Re: Mikrotik BGP Question

* George Bonser: > Well, I believe the original poster said that one of his colleagues > swore that BGP multihoming wouldn't work unless both feeds terminated on > the same router. I suppose said colleague has never heard of iBGP > between two routers of the local AS. Those two routers should pro

Re: DWDM hardware recommendations

I've been pretty happy with the Adva FSP3000R7 units. Lots of options for 1g and 10g and they are very helpful with setup and design. There's a lot more to it than just coming up with an attenuation budget. --chip On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 11:52 AM, ML wrote: > I'm in the process of researching

RE: Mikrotik BGP Question

None in my mind. The legacy network operator was unfamiliar with actual best practice enterprise/carrier networking policies that he thought that for BGP to work on a two internet feed network, both internet connections have to be delivered to the same location. I thought since he has more insi

RE: Mikrotik BGP Question

> -Original Message- > From: Florian Weimer > Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 2:35 AM > To: George Bonser > Cc: joel jaeggli; Ingo Flaschberger; nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: Mikrotik BGP Question > > * George Bonser: > > > Does this really work that well? Won't you still get loops or >

Re: Mikrotik BGP Question

* George Bonser: >> Does this really work that well? Won't you still get loops or >> blackholes unless the eBGP routes on all border routers are identical? > > As opposed to what, injecting the entire BGP table into your igp? As opposed to just injecting defaults. > Maybe there is a reason the

RE: useful bgp example

> -Original Message- > From: Jian Gu [mailto:guxiaoj...@gmail.com] > Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2010 1:44 PM > To: Jeff Harper > Cc: Jared Mauch; nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: useful bgp example > > You don't need > > ip prefix-list NETZ seq 1000 deny 0.0.0.0/0 le 32 > I know, I just use

Re: Mikrotik BGP Question

On Sun, 23 May 2010 08:21:47 +0200, Graham Beneke wrote: > On 2010/05/21 11:56 PM, Martin List-Petersen wrote: >> - Mikrotik still has some memory leaks in the BGP stack somewhere, >> causing funny issues at times. >> >> - Filters aren't adequate for my use, and lacking a lot on IPv4, but >> even

RE: Mikrotik BGP Question

in V3 RouterOS's BGP support is very decent. We typically don't have any issues with it! :) Whats nice is a router with 2 gig of RAM (cheap RAM too) can take multiple full table BGP feeds without issues. Something else that's nice on our Dual Core systems is that while you are receiving the

Quick IP6/BGP question

>From the provider side, are most of you who are implementing IP6 peerings running BGP over IP4 and just using IP6 address families to exchange routes or doing IP6 peering? Thomas Magill Network Engineer Office: (858) 909-3777 Cell: (858) 869-9685 mailto:tmag...@providecommerce.com

Re: Quick IP6/BGP question

> Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 11:21:45 -0700 > From: "Thomas Magill" > > >From the provider side, are most of you who are implementing IP6 > peerings running BGP over IP4 and just using IP6 address families to > exchange routes or doing IP6 peering? Can't speak for "most of us", but we run an iBGP v4

RE: Quick IP6/BGP question

> -Original Message- > From: Thomas Magill [mailto:tmag...@providecommerce.com] > Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 11:22 AM > To: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Quick IP6/BGP question > > >From the provider side, are most of you who are implementing IP6 > peerings running BGP over IP4 and just using

Re: Quick IP6/BGP question

On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 11:21:45AM -0700, Thomas Magill wrote: > From the provider side, are most of you who are implementing IP6 > peerings running BGP over IP4 and just using IP6 address families to > exchange routes or doing IP6 peering? I've never liked how you have to configure ::w.x.y.z/96 s

Re: Quick IP6/BGP question

At Hurricane, most of our IPv6 peerings are exchanging over IPv6 addresses. In general, most routers work better if you run IPv4 peering on IPv4 and IPv6 peering on IPv6. In many cases, this is because the configuration files are less confusing more than any underlying dependency in the router OS.

RE: Quick IP6/BGP question

Thanks (to you and everyone else that answered before). It sounds like everyone is in agreement. I mostly ask because a customer of mine is considering venturing into the ISP business and expressed interest in offering IP6. If that is the case, I want to do it correctly from the start. -Ori

RE: Quick IP6/BGP question

We've done it both ways. We've found that there are sometimes issues with announcing IPv6 NLRI over IPv4 BGP sessions depending on your chosen vendor and code version on both sides of the session. Specifically, we have seen some implementations where an IPv4-mapped IPv6 address (usually the IPv4

Re: Quick IP6/BGP question

On 24 May 2010, at 19:21, Thomas Magill wrote: > From the provider side, are most of you who are implementing IP6 > peerings running BGP over IP4 and just using IP6 address families to > exchange routes or doing IP6 peering? Different sessions, one for v4, one for v6. This keeps config saner, t

Re: Quick IP6/BGP question

On 5/24/10 11:21 AM, Thomas Magill wrote: >>From the provider side, are most of you who are implementing IP6 > peerings running BGP over IP4 and just using IP6 address families to > exchange routes or doing IP6 peering? > > Within my core I run multiprotocol BGP. At the edge it's all configure

RE: Quick IP6/BGP question

On Mon, 24 May 2010, Michael K. Smith - Adhost wrote: At the Seattle Internet Exchange we have both IPv4 and IPv6 peering, via discrete addresses, on the same interface. That's how we do it here as well. jms

Cisco ASR

Anyone using ASRs? We are demoing one to possibly upgrade our 7206s. We are seeing what looks like a memory leak on the RP. Cisco is looking at it and says they haven't seen it before. I am wondering if anyone else has run across this. With the default 2G of memory the RP only had about 1% free

NIKSUN? Thoughts?

All: I've been digging for more information about NIKSUN, http:// www.niksun.com, and found this sort-of informative post here, , which got me to join in here and ask if anyone has had more experience with them recently. I'm taking a look at their "Enterprise" kit, so far, so good, I'm able to pl

Re: Cisco ASR

On 5/24/10 4:00 PM, "Thomas Magill" wrote: > Anyone using ASRs? We are demoing one to possibly upgrade our 7206s. > We are seeing what looks like a memory leak on the RP. Cisco is looking > at it and says they haven't seen it before. I am wondering if anyone > else has run across this. With t