RE: So Philip Smith / Geoff Huston's CIDR report becomes worth a good hard look today

It looks great though I would not want to troubleshoot the RIB to FIB programing errors unless there's a note somewhere saying what abbreviation to search for in FIB. The other think that comes to mind is that the more specifics could have different backup next-hops programed. adam > From: NAN

Re: So Philip Smith / Geoff Huston's CIDR report becomes worth a good hard look today

I think you mean what is best described here: http://www.swinog.ch/meetings/swinog7/BGP_filtering-swinog.ppt --Aris > Suresh Ramasubramanian > Thursday, August 14, 2014 04:59 > Swisscom or some other European SP has / used to have a limit where they > would not accept

Re: So Philip Smith / Geoff Huston's CIDR report becomes worth a good hard look today

Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4GLTE sm - Reply message - From: "William Herrin" To: "Randy Bush" Cc: "North American Network Operators' Group" Subject: So Philip Smith / Geoff Huston's CIDR report becomes worth a good hard look today Date: Thu, Aug 14, 2014 6:04 pm On Thu, Aug 14,

Re: So Philip Smith / Geoff Huston's CIDR report becomes worth a good hard look today

On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 6:07 PM, Randy Bush wrote: >>> ahhh, you dug out the [j]tac tickets, or are you just conjecturbating? >> Neither. I'm reporting the state of the science. > > ROFL. so just ad hominem. smart. That phrase "ad hominem," I don't think it means what you think it means. -Bill

Re: So Philip Smith / Geoff Huston's CIDR report becomes worth a good hard look today

>> ahhh, you dug out the [j]tac tickets, or are you just conjecturbating? > Neither. ROFL. so just ad hominem. smart. randy

Re: So Philip Smith / Geoff Huston's CIDR report becomes worth a good hard look today

On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 4:57 PM, Randy Bush wrote: >> My point was that Randy's BGP RIB pruning knobs are missing for a >> different reason than your router FIB pruning knobs. Neither the >> science nor the technology exists to create Randy's BGP pruning knobs. > > ahhh, you dug out the [j]tac tic

Re: So Philip Smith / Geoff Huston's CIDR report becomes worth a good hard look today

> My point was that Randy's BGP RIB pruning knobs are missing for a > different reason than your router FIB pruning knobs. Neither the > science nor the technology exists to create Randy's BGP pruning knobs. ahhh, you dug out the [j]tac tickets, or are you just conjecturbating? if the former, tick

RE: So Philip Smith / Geoff Huston's CIDR report becomes worth a good hard look today

bject: Re: So Philip Smith / Geoff Huston's CIDR report becomes worth a good hard look today half the routing table is deagg crap. filter it. you mean your vendor won't give you the knobs to do it smartly ([j]tac tickets open for five years)? wonder why. randy

Re: So Philip Smith / Geoff Huston's CIDR report becomes worth a good hard look today

On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 8:20 PM, Chris Woodfield wrote: > Hence the “when programming the TCAM” part of my original statement :) Hi Chris, My point was that Randy's BGP RIB pruning knobs are missing for a different reason than your router FIB pruning knobs. Neither the science nor the technology

Re: So Philip Smith / Geoff Huston's CIDR report becomes worth a good hard look today

> When ACL112 came into being, there were old equipment that were being > protected by the /19 filters. However, the filters were in place long > after those equipment were replaced. This was done for commercial reasons, not to protect the Internet. You know it, I know it, and I'm pretty sure the

Re: So Philip Smith / Geoff Huston's CIDR report becomes worth a good hard look today

On Aug 14, 2014, at 02:36 , Randy Bush wrote: >> It was kindly pointed out to me in private that my phrasing could be >> misleading here. >> >> When ACL112 came into being, there were old equipment that were being >> protected by the /19 filters. However, the filters were in place long >> after

Re: So Philip Smith / Geoff Huston's CIDR report becomes worth a good hard look today

I believe at one point, SPRINT had in the RADB (and actively advertised) 0.0.0.0/2, 64.0.0.0/2, 128.0.0.0/2, and 192.0.0.0/2 under something called “Quarter Default Route, see Rational Default Project” or words to that effect. I could be wrong. It was a long time ago and I barely remember SPRIN

Re: So Philip Smith / Geoff Huston's CIDR report becomes worth a good hard look today

Subject: Re: So Philip Smith / Geoff Huston's CIDR report becomes worth a good hard look today Date: Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 11:27:46AM -0700 Quoting Merike Kaeo (mer...@doubleshotsecurity.com): > > B: they *did* know about the issue, but convincing management to spend > >

Re: So Philip Smith / Geoff Huston's CIDR report becomes worth a good hard look today

> It was kindly pointed out to me in private that my phrasing could be > misleading here. > > When ACL112 came into being, there were old equipment that were being > protected by the /19 filters. However, the filters were in place long > after those equipment were replaced. but by then it had dri

Re: So Philip Smith / Geoff Huston's CIDR report becomes worth a good hard look today

On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 01:47:20AM -0400, Dorian Kim wrote: > On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 12:15:36AM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: > > Composed on a virtual keyboard, please forgive typos. > > > > > On Aug 13, 2014, at 22:59, Suresh Ramasubramanian > > > wrote: > > > > > > Swisscom or some othe

Re: So Philip Smith / Geoff Huston's CIDR report becomes worth a good hard look today

>>> you mean your vendor won't give you the knobs to do it smartly ([j]tac >>> tickets open for five years)? wonder why. >> >> Might be useful if you mentioned what you considered a "smart" way to >> trim the fib. But then you couldn't bitch and moan about people not >> understanding you, which i

Re: So Philip Smith / Geoff Huston's CIDR report becomes worth a good hard look today

On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 12:15:36AM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: > Composed on a virtual keyboard, please forgive typos. > > > On Aug 13, 2014, at 22:59, Suresh Ramasubramanian > > wrote: > > > > Swisscom or some other European SP has / used to have a limit where they > > would not accept

Re: So Philip Smith / Geoff Huston's CIDR report becomes worth a good hard look today

Sprint also had 192/2 in the RADB :) manning bill wrote: Sprint used to proxy aggregate… I remember 128.0.0.0/3 the real question, imho, is if folks are going to look into their crystal balls and roadmap where the default offered is a /32 (either v4 or v6) and plan accordingly, or just slap

Re: So Philip Smith / Geoff Huston's CIDR report becomes worth a good hard look today

Sprint used to proxy aggregate… I remember 128.0.0.0/3 the real question, imho, is if folks are going to look into their crystal balls and roadmap where the default offered is a /32 (either v4 or v6) and plan accordingly, or just slap another bandaid on the oozing wound... /bill PO Box 1231

Re: So Philip Smith / Geoff Huston's CIDR report becomes worth a good hard look today

Composed on a virtual keyboard, please forgive typos. > On Aug 13, 2014, at 22:59, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > Swisscom or some other European SP has / used to have a limit where they > would not accept more specific routes than say a /22 from provider x, so if > you wanted to take a /2

Re: So Philip Smith / Geoff Huston's CIDR report becomes worth a good hard look today

Once upon a time, Brett Frankenberger said: > -- This isn't that hard to implement. Once you have a FIB and > primitives for manipulating it, it's not especially difficult to extend > them to also maintain a minimal-size-FIB. I would say it is hard to implement, or at least non-trivial. Buildin

Re: So Philip Smith / Geoff Huston's CIDR report becomes worth a good hard look today

Swisscom or some other European SP has / used to have a limit where they would not accept more specific routes than say a /22 from provider x, so if you wanted to take a /24 and announce it you were SOL sending packets to them from that /24 over provider y. Still, for elderly and capacity limited

Re: So Philip Smith / Geoff Huston's CIDR report becomes worth a good hard look today

On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 07:53:45PM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: > > you mean your vendor won't give you the knobs to do it smartly ([j]tac > > tickets open for five years)? wonder why. > > Might be useful if you mentioned what you considered a "smart" way to > trim the fib. But then you could

Re: So Philip Smith / Geoff Huston's CIDR report becomes worth a good hard look today

> > Pruning FIB entries, on the other hand, can be done quite safely as > long as you're willing to accept the conversion of "null route" to > "don't care." Some experiments were done on this in the IETF a couple > years back. Draft-zhang-fibaggregation maybe? Savings of 30% in > typical backbone

Re: So Philip Smith / Geoff Huston's CIDR report becomes worth a good hard look today

On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 6:47 PM, Chris Woodfield wrote: > On Aug 13, 2014, at 1:42 PM, Randy Bush wrote: >> half the routing table is deagg crap. filter it. >> >> you mean your vendor won't give you the knobs to do it smartly ([j]tac >> tickets open for five years)? wonder why. > Same reason n

Re: So Philip Smith / Geoff Huston's CIDR report becomes worth a good hard look today

On Aug 13, 2014, at 16:42 , Randy Bush wrote: > half the routing table is deagg crap. filter it. We disagree. Just because you don't like all more specifics doesn't mean they are useless. Not everything is about minimizing FIB size. (And RIB size hasn't been relevant for years.) People pay

Re: So Philip Smith / Geoff Huston's CIDR report becomes worth a good hard look today

On 14 Aug 2014, at 4:14 am, Paul Ferguson wrote: > >> On 8/13/14 8:55 AM, Paul Ferguson wrote: >>> Apologies for replying to my own post, but... below: >>> >>> On 8/13/2014 7:05 AM, Paul Ferguson wrote: >>> >>> p.s. I recall some IPv6 prefix growth routing projections by Vince Full

Re: So Philip Smith / Geoff Huston's CIDR report becomes worth a good hard look today

Same reason no vendor has bothered to prune redundant RIB entries (i.e. more-specific pointing to the same NH as a covering route) when programming the TCAM... -C On Aug 13, 2014, at 1:42 PM, Randy Bush wrote: > half the routing table is deagg crap. filter it. > > you mean your vendor won

Re: So Philip Smith / Geoff Huston's CIDR report becomes worth a good hard look today

half the routing table is deagg crap. filter it. you mean your vendor won't give you the knobs to do it smartly ([j]tac tickets open for five years)? wonder why. randy

Re: So Philip Smith / Geoff Huston's CIDR report becomes worth a good hard look today

On Aug 13, 2014, at 6:52 AM, Warren Kumari wrote: > On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 1:40 AM, wrote: >> On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 08:08:04 +0300, Hank Nussbacher said: >> >>> We went with 768 - enough time to replace the routers with ASR9010s. It is >>> merely a stop-gap measure to give everyone time to re

Re: So Philip Smith / Geoff Huston's CIDR report becomes worth a good hard look today

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 8/13/2014 11:09 AM, joel jaeggli wrote: > On 8/13/14 8:55 AM, Paul Ferguson wrote: >> Apologies for replying to my own post, but... below: >> >> On 8/13/2014 7:05 AM, Paul Ferguson wrote: >> >> >>> p.s. I recall some IPv6 prefix growth routing

Re: So Philip Smith / Geoff Huston's CIDR report becomes worth a good hard look today

On 8/13/14 8:55 AM, Paul Ferguson wrote: > Apologies for replying to my own post, but... below: > > On 8/13/2014 7:05 AM, Paul Ferguson wrote: > > >> p.s. I recall some IPv6 prefix growth routing projections by Vince >> Fuller and Tony Li from several years ago which illustrated this, >> but ca

Re: So Philip Smith / Geoff Huston's CIDR report becomes worth a good hard look today

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Apologies for replying to my own post, but... below: On 8/13/2014 7:05 AM, Paul Ferguson wrote: > On 8/13/2014 6:52 AM, Warren Kumari wrote: > >> Am I overly cynical, or does this all work out perfectly for >> some vendors? I'm guessing that a cer

Re: So Philip Smith / Geoff Huston's CIDR report becomes worth a good hard look today

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 8/13/2014 6:52 AM, Warren Kumari wrote: > Am I overly cynical, or does this all work out perfectly for some > vendors? I'm guessing that a certain vendor is going to see a huge > number of orders for new equipment, for an event that could have

Re: So Philip Smith / Geoff Huston's CIDR report becomes worth a good hard look today

On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 1:40 AM, wrote: > On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 08:08:04 +0300, Hank Nussbacher said: > >> We went with 768 - enough time to replace the routers with ASR9010s. It is >> merely a stop-gap measure to give everyone time to replace their routers in >> an orderly fashion. > > The same p

Re: So Philip Smith / Geoff Huston's CIDR report becomes worth a good hard look today

Subject: So Philip Smith / Geoff Huston's CIDR report becomes worth a good hard look today Date: Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 09:40:55PM +0530 Quoting Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.li...@gmail.com): > 512K routes, here we come. Lots of TCAM based routers suddenly become > really expensive doorstops. We h

Re: So Philip Smith / Geoff Huston's CIDR report becomes worth a good hard look today

On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 08:08:04 +0300, Hank Nussbacher said: > We went with 768 - enough time to replace the routers with ASR9010s. It is > merely a stop-gap measure to give everyone time to replace their routers in > an orderly fashion. The same people who, knowing the 6509 had this default config

Re: So Philip Smith / Geoff Huston's CIDR report becomes worth a good hard look today

At 18:10 12/08/2014 -0400, William Herrin wrote: We went with 768 - enough time to replace the routers with ASR9010s. It is merely a stop-gap measure to give everyone time to replace their routers in an orderly fashion. -Hank On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 2:42 PM, Hank Nussbacher wrote: > htt

Re: So Philip Smith / Geoff Huston's CIDR report becomes worth a good hard look today

From: Matthew Petach >Unless you guys are miraculously managing to terminate > >Nx100G bundles into 6509s with Sup2 or sup3s, I would >be really, really surprised if this even made it on your >radar. Chalk it up to poorly-researched reporting. > > >And if you *are* handling Nx100G bundles on 65

Re: So Philip Smith / Geoff Huston's CIDR report becomes worth a good hard look today

On Tue, 12 Aug 2014, Matthew Petach wrote: On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 5:06 PM, McElearney, Kevin < kevin_mcelear...@cable.comcast.com> wrote: http://www.zdnet.com/internet-hiccups-today-youre-not-alone-heres-why-7 32566/ "According to NANOG, and complaints tracker DownDetector, many Internet

Re: So Philip Smith / Geoff Huston's CIDR report becomes worth a good hard look today

On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 5:06 PM, McElearney, Kevin < kevin_mcelear...@cable.comcast.com> wrote: > http://www.zdnet.com/internet-hiccups-today-youre-not-alone-heres-why-7 > 32566/ > > "According to NANOG, and complaints tracker DownDetector, many Internet > providers — including Comcast, Level3

Re: So Philip Smith / Geoff Huston's CIDR report becomes worth a good hard look today

http://www.zdnet.com/internet-hiccups-today-youre-not-alone-heres-why-7 32566/ "According to NANOG, and complaints tracker DownDetector, many Internet providers — including Comcast, Level3, AT&T, Cogent, Sprint, Verizon, and others — have suffered from serious performance problems at various t

Re: ****SPAM:5.2**** Re: So Philip Smith / Geoff Huston's CIDR report becomes worth a good hard look today

On 12/08/14 23:10, William Herrin wrote: > I note that the recommended command in that article, "mls cef > maximum-routes ip 1000", will throw most of your IPv6 routes out of > the TCAM instead. Which if you have any IPv6 traffic of substance just > kills you in the other direction. Might want to t

Re: So Philip Smith / Geoff Huston's CIDR report becomes worth a good hard look today

On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 2:42 PM, Hank Nussbacher wrote: > http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/switches/catalyst-6500-series-switches/117712-problemsolution-cat6500-00.html I note that the recommended command in that article, "mls cef maximum-routes ip 1000", will throw most of your IPv6 rou

Re: So Philip Smith / Geoff Huston's CIDR report becomes worth a good hard look today

On Aug 12, 2014, at 1:02 PM, Hank Nussbacher wrote: > Many don't need to buy anything new. Just follow the instructions here: > http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/switches/catalyst-6500-series-switche$ > We did this in the 1st week of June. Problem solved. s/Problem solved/Critical lim

Re: So Philip Smith / Geoff Huston's CIDR report becomes worth a good hard look today

On Tue, 12 Aug 2014, Hank Nussbacher wrote: http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/switches/catalyst-6500-series-switches/117712-problemsolution-cat6500-00.html -Hank On Tue, 12 Aug 2014, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: Many don't need to buy anything new. Just follow the instructions here:

Re: So Philip Smith / Geoff Huston's CIDR report becomes worth a good hard look today

On Tue, 12 Aug 2014, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: Many don't need to buy anything new. Just follow the instructions here: http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/switches/catalyst-6500-series-switche$ We did this in the 1st week of June. Problem solved. -Hank 512K routes, here we come.