On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 10:12:35PM +0200, Thomas Mangin wrote:
> > It would seem to me that there should actually be a better option, e.g.
> > recognizing the malformed update, and simply discarding it (and sending the
> > originator an error message) instead of resetting the session.
> >
> > Rese
> Apart from one big vendor most BGP speaker only send KEEPALIVES when they
> need to. So on my full feeds I see sessions running for more then 1 month
> which received less then 300 KEEPALIVE packets.
The negociaged holdtime is always the lower value presented between two
routers. The default
On Mon, 2010-08-30 at 10:58 +0200, Thomas Mangin wrote:
> http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc4271.html section 4.2
>
> So unless you know something I don't, I believe you are totally mistaken :)
updates serve as implicit keepalives.
in that same section:
"Hold Time:
The calculated value indicates the
> On Mon, 2010-08-30 at 10:58 +0200, Thomas Mangin wrote:
>> http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc4271.html section 4.2
>>
>> So unless you know something I don't, I believe you are totally mistaken :)
>
> updates serve as implicit keepalives.
Rule #1 do not post when you are not awake yet and quote the
Thomas,
Wouldn't the confusion come from the fact that updates are considered as
keepalives, so that Claudio sees so few type 4 messages because he receives
updates ?
Sec 4.2, Hold Time :
"The calculated value indicates the maximum number of
seconds that may elapse between the receipt of su
We have problems reaching www.worldspan.com (216.113.132.22) from
some locations. The common problem seems to be AT&T (AS 7018). Our
AS path towards the 216.113.128.0/19 prefix is typically
3356 7018 17228 19631
Anybody else see problems here? I note that I can ping 216.113.132.22
from some lo
That host is not working for us either, but looks more like a host
problem rather then BGP problem. I have no problem getting to other
IP's in that range like 216.113.132.21 which is probably it's default
gateway.
On 08/30/2010 05:22 AM, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
We have problems reaching ww
--- Original Message ---
>From: sth...@nethelp.no
>Sent: Monday, August 30, 2010 5:22 AM
>To: nanog@nanog.org
>
>We have problems reaching www.worldspan.com (216.113.132.22) from
>some locations. The common problem seems to be AT&T (AS 7018). Our
>AS path towards the 216.113.128.0/19 prefix is typi
> That host is not working for us either, but looks more like a host
> problem rather then BGP problem. I have no problem getting to other
> IP's in that range like 216.113.132.21 which is probably it's default
> gateway.
I can ping 216.113.132.21 from all the places I have tried too. So I
agr
Assumption: Construction guys are present.
1. Dump cable in large pile on the floor
2. Yell "Does anybody want this copper?"
3. Use broom to fend of multiple takers
4. Tell the guy who wants it that he can have it as long as he hauls it away
Not that I've ever done this of course...
The inf
Florian Weimer wrote:
This whole thread is quite schizophrenic because the consensus appears
to be that (a) a *researcher is not to blame* for sending out a BGP
message which eventually leads to session resets, and (b) an
*implementor is to blame* for sending out a BGP messages which
eventually
First of all i want to apologize for the off topic nature of this post.
I am seeking sponsorship for one of my hobby project. My needs is one or two
dedicated servers on a stable network in USA and or Europe.
DNSDigger.com is one of my hobby projects that has outgrown my own means of
hosting as
> Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 10:55:03 -0500
> From: Jack Bates
>
>
> Florian Weimer wrote:
> > This whole thread is quite schizophrenic because the consensus appears
> > to be that (a) a *researcher is not to blame* for sending out a BGP
> > message which eventually leads to session resets, and (b)
At 12:40 PM 8/30/2010, Kevin Oberman wrote:
This only way they could have caught this one was to have tested to a
CRS which had another router to which it was announcing the attribute in
a mal-formed packet. Worse, the resets should just keep happening as the
CRS would still have the route with
I'm looking for feedback on Cisco's ASR9000 vs. Juniper MX960. We're
evaluating the two and are in the process of testing these two platforms and
I'd like to try to have a leg up on testing if there are any gotchas that have
crept up in the real world.
What we're looking for information on are
We're planning to do exactly the same, but not in parallel. ASR9k first
(in September), MX960 after.
I'll be interested in your results (and everyone else), especially in
the areas of L2VPN, M(V)PLS, OSPF and everything Carrier Ethernet related.
--
Tassos
Jason Lixfeld wrote on 30/08/2010 21
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 15:55, Jack Bates wrote:
>
...
> As good a place to break in on the thread as any, I guess. Randy and others
> believe more testing should have been done. I'm not completely sure they
> didn't test against XR. They very likely could have tested in a 1 on 1
> connection and
Is there a list of 6to4 relays?
I'm curious.
Also, I'm also curious to know if ISPs in Europe (which are more advanced in
IPv6 deployment) have experienced the same issues?
found it:
http://www.bgpmon.net/6to4.php?week=4
Not what I call a big list, considering...
- Original Message -
From: "Franck Martin"
To: "John Jason Brzozowski"
Cc: "NANOG"
Sent: Tuesday, 31 August, 2010 9:21:58 AM
Subject: Re: Comcast enables 6to4 relays
Is there a list of 6to4 rel
Franck Martin wrote:
Is there a list of 6to4 relays?
I'm curious.
Also, I'm also curious to know if ISPs in Europe (which are more advanced in
IPv6 deployment) have experienced the same issues?
Sprint has one which is absolutely horrible (or was a year or two ago).
I'd recommend any and
On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 10:49, John Jason Brzozowski
wrote:
>
> As we started our IPv6 trials, we began to observe an increase in 6to4 relay
> traffic. 6to4 is a transition mechanism built into some operating systems
> and home gateways. While it is not a transition technology that Comcast
> plan
In a message written on Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 09:47:14AM +1200, Franck Martin
wrote:
> found it:
>
> http://www.bgpmon.net/6to4.php?week=4
>
> Not what I call a big list, considering...
Note that these are people willing to provide a 6to4 relay free to
the entire Internet.
There are plenty of p
The Comcast 6to4 relays are not on this list, perhaps this is a list of open
ones?
John
On 8/30/10 5:47 PM, "Franck Martin" wrote:
> found it:
>
> http://www.bgpmon.net/6to4.php?week=4
>
> Not what I call a big list, considering...
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Franck Martin"
>
Well I found my 6to4 gateway:
traceroute to 192.88.99.1 (192.88.99.1), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
10 te3-3.ccr01.ind01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.3.30) [AS174] 244.965 ms
244.964 ms 244.952 ms
11 38.20.52.226 (38.20.52.226) [AS174] 244.336 ms 38.20.52.222 (38.20.52.222)
[AS174] 244.300 m
Yes this is the list of visible relays as seen from the BGP backbone
monitoring...
If you don't offer your relays to the rest of the world, they won't show up
there...
- Original Message -
From: "John Jason Brzozowski"
To: "Franck Martin"
Cc: "NANOG"
Sent: Tuesday, 31 August, 2010 10
I actually agree with the below. Using whatever you learn "today" via BGP
does not appear to be a good plan. 6to4 in particular becomes very
unpredictable and does in fact contribute to brokenness. I am not saying
deploying your own will make 6to4 good or great, it will however, help to
make it
Hey Bill,
No plans for Teredo at this time.
John
On 8/30/10 5:57 PM, "Bill Fehring" wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 10:49, John Jason Brzozowski
> wrote:
>
>>
>> As we started our IPv6 trials, we began to observe an increase in 6to4 relay
>> traffic. 6to4 is a transition mechanism built i
Franck Martin wrote:
Well I found my 6to4 gateway:
and I have so much issues with 6to4 that I have decided to disable it at home
(airport extreme). I found out PTB was not transmitted and using scamper and
the help of Matthew Luckie there is an odd MTU of 1422 from Internet to me. I
suspect
if only I had a static IPv4 address, but who gives such luxury for free
nowadays to a end user?
I'm in an end user configuration here
The office configuration is working perfectly fine.
I'm talking about my experience as a "end user" just enabling IPv6 on my
airport extreme and trying to figur
John Jason Brzozowski wrote:
Hey Bill,
No plans for Teredo at this time.
I'm sure, like us, you looked at what was involved and said, "eh, easier
to just provide native v6 than deal with that mess." 6to4 is definitely
a more friendly protocol for the network engineer.
Jack
Others may correct me, but...
Franck Martin wrote:
5 2002:7114:4a9d::1 274.299 ms [mtu: 1480]
6 2002:7114:4a9d:0: 299.939 ms [*mtu: 1422]
So I suspect on return path I use a HE.Net relay?
Yes, and it appears that your host is replying back to the office.
And yes I agree
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 3:34 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
> John Jason Brzozowski wrote:
>>
>> Hey Bill,
>>
>> No plans for Teredo at this time.
>>
>
> I'm sure, like us, you looked at what was involved and said, "eh, easier to
> just provide native v6 than deal with that mess." 6to4 is definitely a more
On 30/08/2010 23:47, Franck Martin wrote:
found it:
http://www.bgpmon.net/6to4.php?week=4
Not what I call a big list, considering...
The list seems to be showing relays that announce both the IPv4 and the
IPv6 anycast prefixes.
I have noticed a number of deployments that announce the (in)f
On Mon, 30 Aug 2010, Jack Bates wrote:
I'm sure, like us, you looked at what was involved and said, "eh, easier
to just provide native v6 than deal with that mess." 6to4 is definitely
a more friendly protocol for the network engineer.
End users are using 6to4 and Teredo, if an ISP isn't provi
> The list seems to be showing relays that announce both the IPv4 and the
> IPv6 anycast prefixes.
>
> I have noticed a number of deployments that announce the (in)famous IPv4
> prefix and then consider their deployment complete. I suspect that there
> is a lack of 2002::/16 announcements and
On 2010-08-31 08:22, Mitchell Warden wrote:
[..]
> Is there a reason not to advertise more specific prefixes from 2002::/16 to
> ensure that traffic for your v4 routes comes back to your own 6to4 router?
>
> If for example all my users have v4 addresses in 192.0.2.0/24, I could
> advertise 2002:
Enabled two more 6to4 relays this morning. :)
John
On 8/31/10 1:14 AM, "Mikael Abrahamsson" wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Aug 2010, Jack Bates wrote:
>
>> I'm sure, like us, you looked at what was involved and said, "eh, easier
>> to just provide native v6 than deal with that mess." 6to4 is definitely
37 matches
Mail list logo
