On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
>
> On Jan 6, 2014, at 11:52 AM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>
> > As well as being first to be open-ix certified, I think LINX hit a second
> > first that is as interesting;
> >
> >
> >
> https://www.linx.net/service/publicpeering/novafiles/nova-u
On Jan 6, 2014, at 11:52 AM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
> As well as being first to be open-ix certified, I think LINX hit a second
> first that is as interesting;
>
>
> https://www.linx.net/service/publicpeering/novafiles/nova-usgov-reports.html
…and is this function being conducted completely w
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: IXP BGP timers (was: Multi-homed clients and BGP timers)
Hi Chris,
.-- My secret spy satellite informs me that at Mon, 25 May 2009, Chris Caputo
wrote:
> Would going below 60-180 without first discussing it with your peers, tend
> to piss them off?
Hi Chris,
.-- My secret spy satellite informs me that at Mon, 25 May 2009, Chris Caputo
wrote:
> Would going below 60-180 without first discussing it with your peers, tend
> to piss them off?
60-180 is fairly conservative. 60-180 is the Cisco default I believe, however
Junipers defaults are 30
In a message written on Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 04:22:49PM -0500, Paul Wall wrote:
> On the twelfth day of Christmas, NYIIX gave to me,
> Twelve peers in half-duplex,
> Eleven OSPF hellos,
> Ten proxy ARPs,
> Nine CDP neighbors,
> Eight defaulting peers,
>
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> Quite frankly, I think the failure modes have been grossly overblown.
> The number of incidents of shared network badness that have caused
> problems are actually few and far between. I can't attribute any
> down-time to shared-network badne
On 24/04/2009 18:46, Leo Bicknell wrote:
I have looked at the failure modes and the cost of fixing them and
decided that it is cheaper and easier to deal with the failure modes
than it is to deal with the fix.
Leo, your position is: "worse is better". I happen to agree with this
sentiment for
In a message written on Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 05:06:15PM +, Stephen Stuart
wrote:
> Your argument, and Leo's, is fundamentally the complacency argument
> that I pointed out earlier. You're content with how things are,
> despite the failure modes, and despite inefficiencies that the IXP
> operat
> We got to go through all the badness that was the ATM NAPs (AADS,
> PacBell NAP, MAE-WEST ATM).
>
> I think exactly for the reason Leo mentions they failed. That is, it
> didn't even require people to figure out all the technical reasons they
> were bad (many), they were fundamentally doomed
But routers dont have bo.:)
--- original message ---
From: "Brandon Butterworth"
Subject: Re: IXP
Date: 24th April 2009
Time: 8:16:00 am
> It's the technological equvilient of bringing everyone into a
> conference room and then having them use their cell phones to call
> It's the technological equvilient of bringing everyone into a
> conference room and then having them use their cell phones to call
> each other and talk across the table. Why are you all in the same
> room if you don't want a shared medium?
Probably the wrong people to ask (cf. IRC @ NANOG meet
Leo Bicknell wrote:
In a message written on Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 01:48:28AM +, Paul Vixie wrote:
i think i saw several folks, not just stephen, say virtual wire was how
they'd do an IXP today if they had to start from scratch. i know that
for many here, starting from scratch isn't a reacha
On 24.04.2009 03:48 Paul Vixie wrote
> "Bill Woodcock" writes:
>
>> ... Nobody's arguing against VLANs. Paul's argument was that VLANs
>> rendered shared subnets obsolete, and everybody else has been rebutting
>> that. Not saying that VLANs shouldn't be used.
>
> i think i saw several folks, n
Leo Bicknell wrote:
The value of an exchange switch is the shared vlan. I could see
an argument that switching is no longer necessary; but I can see
no rational argument to both go through all the hassles of per-peer
setup and get all the drawbacks of a shared switch. Even exchanges
that took t
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> It's the technological equvilient of bringing everyone into a
> conference room and then having them use their cell phones to call
> each other and talk across the table. Why are you all in the same
> room if you don't want a shared medium?
Because you
In a message written on Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 01:48:28AM +, Paul Vixie wrote:
> i think i saw several folks, not just stephen, say virtual wire was how
> they'd do an IXP today if they had to start from scratch. i know that
> for many here, starting from scratch isn't a reachable worldview, and
"Bill Woodcock" writes:
> ... Nobody's arguing against VLANs. Paul's argument was that VLANs
> rendered shared subnets obsolete, and everybody else has been rebutting
> that. Not saying that VLANs shouldn't be used.
i think i saw several folks, not just stephen, say virtual wire was how
they'd
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009, Holmes,David A wrote:
> But I recollect that FORE ATM equipment using LAN Emulation (LANE) used
> a broadcast and unknown server (BUS) to establish a point-to-point ATM
> PVC for each broadcast and multicast receiver on a LAN segment. As well
> as being inherently unscalable (
turned the single stream concept of multicast on its head,
creating essentially a unicast stream for each multicast PVC client.
-Original Message-
From: Lamar Owen [mailto:lo...@pari.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 1:21 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: IXP
On Monday 20 April 2009
On Monday 20 April 2009 18:57:01 Niels Bakker wrote:
> Ethernet has no administrative boundaries that can be delineated.
> Spanning one broadcast domain across multiple operators is therefore
> a recipe for disaster.
Isn't this the problem that NBMA networks like ATM were built for?
> Cheap,
* dee...@ai.net (Deepak Jain) [Mon 20 Apr 2009, 23:25 CEST]:
So here is an idea that I hope someone shoots down.
We've been talking about pseudo-wires, and the high level of expertise a
shared-fabric IXP needs to diagnose weird switch oddities, etc.
[..]
What if everyone who participated at an
> -Original Message-
>
> So here is an idea that I hope someone shoots down.
>
> We've been talking about pseudo-wires, and the high level of expertise
> a
> shared-fabric IXP needs
> to diagnose weird switch oddities, etc.
>
> As far as I can tell, the principal reason to use a shared
>
> Hello Deepak:
>
> -Original Message-
>
> So here is an idea that I hope someone shoots down.
>
> We've been talking about pseudo-wires, and the high level of expertise
> a
> shared-fabric IXP needs
> to diagnose weird switch oddities, etc.
>
> As far as I can tell, the principal r
Hello Deepak:
-Original Message-
So here is an idea that I hope someone shoots down.
We've been talking about pseudo-wires, and the high level of expertise a
shared-fabric IXP needs
to diagnose weird switch oddities, etc.
As far as I can tell, the principal reason to use a shared fabric
to scale at the IXP level.
Thoughts?
Deepak Jain
AiNET
> -Original Message-
> From: vijay gill [mailto:vg...@vijaygill.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 12:35 AM
> To: Jeff Young; Nick Hilliard; Paul Vixie; na...@merit.edu
> Subject: Re: IXP
>
> If you are unfortunat
A solution I put in place at UUnet circa 1997 was to take a set of /32
routes representing major destination, e.g. ISP web sites, content
sites, universities, about 20 of them, and temporarily place a /32
static route to each participant at the public exchange and traceroute
to the destinatio
If you are unfortunate enough to have to peer at a public exchange
point, put your public ports into a vrf that has your routes. Default
will be suboptimal to debug.
I must say stephen and vixie and (how hard this is to type) even
richard steenbergens methodology makes the most sense going forward
>>> Iirc it's on the roadmap for thier next generation of switches.
>> bummer, as performance and per-port cost are certainly tasty.
> Afaik low latency is due to the fact that Arista boxes are doing cut
> through.
no shock there
> Pricewise they are very attractive. And Arista EOS actually is mo
On 19.04.2009 01:38 Randy Bush wrote
>>> just curious. has anyone tried arista for smallish exchanges, before
>>> jumping off the cliff into debugging extreme, foundry, ...
>> last time I look at them their products lacked port security or
>> anything similiar.
>
> whoops!
>
>> Iirc it's on the
On 19.04.2009 19:43 Chris Caputo wrote
> On Sun, 19 Apr 2009, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
>> On Sat, 18 Apr 2009, Nick Hilliard wrote:
>> > - ruthless and utterly fascist enforcement of one mac address per
>> > port, using either L2 ACLs or else mac address counting, with no
>> > exceptions for an
On 19/04/2009 08:31, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
Well, as long as it simply drops packets and doesn't shut the port or
some other "fascist" enforcement. We've had AMSIX complain that our
Cisco 12k with E5 linecard was spitting out a few tens of packets per
day during two months with random source m
On Sat, 18 Apr 2009, Paul Vixie wrote:
"Even"? *Especially* -- or they're not competent at doing security.
wouldn't a security person also know about
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARP_spoofing
and know that many colo facilities now use one customer per vlan due
to this concern? (i re
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Apr 2009, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> > - ruthless and utterly fascist enforcement of one mac address per
> > port, using either L2 ACLs or else mac address counting, with no
> > exceptions for any reason, ever. This is probably the single m
x27;t want to put in ACLs because you'd blow out
the cpu on the router/card?
Ah... That made networking fun!
Deepak
- Original Message -
From: Jeff Young
To: Nick Hilliard
Cc: Paul Vixie ; na...@merit.edu
Sent: Sat Apr 18 20:45:48 2009
Subject: Re: IXP
Best solution I ever
On Sat, 18 Apr 2009, Nick Hilliard wrote:
- ruthless and utterly fascist enforcement of one mac address per port,
using either L2 ACLs or else mac address counting, with no exceptions
for any reason, ever. This is probably the single more important
stability / security enforcement mechanism f
Remember when you didn't want to put in ACLs because you'd blow out the cpu on
the router/card?
Ah... That made networking fun!
Deepak
- Original Message -
From: Jeff Young
To: Nick Hilliard
Cc: Paul Vixie ; na...@merit.edu
Sent: Sat Apr 18 20:45:48 2009
Subject: Re:
Best solution I ever saw to an 'unintended' third-party
peering was devised by a pretty brilliant guy (who can
pipe up if he's listening). When he discovered traffic
loads coming from non-peers he'd drop in an ACL that
blocked everything except ICMP - then tell the NOC to
route the call to his de
On Apr 19, 2009, at 5:12 AM, Paul Vixie wrote:
many colo facilities now use one customer per vlan due to this
concern?
Haven't most major vendors for years offered features in their
switches which mitigate ARP-spoofing, provide per-port layer-2
isolation on a sub-VLAN basis, as well as i
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 5:11 PM, Steven M. Bellovin
wrote:
> I'm taking no position on the underlying argument; I'm simply stating
> that simplicity is an essential element for security. I like a
> philosophy I've seen attributed to Einstein: "every
On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 21:12:24 +
Paul Vixie wrote:
> > Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 13:17:11 -0400
> > From: "Steven M. Bellovin"
> >
> > On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 16:58:24 +
> > bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> >
> > > i make the claim that simple, clean design and execution
> > > is best.
>> just curious. has anyone tried arista for smallish exchanges, before
>> jumping off the cliff into debugging extreme, foundry, ...
> last time I look at them their products lacked port security or
> anything similiar.
whoops!
> Iirc it's on the roadmap for thier next generation of switches.
On 19.04.2009 01:08 Randy Bush wrote
> just curious. has anyone tried arista for smallish exchanges, before
> jumping off the cliff into debugging extreme, foundry, ...
>
last time I look at them their products lacked port security or anything
similiar. Iirc it's on the roadmap for thier next g
Thanks for talking about your PNIs. Let's see:
Permit Next Increase
Private Network Interface
Private Network Interconnection
Primary Network Interface
and it goes on and on . . .
> - public IP addresses for ipv4 and ipv6
> - requirement for all members to use BGP, their own ASN and their own
> address space
just to not confuse, that is behind the peering port. the peering port
uses the exchange's ipv4/6 space
> - no customer IGPs
> - dropping customer bpdus on sight
>
> Stephen, that's a straw-man argument. Nobody's arguing against
> VLANs. Paul's argument was that VLANs rendered shared subnets
> obsolete, and everybody else has been rebutting that. Not saying that
> VLANs shouldn't be used.
I believe shared VLANs for IXP interconnect are obsolete. Whether t
Paul Vixie wrote:
if we maximize for simplicity we get a DELNI. oops that's not fast
enough we need a switch not a hub and it has to go 10Gbit/sec/port.
looks like we traded away some simplicity in order to reach our goals.
Agreed.
Security + Efficiency = base complexity
1Q has great benefit
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 09:12:24PM +, Paul Vixie wrote:
> > Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 13:17:11 -0400
> > From: "Steven M. Bellovin"
> >
> > On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 16:58:24 +
> > bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> >
> > > i make the claim that simple, clean design and execution is
> > > b
> Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 13:17:11 -0400
> From: "Steven M. Bellovin"
>
> On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 16:58:24 +
> bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
>
> > i make the claim that simple, clean design and execution is
> > best. even the security goofs will agree.
>
> "Even"? *Especially* -- o
On 18.04.2009 21:51 Sharlon R. Carty wrote
> I have been looking at ams-ix and linx, even some african internet
> exchanges as examples. But seeing how large they are(ams-x & linx) and
> we are in the startup phase, I would rather have some tips/examples
> from anyone who has been doing IXP
I have been looking at ams-ix and linx, even some african internet
exchanges as examples. But seeing how large they are(ams-x & linx) and
we are in the startup phase, I would rather have some tips/examples
from anyone who has been doing IXP for quite awhile.
So far all the responses have bee
ssage-
From: Stephen Stuart
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 18:05:03
To:
Cc: na...@merit.edu na...@merit.edu
Subject: Re: IXP
> I'll get off my soap-box now and let you resume your observations that
> complexity as a goal in and of itself is the olny path forward. What
>
> I'll get off my soap-box now and let you resume your observations that
> complexity as a goal in and of itself is the olny path forward. What
> a dismal world-view.
No-one is arguing that complexity is a goal. Opportunities to
introduce gratuitous complexity abound, and defen
Paul Vixie wrote:
in terms of solid and predictable i would take per-peering VLANs with IP
addresses assigned by the peers themselves, over switches that do unicast
flood control or which are configured to ignore bpdu's in imaginative ways.
Simplicity only applies when it doesn't hinder securi
On 17/04/2009 15:11, Sharlon R. Carty wrote:
I like would to know what are best practices for an internet exchange. I
have some concerns about the following;
Can the IXP members use RFC 1918 ip addresses for their peering?
Can the IXP members use private autonomous numbers for their peering?
May
On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 16:58:24 +
bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> i make the claim that simple, clean design and execution is
> best. even the security goofs will agree.
>
"Even"? *Especially* -- or they're not competent at doing security.
But I hadn't even thought about DELNIs
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 04:01:41PM +, Paul Vixie wrote:
> > Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 10:09:00 +
> > From: bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com
> >
> > ... well... while there is a certain childlike obession with the
> > byzantine, rube-goldburg, lots of bells, knobs, whistles type
> >
> Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 16:35:51 +0100
> From: Nick Hilliard
>
> ... i just don't care if people use L2 connectivity to get to an exchange
> from a router somewhere else on their LAN. They have one mac address to
> play around with, and if they start leaking mac addresses towards the
> exchange
> Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 10:09:00 +
> From: bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com
>
> ... well... while there is a certain childlike obession with the
> byzantine, rube-goldburg, lots of bells, knobs, whistles type
> machines... for solid, predictable performance, simple clean
>
On 18/04/2009 01:08, Paul Vixie wrote:
i've spent more than several late nights and long weekends dealing with
the problems of shared multiaccess IXP networks. broadcast storms,
poisoned ARP, pointing default, unintended third party BGP, unintended
spanning tree, semitranslucent loops, unauthori
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 05:30:41AM +, Stephen Stuart wrote:
> > Not sure how switches handle HOL blocking with QinQ traffic across trunks,
> > but hey...
> > what's the fun of running an IXP without testing some limits?
>
> Indeed. Those with longer memories will remember that I used to
> regu
- "kris foster" wrote:
> painfully, with multiple circuits into the IX :) I'm not advocating
> Paul's suggestion at all here
>
> Kris
Totally agree with you Kris.
For the IX scenario (or at least looking in a Public way) it seems Another
Terrible Mistake to me.
IMHO, when you are in a
xie ,
> "na...@merit.edu"
> Subject: Re: IXP
> Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 05:30:41 +
> From: Stephen Stuart
>
> > Not sure how switches handle HOL blocking with QinQ traffic across trunks,
> > but hey...
> > what's the fun of running an IXP withou
Nathan Ward writes:
> On 18/04/2009, at 12:08 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
>> ... Q in Q is not how i'd build this... cisco and juniper both have
>> hardware tunnelling capabilities that support this stuff... ...
>
> On Alcatel-Lucent 7x50 gear, VLAN IDs are only relevant to that local
> port. If you w
> From: Paul Vixie
> Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 00:08:04 +
> ...
> i should answer something said earlier: yes there's only 14 bits of tag and
> yes 2**14 is 4096. in the sparsest and most wasteful allocation scheme,
> tags would be assigned 7:7 so there'd be a max of 64 peers.
i meant of cour
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Elmar K. Bins wrote:
> I am not an IXP operator, but I know of no exchange (public or
> private, big or closet-style) that uses private ASNs or RFC1918
> space.
I know of at least two IXPs where RFC 1918 space is used on the IXP
Subnet. I know a fair
> Not sure how switches handle HOL blocking with QinQ traffic across trunks,
> but hey...
> what's the fun of running an IXP without testing some limits?
Indeed. Those with longer memories will remember that I used to
regularly apologize at NANOG meetings for the DEC Gigaswitch/FDDI
head-of-line b
On 18/04/2009, at 12:08 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
i should answer something said earlier: yes there's only 14 bits of
tag and
yes 2**14 is 4096. in the sparsest and most wasteful allocation
scheme,
tags would be assigned 7:7 so there'd be a max of 64 peers. it's more
likely that tags would be
> Not agreeing or disagreeing with this as a concept, but I'd imagine
> that
> since a number of vendors support arbitrary vlan rewrite on ports that
> in simple environment you could do some evil things with that. (ie.
> you could use QinQ "like" ATM Virtual Paths between core switches and
> then
Arnold Nipper wrote:
On 17.04.2009 20:52 Paul Vixie wrote
Large IXP have >300 customers. You would need up to 45k vlan tags,
wouldn't you?
Not agreeing or disagreeing with this as a concept, but I'd imagine that
since a number of vendors support arbitrary vlan rewrite on ports that
in
Arnold Nipper writes:
> On 18.04.2009 00:04 Paul Vixie wrote
>
>> ... has anybody ever run out of 1Q tags in an IXP context?
>
> Why? You only need 1 ;-)
really? 1? at PAIX we started with three, two unicast (wrongheadedness)
and one multicast, then added another unicast for V6. then came the
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 04:10:32PM -0500, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
> A far better way to implement this is with a web portal brokered virtual
> crossconnect system, which provisions MPLS martini pwe or vpls circuits
> between members.
A couple of years ago I thought of the same, and discovered
>> with the advent of vlan tags, the whole idea of CSMA for IXP networks
>> is passe. just put each pair of peers into their own private tagged
>> vlan and let one of them allocate a V4 /30 and a V6 /64 for it. as a
>> bonus, this prevents third party BGP (which nobody really liked which
>> somet
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 04:52:53PM -0500, Joe Greco wrote:
> > On Fri, 17 Apr 2009, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> > > the vlan tagging idea is a virtualization of the PNI construct.
> > > why use an IX when running 10's/100's/1000's of private network
> > > interconnects will do?
> > >
> >
On 18.04.2009 00:04 Paul Vixie wrote
>>> the 300-peer IXP's i've been associated with weren't quite full
>>> mesh in terms of who actually wanted to peer with whom, so, no.
>>
>> Much depends on your definition of "quite". Would 30% qualify?
>
> 30% would be an over-the-top success. has anybody
> > the 300-peer IXP's i've been associated with weren't quite full mesh
> > in terms of who actually wanted to peer with whom, so, no.
>
> Much depends on your definition of "quite". Would 30% qualify?
30% would be an over-the-top success. has anybody ever run out of 1Q tags
in an IXP context?
On 17.04.2009 23:06 Paul Vixie wrote
>> Large IXP have >300 customers. You would need up to 45k vlan tags,
>> wouldn't you?
>
> the 300-peer IXP's i've been associated with weren't quite full mesh
> in terms of who actually wanted to peer with whom, so, no.
Much depends on your definition of "qu
> The construct also doesn't scale well for multicast traffic exchange if
> there's a significant number of multicast peers even though the traffic
> might be low for individual source ASNs. On the other hand, if the IXP
> doesn't use IGMP/MLD snooping capable switches, then I suppose it doesn't
>
> On Fri, 17 Apr 2009, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> > the vlan tagging idea is a virtualization of the PNI construct.
> > why use an IX when running 10's/100's/1000's of private network
> > interconnects will do?
> >
> > granted, if out of the 120 ASN's at an IX, 100 are exchanging on
> >
On Fri, 17 Apr 2009, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
the vlan tagging idea is a virtualization of the PNI construct.
why use an IX when running 10's/100's/1000's of private network
interconnects will do?
granted, if out of the 120 ASN's at an IX, 100 are exchanging on
average - 80KBs - th
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 09:00:53PM +0200, Arnold Nipper wrote:
> Large IXP have >300 customers. You would need up to 45k vlan tags,
> wouldn't you?
Not only that, but when faced with the requirement of making the vlan
IDs match on both sides of the exchange, most members running layer 3
switches
> Large IXP have >300 customers. You would need up to 45k vlan tags,
> wouldn't you?
the 300-peer IXP's i've been associated with weren't quite full mesh
in terms of who actually wanted to peer with whom, so, no.
the vlan tagging idea is a virtualization of the PNI construct.
why use an IX when running 10's/100's/1000's of private network
interconnects will do?
granted, if out of the 120 ASN's at an IX, 100 are exchanging on
average - 80KBs - then its likley safe to dump them all into a single
physical
On Apr 17, 2009, at 12:05 PM, Arnold Nipper wrote:
On 17.04.2009 21:04 kris foster wrote
On Apr 17, 2009, at 12:00 PM, Arnold Nipper wrote:
On 17.04.2009 20:52 Paul Vixie wrote
with the advent of vlan tags, the whole idea of CSMA for IXP
networks is passe.
just put each pair of peers into
On Fri, 17 Apr 2009, Arnold Nipper wrote:
Large IXP have >300 customers. You would need up to 45k vlan tags,
wouldn't you?
... and exchanging multicast would be... err.. suboptimal.
--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
Sorry, hit "send" a little early, by accident.
On Apr 17, 2009, at 11:52 AM, Paul Vixie wrote:
with the advent of vlan tags, the whole idea of CSMA for IXP
networks is passe.
just put each pair of peers into their own private tagged vlan.
I'm not sure whether you're being sarcastic, and if
On 17.04.2009 21:04 kris foster wrote
> On Apr 17, 2009, at 12:00 PM, Arnold Nipper wrote:
>
>> On 17.04.2009 20:52 Paul Vixie wrote
>>
>>> with the advent of vlan tags, the whole idea of CSMA for IXP
>>> networks is passe.
>>> just put each pair of peers into their own private tagged vlan and
On Apr 17, 2009, at 12:00 PM, Arnold Nipper wrote:
On 17.04.2009 20:52 Paul Vixie wrote
with the advent of vlan tags, the whole idea of CSMA for IXP
networks is passe.
just put each pair of peers into their own private tagged vlan and
let one of
them allocate a V4 /30 and a V6 /64 for it.
On 17.04.2009 20:52 Paul Vixie wrote
> with the advent of vlan tags, the whole idea of CSMA for IXP networks is
> passe.
> just put each pair of peers into their own private tagged vlan and let one of
> them allocate a V4 /30 and a V6 /64 for it. as a bonus, this prevents third
> party BGP (whic
On Fri, 17 Apr 2009, Paul Vixie wrote:
> with the advent of vlan tags, the whole idea of CSMA for IXP networks is
passe.
> just put each pair of peers into their own private tagged vlan.
Uh, I'm not sure whether you're being sarcastic or not.
-Bill
with the advent of vlan tags, the whole idea of CSMA for IXP networks is passe.
just put each pair of peers into their own private tagged vlan and let one of
them allocate a V4 /30 and a V6 /64 for it. as a bonus, this prevents third
party BGP (which nobody really liked which sometimes got turned
> > I like would to know what are best practices for an
> internet exchange.
> > I have some concerns about the following; Can the IXP
> members use RFC
> > 1918 ip addresses for their peering?
>
> No. Those IP addresses will at least appear on traceroutes;
> also, it might not be such a good
Theorically it's doable.
But mostly No to your questions.
IXP means Internet eXchange Point.
So it is public Internet. Why do you want to use private IP address ?
Most RIR allocate /24 unit for IXP.
For troubleshooting purpose, it is better to use public IP address as it
is designed.
Unless you w
> Hello NANOG,
>
> I like would to know what are best practices for an internet exchange. I
> have some concerns about the following;
> Can the IXP members use RFC 1918 ip addresses for their peering?
> Can the IXP members use private autonomous numbers for their peering?
>
> Maybe the answer is
m...@sharloncarty.net (Sharlon R. Carty) wrote:
> I like would to know what are best practices for an internet exchange. I
> have some concerns about the following;
> Can the IXP members use RFC 1918 ip addresses for their peering?
No. Those IP addresses will at least appear on traceroutes; also,
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 10:11:30AM -0400, Sharlon R. Carty wrote:
> Hello NANOG,
>
> I like would to know what are best practices for an internet exchange. I
> have some concerns about the following;
> Can the IXP members use RFC 1918 ip addresses for their peering?
> Can the IXP members use priva
95 matches
Mail list logo
