On 10/23/2011 2:18 AM, Saku Ytti wrote:
EBGP multihop is kludge to kill this check, but also kludge to kill
convergence of your BGP session, due to disabling
This is what I was worried about.
fall over on linkdown. Proper way to disable this check is JunOS
'accept-remote-nexthop' or IOS 'disa
On (2011-10-22 20:38 -0500), Jack Bates wrote:
> the route. This seems strange to me. Any idea why a route would be
> rejected unless multihop was enabled?
RFC4271 states:
--
- By default (if none of the above conditions apply), the BGP
speaker SHOULD use the IP address of the interface tha
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 11:26 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
> On 10/22/2011 10:14 PM, Stefan Fouant wrote:
>> Not sure about the PPS limitations... The PFE ASICs should be able to
>> handle a 750Mbps / 1.5 Mpps DoS pretty easy...
>
> That's what I'm thinking. My m120 shows 0 problems with the load, but 2
On 10/22/2011 10:14 PM, Stefan Fouant wrote:
Enabling BGP multi-hop is a very common approach with DDoS Mitigation services
and also variations of Remote-Triggered Black Holes where the discard route
isn't localized on the edge router. This is not because the customer router
will be greater t
Enabling BGP multi-hop is a very common approach with DDoS Mitigation services
and also variations of Remote-Triggered Black Holes where the discard route
isn't localized on the edge router. This is not because the customer router
will be greater than one hop away, but because enabling multi-ho
5 matches
Mail list logo
