IRRs) are places where networks can store information that describes their routing policies. Other networks can query this informatio

Re: bgp question

On Jan 18, 2012, at 5:58 AM, Deric Kwok wrote: > Could you tell me more about "routing registries"? > I would like to learn it google it, and RADB for example. > 2nd questions? Are you familiar to quagga? > ls it supporting equally multipath in different bgp connections? Yes, absolutely. -- J

Re: bgp question

Hi Justin Thank you Could you tell me more about "routing registries"? I would like to learn it 2nd questions? Are you familiar to quagga? ls it supporting equally multipath in different bgp connections? Thank you so much On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 7:58 PM, Justin M. Streiner wrote: > On Tue,

Re: bgp question

On Tue, 10 Jan 2012, Deric Kwok wrote: When we get newip, we should let the upstream know to expor it as there should have rule in their side. Correct. Ideally, two things happen: 1. You tell your upstreams and peers about the new space, and they update whatever prefix filters they have in

Re: bgp question

On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Deric Kwok wrote: > Hi all > > When we get newip, we should let the upstream know to expor it as > there should have rule in their side. > > how about upstream provider, does they need to let their all bgp > interconnect to know those our newip? > > If no, Can I k

bgp question

Hi all When we get newip, we should let the upstream know to expor it as there should have rule in their side. how about upstream provider, does they need to let their all bgp interconnect to know those our newip? If no, Can I know how it works? If they don't have rules each other, ls it any p

Re: Quick IP6/BGP question

On 26/05/10 19:55, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: > On May 26, 2010, at 2:53 PM, Joe Abley wrote: >> On 2010-05-25, at 17:40, Martin List-Petersen wrote: >> >>> On 24/05/10 19:21, Thomas Magill wrote: > From the provider side, are most of you who are implementing IP6 peerings running BGP over I

Re: Quick IP6/BGP question

On May 26, 2010, at 2:53 PM, Joe Abley wrote: > On 2010-05-25, at 17:40, Martin List-Petersen wrote: > >> On 24/05/10 19:21, Thomas Magill wrote: From the provider side, are most of you who are implementing IP6 >>> peerings running BGP over IP4 and just using IP6 address families to >>> excha

Re: Quick IP6/BGP question

On 2010-05-25, at 17:40, Martin List-Petersen wrote: > On 24/05/10 19:21, Thomas Magill wrote: >>> From the provider side, are most of you who are implementing IP6 >> peerings running BGP over IP4 and just using IP6 address families to >> exchange routes or doing IP6 peering? > > Most Internet E

Re: Quick IP6/BGP question

On 24/05/10 19:21, Thomas Magill wrote: >>From the provider side, are most of you who are implementing IP6 > peerings running BGP over IP4 and just using IP6 address families to > exchange routes or doing IP6 peering? Most Internet Exchanges do not allow to mix on the same transport. So IPv4 peeri

Re: Mikrotik BGP Question

On 24/05/10 17:28, Allan Eising wrote: > In some ways, I find the MikroTik RouterOS routing filter syntax a little > more powerful than Cisco's route-maps. As routing filters work the same > way as firewall filters, you can group rules in "chains" and reuse parts > of your filters in other filte

RE: Quick IP6/BGP question

On Mon, 24 May 2010, Michael K. Smith - Adhost wrote: At the Seattle Internet Exchange we have both IPv4 and IPv6 peering, via discrete addresses, on the same interface. That's how we do it here as well. jms

Re: Quick IP6/BGP question

On 5/24/10 11:21 AM, Thomas Magill wrote: >>From the provider side, are most of you who are implementing IP6 > peerings running BGP over IP4 and just using IP6 address families to > exchange routes or doing IP6 peering? > > Within my core I run multiprotocol BGP. At the edge it's all configure

Re: Quick IP6/BGP question

On 24 May 2010, at 19:21, Thomas Magill wrote: > From the provider side, are most of you who are implementing IP6 > peerings running BGP over IP4 and just using IP6 address families to > exchange routes or doing IP6 peering? Different sessions, one for v4, one for v6. This keeps config saner, t

RE: Quick IP6/BGP question

the IPv4 address family in order to exchange IPv4 NLRI over an IPv6 BGP session. Thanks, Wes George -Original Message- From: Thomas Magill [mailto:tmag...@providecommerce.com] Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 2:22 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Quick IP6/BGP question >From the provider side

RE: Quick IP6/BGP question

. -Original Message- From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com] Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 11:30 AM To: Thomas Magill Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Quick IP6/BGP question At Hurricane, most of our IPv6 peerings are exchanging over IPv6 addresses. In general, most routers work better if you run

Re: Quick IP6/BGP question

At Hurricane, most of our IPv6 peerings are exchanging over IPv6 addresses. In general, most routers work better if you run IPv4 peering on IPv4 and IPv6 peering on IPv6. In many cases, this is because the configuration files are less confusing more than any underlying dependency in the router OS.

Re: Quick IP6/BGP question

On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 11:21:45AM -0700, Thomas Magill wrote: > From the provider side, are most of you who are implementing IP6 > peerings running BGP over IP4 and just using IP6 address families to > exchange routes or doing IP6 peering? I've never liked how you have to configure ::w.x.y.z/96 s

RE: Quick IP6/BGP question

> -Original Message- > From: Thomas Magill [mailto:tmag...@providecommerce.com] > Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 11:22 AM > To: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Quick IP6/BGP question > > >From the provider side, are most of you who are implementing IP6 > peerings ru

Re: Quick IP6/BGP question

> Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 11:21:45 -0700 > From: "Thomas Magill" > > >From the provider side, are most of you who are implementing IP6 > peerings running BGP over IP4 and just using IP6 address families to > exchange routes or doing IP6 peering? Can't speak for "most of us", but we run an iBGP v4

Quick IP6/BGP question

>From the provider side, are most of you who are implementing IP6 peerings running BGP over IP4 and just using IP6 address families to exchange routes or doing IP6 peering? Thomas Magill Network Engineer Office: (858) 909-3777 Cell: (858) 869-9685 mailto:tmag...@providecommerce.com

RE: Mikrotik BGP Question

ce: 314-735-0270 Website: http://www.linktechs.net LIVE On-Line Mikrotik Training - Author of "Learn RouterOS" -Original Message- From: Allan Eising [mailto:allan.eising+gm...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 11:29 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Mikrotik BGP Question

Re: Mikrotik BGP Question

On Sun, 23 May 2010 08:21:47 +0200, Graham Beneke wrote: > On 2010/05/21 11:56 PM, Martin List-Petersen wrote: >> - Mikrotik still has some memory leaks in the BGP stack somewhere, >> causing funny issues at times. >> >> - Filters aren't adequate for my use, and lacking a lot on IPv4, but >> even

Re: Mikrotik BGP Question

* George Bonser: >> Does this really work that well? Won't you still get loops or >> blackholes unless the eBGP routes on all border routers are identical? > > As opposed to what, injecting the entire BGP table into your igp? As opposed to just injecting defaults. > Maybe there is a reason the

RE: Mikrotik BGP Question

> -Original Message- > From: Florian Weimer > Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 2:35 AM > To: George Bonser > Cc: joel jaeggli; Ingo Flaschberger; nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: Mikrotik BGP Question > > * George Bonser: > > > Does this really work that we

RE: Mikrotik BGP Question

-Original Message- From: Ingo Flaschberger [mailto:i...@xip.at] Sent: Sunday, May 23, 2010 8:56 PM To: Lorell Hathcock Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: Mikrotik BGP Question Dear Lorell, > We will implement OSPF. so what arguments speak against 2 bgp upstreams? Kind regards, I

Re: Mikrotik BGP Question

* George Bonser: > Well, I believe the original poster said that one of his colleagues > swore that BGP multihoming wouldn't work unless both feeds terminated on > the same router. I suppose said colleague has never heard of iBGP > between two routers of the local AS. Those two routers should pro

RE: Mikrotik BGP Question

> -Original Message- > From: joel jaeggli [mailto:joe...@bogus.com] > Sent: Sunday, May 23, 2010 10:27 PM > To: Ingo Flaschberger > Cc: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: Mikrotik BGP Question > > On 2010-05-23 18:55, Ingo Flaschberger wrote: > > Dear Lorell, &

Re: Mikrotik BGP Question

On 2010-05-23 18:55, Ingo Flaschberger wrote: Dear Lorell, We will implement OSPF. so what arguments speak against 2 bgp upstreams? It's not an either or proposition... ospf carries your internal routes, ibgp carries you external routes between internal routers. you can carry default arou

RE: Mikrotik BGP Question

Dear Lorell, We will implement OSPF. so what arguments speak against 2 bgp upstreams? Kind regards, Ingo Flaschberger

Re: Mikrotik BGP Question

On 2010/05/21 11:56 PM, Martin List-Petersen wrote: - Mikrotik still has some memory leaks in the BGP stack somewhere, causing funny issues at times. - Filters aren't adequate for my use, and lacking a lot on IPv4, but even more on IPv4. I haven't seen either of those issues running the v4.x s

RE: Mikrotik BGP Question

Leviton Authorized Installer -Original Message- From: Ingo Flaschberger [mailto:i...@xip.at] Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2010 6:07 PM To: Lorell Hathcock Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: Mikrotik BGP Question Dear Lorell, > We are putting a private PTP metro ethernet (fiber based) l

RE: Mikrotik BGP Question

Dear Lorell, We are putting a private PTP metro ethernet (fiber based) link between the two locations. And both locations will have one internet connection. this network between should be no problem, what routing protocols do you use in your network? ospf? Kind regards, Ingo Flaschbe

RE: Mikrotik BGP Question

[mailto:i...@xip.at] Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 6:43 PM To: Lorell Hathcock Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Mikrotik BGP Question Dear Lorell, > My question is about BGP on the Mikrotik platform. The guy who I am > supplanting swears that we are supposed to be bringing the second in

Re: Mikrotik BGP Question

Dear Lorell, My question is about BGP on the Mikrotik platform. The guy who I am supplanting swears that we are supposed to be bringing the second internet link to the same place as the first internet link for BGP to work properly. Obviously that is not true with major brand routers which would

Re: Mikrotik BGP Question

Tutorial: Introduction to BGP http://nanog.org/meetings/nanog47/abstracts.php?pt=MTQ0MSZuYW5vZzQ3&nm=nanog47 Tutorial: BGP 102 http://nanog.org/meetings/nanog48/abstracts.php?pt=MTUyMiZuYW5vZzQ4&nm=nanog48 http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Manual:BGP_Case_Studies On 2010-05-21 14:4

Re: Mikrotik BGP Question

On 21/05/10 13:39, Bret Clark wrote: > On 05/21/2010 08:23 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote: >> I will refrain from making any smart-ass comments about Mikrotik and BGP, >> but no: there is no reason whatever that you can't take your internet >> feeds >> from different locations, so long as you have a good

Re: Mikrotik BGP Question

On Friday 21 May 2010 05:16, Lorell Hathcock wrote: > I am inheriting a WISP network with Mikrotik equipment throughout. One of > my first duties is to make the network multihomed. We have our first > internet connection at one location and our second internet connection will > be delivered at a

Re: Mikrotik BGP Question

On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 8:23 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote: > On 21/05/2010 13:16, Lorell Hathcock wrote: > each other.  Just make sure your boxes have enough RAM to cope with a full > dfz feed. note that you do NOT have to have a full feed on either location, if your goal is simply primary/backup link

Re: Mikrotik BGP Question

On 05/21/2010 08:23 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote: I will refrain from making any smart-ass comments about Mikrotik and BGP, but no: there is no reason whatever that you can't take your internet feeds from different locations, so long as you have a good quality interior network link between those two l

Re: Mikrotik BGP Question

On 21/05/2010 13:16, Lorell Hathcock wrote: > job just fine. (And he's the same guy that has bridged this whole network, > so it is easy to disbelieve his opinion.) ew. nasty. > So here's the question. Is there something about running BGP on a Mikrotik > platform that precludes having the inte

Mikrotik BGP Question

I am inheriting a WISP network with Mikrotik equipment throughout. One of my first duties is to make the network multihomed. We have our first internet connection at one location and our second internet connection will be delivered at a second location in a week or so. I understand all of the

RE: BGP question

...@e-gerbil.net] Sent: jeudi 17 septembre 2009 8:33 To: Rens Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: BGP question On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 06:49:37AM +0200, Rens wrote: > *>i customer_rangeLocal IX 110 > 0 i > * customer_range

Re: BGP question

On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 06:49:37AM +0200, Rens wrote: > *>i customer_rangeLocal IX 110 > 0 i > * customer_range upstream provider 100 > 0 i > * customer_range my cu

BGP question

Hi all, I'm having difficulties to understand why I am not advertising a certain customer range to my upstream. I can see this range in my BGP table 3 times. show ip bgp customer_range Number of BGP Routes matching display condition : 3 Status codes: s suppressed, d damped, h history, *