On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 1:06 PM, Michael Hallgren wrote:
>> I believe my ISP did not intentionally filter out my routes,
>> but it more like default behavior as described in document.
>> Setting up default-route on both of my border routers addressed the needs.
>
> I feel, asking to recieve (and u
Le lundi 17 janvier 2011 à 12:00 -0800, Michel de Nostredame a écrit :
> On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 12:20 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore
> wrote:
> > On Jan 17, 2011, at 12:32 AM, Michel de Nostredame wrote:
> > I do not think that paragraph means what you think it means.
> > I've seen my own AS in full tab
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 12:20 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> On Jan 17, 2011, at 12:32 AM, Michel de Nostredame wrote:
> I do not think that paragraph means what you think it means.
> I've seen my own AS in full tables from upstreams using Juniper routers many
> times.
According to the problem
On 1/17/2011 2:20 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
I do not think that paragraph means what you think it means.
I've seen my own AS in full tables from upstreams using Juniper routers many
times.
I think it's limited to we received from X, we will not send to X. It
also probably gets turned
On Jan 17, 2011, at 12:32 AM, Michel de Nostredame wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 12:30 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore
> wrote:
>> On Jan 14, 2011, at 11:03 AM, Michel de Nostredame wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 3:33 AM, Bogdan wrote:
allowas-in will do the trick
>>> Provided your uplink ISP
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 12:30 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> On Jan 14, 2011, at 11:03 AM, Michel de Nostredame wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 3:33 AM, Bogdan wrote:
>>> allowas-in will do the trick
>> Provided your uplink ISP does not filter out that.
> Why would your upstream filter that ou
On 1/15/11 8:51 PM, Graham Wooden wrote:
> Not to budge in here ... but I have always been curious of this type of
> setup, as in all my past BGP deployments its always been that all edges
> belong in the same ibgp peering group.
>
> Ryan, does the other edge(s) get confused when they see their sa
Not to budge in here ... but I have always been curious of this type of
setup, as in all my past BGP deployments its always been that all edges
belong in the same ibgp peering group.
Ryan, does the other edge(s) get confused when they see their same AS number
in the path upon route determination f
We are doing this now and it is working well
-Original Message-
From: Harris Hui [mailto:harris@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, January 14, 2011 4:59 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Single AS Number for multiple prefixes in different country
Hi,
We have an AS Number AS2 and have 2 /24
On Jan 14, 2011, at 11:03 AM, Michel de Nostredame wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 3:33 AM, Bogdan wrote:
>> allowas-in will do the trick
>
> Provided your uplink ISP does not filter out that.
Why would your upstream filter that out?
I would get a new upstream if they do.
--
TTFN,
patrick
I have 5 discrete networks across Canada using one ASN (will be down to
2 by end of year!). We accept a default (along with full tables) to
route between discrete networks. Not very elegant but gets the job done.
Eric
-Original Message-
From: Harris Hui [mailto:harris@gmail.com]
Se
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 3:33 AM, Bogdan wrote:
> On 14.01.2011 12:06, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> allowas-in will do the trick
>
Provided your uplink ISP does not filter out that.
--
Michel~
On 14.01.2011 12:06, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> On Jan 14, 2011, at 4:58 AM, Harris Hui wrote:
>
>> We have an AS Number AS2 and have 2 /24 subnets belongs to this AS
>> Number. It is using in US and peering with US Service Providers now.
>>
>> We are going to deploy another site in Asia, can
On Jan 14, 2011, at 4:58 AM, Harris Hui wrote:
> We have an AS Number AS2 and have 2 /24 subnets belongs to this AS
> Number. It is using in US and peering with US Service Providers now.
>
> We are going to deploy another site in Asia, can we use the same AS Number
> AS2 and have 2 other
14 matches
Mail list logo
