Re: Upstream BGP community support

Has anyone seen movement from HE on community support yet? I've heard rumblings that they are looking to do something Q3/Q4 but my sales guy is telling me that they will only support it if I go to a full 10Gb pipe. Sounds more like an aggressive sales tactic, but was curious what others are seeing.

Re: Upstream BGP community support

On Fri, Nov 06, 2009 at 12:04:18AM +0100, Daniel Roesen wrote: > On Mon, Nov 02, 2009 at 02:13:38PM -0600, Richard A Steenbergen wrote: > > Rather than simply double the size and break it > > up into 32:32, the designers reserved the top 16 bits for "type" and > > "subtype" attributes, leaving you

Re: Upstream BGP community support

On Mon, Nov 02, 2009 at 02:13:38PM -0600, Richard A Steenbergen wrote: > Rather than simply double the size and break it > up into 32:32, the designers reserved the top 16 bits for "type" and > "subtype" attributes, leaving you only 48 bits to work with. Clearly the > only suitable mapping for supp

Re: Upstream BGP community support

Steve Meuse wrote: I put this up there with trynig to define inter-provider QoS. You are never going to get two business to agree to the same model.and after all, community support is basically a business tool. I know from experience that some providers deliberately constrain their commun

Re: Upstream BGP community support

Jack Bates expunged (jba...@brightok.net): > I think creating a standard or at least a template might push more > people to adopt communities support and to use them. I put this up there with trynig to define inter-provider QoS. You are never going to get two business to agree to the same mod

Re: Upstream BGP community support

Randy Bush expunged (ra...@psg.com): > i try to complicate the internals of my network as little as possible, > after all, complexity == opex and i value my time, it is a non-renewable > resource. I'm guessing you don't have the same financial constraints that others on this list have. When you

Re: Upstream BGP community support

Joe Maimon wrote: > > I dont know if communities is really the best thing to keep overloading > this way. Whats wrong with dedicating a new attribute for automating > policy? Well there's always flowspec, as an example...

Re: Upstream BGP community support

Joel Jaeggli wrote: So this questions we have approached from time to time. Is there some worth to be had in finding some consensus (assuming such a thing is possible) on a subset of the features that people use communities for that could be standardized? particularly in the context of source

RE: Upstream BGP community support

. Brian -Original Message- From: Jack Bates [mailto:jba...@brightok.net] Sent: November-02-09 4:03 PM To: Joel Jaeggli Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Upstream BGP community support Joel Jaeggli wrote: > more accessible and therefore more likely to be used, I don't think > traf

Re: Upstream BGP community support

On Mon, Nov 02, 2009 at 01:38:00PM -0600, Jack Bates wrote: > Communities (except the standardized well known ones) are extremely > diverse. For those that support even more granular traffic engineering > by limiting which of their peers your routes might be transiting, I > believe there are 2 d

Re: Upstream BGP community support

Joel Jaeggli wrote: more accessible and therefore more likely to be used, I don't think traffic engineering is something I particularly want to encourage to excess but RTBH is a know that more people need access to quite frankly. I think creating a standard or at least a template might push mor

Re: Upstream BGP community support

Jack Bates wrote: > Joel Jaeggli wrote: >> >> A standardized set means it can be cooked into documentation, training, >> and potentially even products. >> > > Communities (except the standardized well known ones) are extremely > diverse. For those that support even more granular traffic engineer

Re: Upstream BGP community support

Joel Jaeggli wrote: A standardized set means it can be cooked into documentation, training, and potentially even products. Communities (except the standardized well known ones) are extremely diverse. For those that support even more granular traffic engineering by limiting which of their pe

Re: Upstream BGP community support

So this questions we have approached from time to time. Is there some worth to be had in finding some consensus (assuming such a thing is possible) on a subset of the features that people use communities for that could be standardized? particularly in the context of source based remote triggered b

Re: Upstream BGP community support

On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 6:36 AM, Randy Bush wrote: >> As Louis Mamakos pointed out back in 1992 or so, it's hard to conceal the >> existence of said peering: > > g2 is raising the cost of gaining info.  you can not prevent it > absolutely. No kidding--the traffic backlog on it this morning was hor

Re: Upstream BGP community support

On Nov 2, 2009, at 6:46 AM, Randy Bush wrote: But seriously now, the reason we have these squishy things taking up space between our ears in the first place is so we can come up with new ideas and better ways to solve our problems. and they need not be cute, clever, or complex. unless we d

Re: Upstream BGP community support

> As Louis Mamakos pointed out back in 1992 or so, it's hard to conceal the > existence of said peering: g2 is raising the cost of gaining info. you can not prevent it absolutely. randy

Re: Upstream BGP community support

Richard A Steenbergen wrote: > On Mon, Nov 02, 2009 at 05:19:32AM -0500, Randy Bush wrote: >> i try to use as few tricks, knobs, and clever things as possible and >> still get my job done. i try to be extremely conscious of, and minimal, >> when what i am doing effects or is visible to my neighbor

Re: Upstream BGP community support

On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 11:56 AM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote: > But seriously now, the reason we have these squishy things taking up > space between our ears in the first place is so we can come up with new > ideas and better ways to solve our problems. Obviously you can take it > too far, I'm su

Re: Upstream BGP community support

On Mon, Nov 02, 2009 at 05:19:32AM -0500, Randy Bush wrote: > i try to use as few tricks, knobs, and clever things as possible and > still get my job done. i try to be extremely conscious of, and minimal, > when what i am doing effects or is visible to my neighbors and/or the > global net. > >

Re: Upstream BGP community support

>>> i would rather earn it by designing things, not by cleaning up messes >>> made by kiddies needing to show off. > > For those who try their best, given your comment, what in the fsck is > one to do? [ i prefer to speak in the first person, not tell you what you should do. ] i try to use as

Re: Upstream BGP community support

jim deleskie wrote: > Agree'd :) > > On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 9:34 PM, Randy Bush wrote: >>> Here is the problem as I see it. Sure some % fo the people using BGP >>> are bright nuff to use some upstreams communities, but sadly many are >>> not. So this ends up breaking one or more networks, who

Re: Upstream BGP community support

On Nov 1, 2009, at 5:11 AM, Karl Auer wrote: On Sun, 2009-11-01 at 17:06 +0900, Randy Bush wrote: The answer is fairly simple. Does your business benefit by having the ability to modify routing strategy as you see fit? hint: we live in a commons Yes. I was about to ask Tony "what if *thei

Re: Upstream BGP community support

Martin Hannigan wrote: > > > On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 9:43 PM, Steve Bertrand > wrote: > > Richard A Steenbergen wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 08:09:40PM -0500, Steve Bertrand wrote: > >> I am AS14270. BGP with me... its been two years... you've got to >

Re: Upstream BGP community support

On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 6:09 PM, Steve Bertrand wrote: ... > I am AS14270. BGP with me... I tried, but I couldn't find you in http://peeringdb.org/ > its been two years... you've got to have an > engineer who can set up a session by now, no? > > Steve You might consider just taking matters into

Re: Upstream BGP community support

On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 9:43 PM, Steve Bertrand wrote: > Richard A Steenbergen wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 08:09:40PM -0500, Steve Bertrand wrote: > >> I am AS14270. BGP with me... its been two years... you've got to have an > >> engineer who can set up a session by now, no? > > > > Sounds

Re: Upstream BGP community support

joel jaeggli wrote: > Steve Bertrand wrote: >> Richard A Steenbergen wrote: >>> On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 08:09:40PM -0500, Steve Bertrand wrote: I am AS14270. BGP with me... its been two years... you've got to have an engineer who can set up a session by now, no? >>> Sounds like someone ne

Re: Upstream BGP community support

Steve Bertrand wrote: > Richard A Steenbergen wrote: >> On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 08:09:40PM -0500, Steve Bertrand wrote: >>> I am AS14270. BGP with me... its been two years... you've got to have an >>> engineer who can set up a session by now, no? >> Sounds like someone needs to send you a copy of "

Re: Upstream BGP community support

Richard A Steenbergen wrote: > On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 08:09:40PM -0500, Steve Bertrand wrote: >> I am AS14270. BGP with me... its been two years... you've got to have an >> engineer who can set up a session by now, no? > > Sounds like someone needs to send you a copy of "They Just Don't Want To

Re: Upstream BGP community support

Richard A Steenbergen wrote: > On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 08:09:40PM -0500, Steve Bertrand wrote: >> I am AS14270. BGP with me... its been two years... you've got to have an >> engineer who can set up a session by now, no? > > Sounds like someone needs to send you a copy of "They Just Don't Want To

Re: Upstream BGP community support

Richard A Steenbergen wrote: > On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 08:09:40PM -0500, Steve Bertrand wrote: >> I am AS14270. BGP with me... its been two years... you've got to have an >> engineer who can set up a session by now, no? > > Sounds like someone needs to send you a copy of "They Just Don't Want To

Re: Upstream BGP community support

On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 08:09:40PM -0500, Steve Bertrand wrote: > I am AS14270. BGP with me... its been two years... you've got to have an > engineer who can set up a session by now, no? Sounds like someone needs to send you a copy of "They Just Don't Want To Peer With You". :) -- Richard A Ste

Re: Upstream BGP community support

AM Subject: Re: Upstream BGP community support

Re: Upstream BGP community support

Andy B. wrote: > Hi, > > Quick question: Would you buy transit from someone who does not > support BGP communities? Without reading any more of your post, or any of the replies: - because leadership has a better bandwidth deal - cuz even though shit in one hand is heavier than hope in the other,

Re: Upstream BGP community support

On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 19:33:52 CDT, Dorian Kim said: > Fact is, regardless of whether you or I think it makes any sense or > not is that some peering agreements preclude disclosure of the locations > of peering, and in some extreme cases even the disclosure of the > existance of said peering. As

Re: Upstream BGP community support

connections and have defined transit products in place so you can always negotiate your timescales w/ them as well as your technical needs. - Original Message From: Paul Wall To: Randy Bush Cc: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Sun, November 1, 2009 2:03:26 AM Subject: Re: Upstream BGP

Re: Upstream BGP community support

On Sun, 2009-11-01 at 17:06 +0900, Randy Bush wrote: > > The answer is fairly simple. Does your business benefit by having the > > ability to modify routing strategy as you see fit? > > hint: we live in a commons Yes. I was about to ask Tony "what if *their* business benefits by NOT giving you

Re: Upstream BGP community support

> The answer is fairly simple. Does your business benefit by having the > ability to modify routing strategy as you see fit? hint: we live in a commons

Re: Upstream BGP community support

On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 8:25 PM, Randy Bush wrote: > while i can understand folk's wanting to signal upstream using > communities, and i know it's all the rage.  one issue needs to be > raised. BGP communities are all the rage? I don't think this is new concept or fad. Signaling behaviors as well

Re: Upstream BGP community support

ssage - From: "Andy B." To: Sent: Saturday, October 31, 2009 3:37 PM Subject: Upstream BGP community support Hi, Quick question: Would you buy transit from someone who does not support BGP communities? Here is the story: My company is pushing several GBit/s through v

Re: Upstream BGP community support

On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 2:13 AM, Tim Jackson wrote: > Being the architect/head-nerd-in-charge of a fairly new network. > > Not reading ras's HOWTOs and others is suicide There's no > excuse... It really makes running your network easier.. If my customer > needs to prepend X to Y transit/pee

Re: Upstream BGP community support

Being the architect/head-nerd-in-charge of a fairly new network. Not reading ras's HOWTOs and others is suicide There's no excuse... It really makes running your network easier.. If my customer needs to prepend X to Y transit/peer/customer or not announce to them at 3am, that means they do

Re: Upstream BGP community support

On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 08:03:12PM -0500, Richard A Steenbergen wrote: > And I'll conclude my argument with this: > > whois -h whois.radb.net | grep remarks: Err insert "AS3356" in there, sorry failure in proofreading. I'll leave it there, but clearly this is being done by many other large networ

Re: Upstream BGP community support

On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 07:33:52PM -0500, Dorian Kim wrote: > This is a strawman argument. I never said that any of the above was > a bad thing, nor that transit providers shouldn't support them. They > should. > > Only point I was addressing was your characterisation that networks > who do supp

Re: Upstream BGP community support

Agree'd :) On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 9:34 PM, Randy Bush wrote: >> Here is the problem as I see it.  Sure some % fo the people using BGP >> are bright nuff to use some upstreams communities, but sadly many are >> not.  So this ends up breaking one or more networks, who in turn twist >> more dials c

Re: Upstream BGP community support

> Here is the problem as I see it. Sure some % fo the people using BGP > are bright nuff to use some upstreams communities, but sadly many are > not. So this ends up breaking one or more networks, who in turn twist > more dials causing other changes.. rinse, wash and repeat. But like > Randy sai

Re: Upstream BGP community support

On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 06:49:03PM -0500, Richard A Steenbergen wrote: > > I'm curious, since when did respecting bounds of contracts and agreements > > one has signed become "stodgy"? > > There is no excuse for not being able to tell people where you learned a > route from (continent, region, ci

Re: Upstream BGP community support

Here is the problem as I see it. Sure some % fo the people using BGP are bright nuff to use some upstreams communities, but sadly many are not. So this ends up breaking one or more networks, who in turn twist more dials causing other changes.. rinse, wash and repeat. But like Randy said who am I

Re: Upstream BGP community support

while i can understand folk's wanting to signal upstream using communities, and i know it's all the rage. one issue needs to be raised. bgp is a brilliant information hiding protocol. policy is horribly opaque. complexity abounds. and it has unfun consequences, e.g. see tim on wedgies etc. an

Re: Upstream BGP community support

On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 06:35:31PM -0500, Dorian Kim wrote: > On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 06:27:38PM -0500, Richard A Steenbergen wrote: > > 1) Old stodgy tier 1's who have communities but don't want to share them > > with the world, because of silly NDA concerns or the like. This covers a > > I'm cur

Re: Upstream BGP community support

Andy B. wrote: I tried to contact my upstream several times through different channels to get some background as to why they would not be able to provide us this service, but all we get is tickets that get closed without an answer. Management itself does not seem to bother either. Completely

Re: Upstream BGP community support

On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 06:27:38PM -0500, Richard A Steenbergen wrote: > 1) Old stodgy tier 1's who have communities but don't want to share them > with the world, because of silly NDA concerns or the like. This covers a I'm curious, since when did respecting bounds of contracts and agreements on

Re: Upstream BGP community support

On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 12:00:20AM +0100, Andy B. wrote: > I would not say that my upstream is an old stodgy network and > certainly will I not consider them as "idiots", because they seem to > know what they are doing. I'd rather say they are pretty ignorant when > it comes to some "advanced" cust

Re: Upstream BGP community support

On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 7:00 PM, Andy B. wrote: >> In this day >> and age a robust and functional set of communities should really be a >> requirement for any network provider. > > We're almost 2010. Hurricane Electric, please do something about it! > maybe bake them a cake? -chris

Re: Upstream BGP community support

On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 11:09 PM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote: > Yes and no. There are a handful of old stodgy networks who are of the > belief that this kind of information is "proprietary", and therefore > should not be sent to customers or other networks on the Internet. My > opinion is that th

Re: Upstream BGP community support

On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 09:37:03PM +0100, Andy B. wrote: > Hi, > > Quick question: Would you buy transit from someone who does not > support BGP communities? No. -- RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE

Re: Upstream BGP community support

On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 09:37:03PM +0100, Andy B. wrote: > While most decent upstream providers support this kind of traffic > engineering, one of them refuses to send and accept BGP communities. I > tried to contact my upstream several times through different channels > to get some background as t

Re: Upstream BGP community support

We have transit through Peer1 and Telia, both accept communities. I wouldn't consider buying from someone who didn't. Jeff On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 4:37 PM, Andy B. wrote: > Hi, > > Quick question: Would you buy transit from someone who does not > support BGP communities? > > Here is the story: >

Upstream BGP community support

Hi, Quick question: Would you buy transit from someone who does not support BGP communities? Here is the story: My company is pushing several GBit/s through various upstream providers. We have reached the point where we rely on BGP communitiy support, especially communities that can be sent to t