On mer. 8 mars 09:29:11 2017, Marty Strong via NANOG wrote:
> I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s unwanted, where Telstra domestic is
> announcing to Telstra International, who in turn announces to Cogent.
I wouldn’t too, especially since I don’t see it anymore:
alarig@nominoe:~ % birdc6 show route
I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s unwanted, where Telstra domestic is
announcing to Telstra International, who in turn announces to Cogent.
Regards,
Marty Strong
--
Cloudflare - AS13335
Network Engineer
ma...@cloudflare.com
+44 7584 906 055
smartflare (Skype)
On sam. 25 févr. 09:49:56 2017, Aaron wrote:
> Hi, I'm new to the nanog list, hope this isn't out of scope for what is
> usually discussed here.
>
>
>
> Cogent is telling me that I can't route through cogent to get to google ipv6
> routes (particularly the well known dns addresses 2001:4860:486
On 3/2/17 3:42 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:
> Yes. Most providers can send you just their customer routes. If they send you
> full routes you want to discriminate customer vs peer routes. This is
> typically done with communities and is worthwhile as most people have
> capacity on customer links but v
On Mar 3, 2017, at 9:05 PM, Job Snijders wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 03, 2017 at 09:42:04AM -0500, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>> On Mar 3, 2017, at 7:00 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
>>> Niels Bakker wrote:
As I explained in the rest of my email that you conveniently didn't
quote, it's so that you c
In general I would not be single homed to a tier 1 ISP. You are better off
using an ISP that has N upstream transit providers. That way they have
multiple choices to select the best route.
If you accept a default route from multiple upstreams you will be multi
homed for inbound traffic but effect
On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 5:05 PM, Job Snijders wrote:
> > There are, of course, corner cases. But in general, single-homed
> > people shouldn’t be using BGP.
>
> There are numerous reasons to use BGP when single-homed:
>
> - as preparation to multi-home in the (near) future
> - ability to q
On Fri, Mar 03, 2017 at 09:42:04AM -0500, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> On Mar 3, 2017, at 7:00 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> > Niels Bakker wrote:
> >> As I explained in the rest of my email that you conveniently didn't
> >> quote, it's so that you can selectively import routes from all your
> >> prov
On Mar 3, 2017, at 7:00 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
>
> Niels Bakker wrote:
>> As I explained in the rest of my email that you conveniently didn't
>> quote, it's so that you can selectively import routes from all your
>> providers in situations where your router cannot handle a full table.
>
> it c
* n...@foobar.org (Nick Hilliard) [Fri 03 Mar 2017, 13:02 CET]:
Niels Bakker wrote:
As I explained in the rest of my email that you conveniently
didn't quote, it's so that you can selectively import routes from
all your providers in situations where your router cannot handle a
full table.
it
Niels Bakker wrote:
> As I explained in the rest of my email that you conveniently didn't
> quote, it's so that you can selectively import routes from all your
> providers in situations where your router cannot handle a full table.
it can also break horribly in situations where the provider is pro
* how...@leadmon.net (Howard Leadmon) [Fri 03 Mar 2017, 01:06 CET]:
On 3/2/2017 2:57 PM, Niels Bakker wrote:
You should ask for full routes from all your providers + a default.
If you taking full routes from everyone, why would you need a
default? If they don't show a route for it, they pro
My own experience was that I tried to use the 2000::/3 route initially and
that was fine with static routes in my lab, but once dynamic routing
protocols were introduced, ::/0 was the only thing recognized as "default"
to propagate or not with default-route statements in BGP and OSPF.
That may var
Interesting question whether 2000::/3 or ::/0 is the better default route.
>From what I can tell (as OP indicated) most are using ::/0. (I should
probably add for those who have not been running V6 for long that for the
forseeble future 2000::/3 is the extent of the V6 allocation, the rest
being he
On 3/2/2017 2:57 PM, Niels Bakker wrote:
You should ask for full routes from all your providers + a default.
-- Niels.
If you taking full routes from everyone, why would you need a
default? If they don't show a route for it, they probably can't reach
it. I don't think I have run wi
Yes. Most providers can send you just their customer routes. If they send you
full routes you want to discriminate customer vs peer routes. This is typically
done with communities and is worthwhile as most people have capacity on
customer links but via peer it may not always be the case.
As is
I think the implication is that, on Cogent, there isn't. :)
On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 14:00 Chuck Anderson wrote:
> Define "good" vs. "bad" transport of bits. As long as there is
> adequate bandwidth and low latency, who cares?
>
> On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 08:30:37PM +0100, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
>
Define "good" vs. "bad" transport of bits. As long as there is
adequate bandwidth and low latency, who cares?
On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 08:30:37PM +0100, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
> That will have the effect of prioritizing Cogent routes as that would be
> more specific than the default routes from th
* aar...@gvtc.com (Aaron Gould) [Thu 02 Mar 2017, 20:52 CET]:
Yes, thanks, I am going to do that. But, is there a middle ground
between being default only and full routes ? Like is it
advantageous for me to ask for partial routes (like their routes and
direct peers and default route) ? This
Yes, thanks, I am going to do that. But, is there a middle ground between
being default only and full routes ? Like is it advantageous for me to ask for
partial routes (like their routes and direct peers and default route) ? This
way I don't have millions of routes but I guess only a few hund
Ah - you are correct
So - yeah what Alarig said - get full routes from all
On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Baldur Norddahl
wrote:
> That will have the effect of prioritizing Cogent routes as that would be
> more specific than the default routes from the other providers. Cogent are
> not that go
That will have the effect of prioritizing Cogent routes as that would be
more specific than the default routes from the other providers. Cogent are
not that good that you would want to do that.
Den 2. mar. 2017 20.16 skrev "Jeff Waddell" :
Or at least ask for a full view from Cogent - then you wo
Or at least ask for a full view from Cogent - then you won't get any routes
they don't have
On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Alarig Le Lay wrote:
> On jeu. 2 mars 12:36:04 2017, Aaron Gould wrote:
> > Well, I asked my (3) upstream providers to only send me a ipv6 default
> > route and they sent
On jeu. 2 mars 12:36:04 2017, Aaron Gould wrote:
> Well, I asked my (3) upstream providers to only send me a ipv6 default
> route and they sent me ::/0...here's one of them...
Why did you don’t ask for a full view? With that, you can easily deal
with that kind of problem.
--
alarig
signature
Well, I asked my (3) upstream providers to only send me a ipv6 default route
and they sent me ::/0...here's one of them...
RP/0/RSP0/CPU0: 9k#sh bgp vrf one ipv6 uni neighbors abcd:1234::1 routes
Thu Mar 2 12:33:23.644 CST
...
Status codes: s suppressed, d damped, h history, * valid, > best
Shouldn't that be 2000::/3 ?
Den 2. mar. 2017 17.06 skrev "Aaron Gould" :
Correction... ::/0 is what I learn from those 3 :)
Correction... ::/0 is what I learn from those 3 :)
Thanks everyone, and my apologies.
After I sent that email to you all, I did google for it and found that this has
been a problem since ~ February 2016. Dang, that long?!
In that case, I'm shutting down my ipv6 neighboring with cogent. I have 2
other inet v6 connections. I only learn 0/0 fro
On sam. 25 févr. 09:49:56 2017, Aaron wrote:
> Hi, I'm new to the nanog list, hope this isn't out of scope for what is
> usually discussed here.
>
>
>
> Cogent is telling me that I can't route through cogent to get to google ipv6
> routes (particularly the well known dns addresses 2001:4860:486
On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 9:52 AM, Alarig Le Lay wrote:
> On sam. 25 févr. 09:49:56 2017, Aaron wrote:Hi,
>
> Cogent is not able to receive traffic from Google since February 2016,
> the case is the same with HE since 2010.
>
>
I think maybe that wording isn't quite correct:
"is not able to recei
Due to various peering disputes (notably with Hurricane Electric) Cogent just
don't have all the routes in IPv6 (and should be regarded as a partial IPv6
transit only).
One should not rely only on Cogent for its transit, anyway :)
Don't count on any improvement soon. It was already discussed here
232
Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net
- Original Message -
> From: "Aaron"
> To: "nanog list"
> Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2017 10:49:56 AM
> Subject: google ipv6 routes via cogent
> Hi, I'm new to the nanog li
On Sat, 25 Feb 2017, Aaron wrote:
Hi, I'm new to the nanog list, hope this isn't out of scope for what is
usually discussed here.
Cogent is telling me that I can't route through cogent to get to google ipv6
routes (particularly the well known dns addresses 2001:4860:4860::88xx)
because google
:56 AM
Subject: google ipv6 routes via cogent
Hi, I'm new to the nanog list, hope this isn't out of scope for what is
usually discussed here.
Cogent is telling me that I can't route through cogent to get to google ipv6
routes (particularly the well known dns addresses 2001:48
Cogent refuses to settlement-free peer on IPv6 to Google and Hurricane Electric.
The problem *in my mind* rests with Cogent trying to extract $$$ from said
parties.
Regards,
Marty Strong
--
Cloudflare - AS13335
Network Engineer
ma...@cloudflare.com
+44 7584 90
Hi, I'm new to the nanog list, hope this isn't out of scope for what is
usually discussed here.
Cogent is telling me that I can't route through cogent to get to google ipv6
routes (particularly the well known dns addresses 2001:4860:4860::88xx)
because google decided not to advertise those rout
36 matches
Mail list logo
