Subject: So Philip Smith / Geoff Huston's CIDR report becomes worth a good hard
look today Date: Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 09:40:55PM +0530 Quoting Suresh
Ramasubramanian (ops.li...@gmail.com):
> 512K routes, here we come. Lots of TCAM based routers suddenly become
> really expensive doorstops.
We h
>
>
>
> The upstream channels are comparatively low (under 80 MHz) and the
> downstream channels are comparatively high (over 80 MHz to 800-1000
> MHz depending on the system). Splitting them out is accomplished with
> bidirectional high and low pass filters called "diplexers".
>
The upstream spe
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 1:40 AM, wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 08:08:04 +0300, Hank Nussbacher said:
>
>> We went with 768 - enough time to replace the routers with ASR9010s. It is
>> merely a stop-gap measure to give everyone time to replace their routers in
>> an orderly fashion.
>
> The same p
Perhaps diatomaceous earth or Delta Dust. Once they are dead you can air-spray
or vacuum the area to get rid of it all.
--Patrick Darden
-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Eduardo A. Suárez
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2014 1:53 PM
To: NANOG
Subjec
Hi Nanog, anyone know what's up with a nationwide (Canadian) routing issue
on Shaw?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/08/12/nationwide_outage_at_canadian_isp_shaw/
https://community.shaw.ca/docs/DOC-3455
thanks
Leah
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 8/13/2014 6:52 AM, Warren Kumari wrote:
> Am I overly cynical, or does this all work out perfectly for some
> vendors? I'm guessing that a certain vendor is going to see a huge
> number of orders for new equipment, for an event that could have
Maybe related to the 512k route issue?
http://www.bgpmon.net/what-caused-todays-internet-hiccup/
I've seen people reboot to recover from TCAM exception without adjusting
TCAM size only to run into the issue all over again. It's a fun way to
watch the problems roll around the network.
On Tue, Aug
Outside looking in, but we did get a maintenance notice from Shaw in
June for "Core Router reboot to resolve fully utilized IPv4 table";
let's hope for their sake they recarved TCAM while they're at it and
that they don't have too many of those hiding around the network.
--
Hugo
On Wed 2014-A
Hi,
if I make a traceroute to a host in San Jose in Level3 network from
DigitalOcean server in Amsterdam, then in Level3 network(hop 6 in
example below) the RTT remains the same:
# traceroute -q 1 -I ZYNGA-INC.edge1.SanJose3.Level3.net
traceroute to ZYNGA-INC.edge1.SanJose3.Level3.net (4.53.208.1
How does this technically work? What are the advantages of such setup?
http://forums.juniper.net/t5/Routing/what-does-quot-icmp-tunneling-quot-mean-in-mpls-vpn/td-p/164284
http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos12.1/topics/usage-guidelines/mpls-configuring-icmp-message-tunneling.html
...and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Apologies for replying to my own post, but... below:
On 8/13/2014 7:05 AM, Paul Ferguson wrote:
> On 8/13/2014 6:52 AM, Warren Kumari wrote:
>
>> Am I overly cynical, or does this all work out perfectly for
>> some vendors? I'm guessing that a cer
On 8/13/14 8:55 AM, Paul Ferguson wrote:
> Apologies for replying to my own post, but... below:
>
> On 8/13/2014 7:05 AM, Paul Ferguson wrote:
>
>
>> p.s. I recall some IPv6 prefix growth routing projections by Vince
>> Fuller and Tony Li from several years ago which illustrated this,
>> but ca
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 8/13/2014 11:09 AM, joel jaeggli wrote:
> On 8/13/14 8:55 AM, Paul Ferguson wrote:
>> Apologies for replying to my own post, but... below:
>>
>> On 8/13/2014 7:05 AM, Paul Ferguson wrote:
>>
>>
>>> p.s. I recall some IPv6 prefix growth routing
On Aug 13, 2014, at 6:52 AM, Warren Kumari wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 1:40 AM, wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 08:08:04 +0300, Hank Nussbacher said:
>>
>>> We went with 768 - enough time to replace the routers with ASR9010s. It is
>>> merely a stop-gap measure to give everyone time to re
Depends on the setup. With MPLS and traffic engineering tunnels you can
make a 30 hop path look like one hop easily.
On 8/13/14, 9:25 AM, "Martin T" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>if I make a traceroute to a host in San Jose in Level3 network from
>DigitalOcean server in Amsterdam, then in Level3 network(ho
half the routing table is deagg crap. filter it.
you mean your vendor won't give you the knobs to do it smartly ([j]tac
tickets open for five years)? wonder why.
randy
Pete Lumbis writes:
> Maybe related to the 512k route issue?
> http://www.bgpmon.net/what-caused-todays-internet-hiccup/
>
> I've seen people reboot to recover from TCAM exception without adjusting
> TCAM size only to run into the issue all over again. It's a fun way to
> watch the problems roll
Same reason no vendor has bothered to prune redundant RIB entries (i.e.
more-specific pointing to the same NH as a covering route) when programming the
TCAM...
-C
On Aug 13, 2014, at 1:42 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
> half the routing table is deagg crap. filter it.
>
> you mean your vendor won
On 14 Aug 2014, at 4:14 am, Paul Ferguson wrote:
>
>> On 8/13/14 8:55 AM, Paul Ferguson wrote:
>>> Apologies for replying to my own post, but... below:
>>>
>>> On 8/13/2014 7:05 AM, Paul Ferguson wrote:
>>>
>>>
p.s. I recall some IPv6 prefix growth routing projections by
Vince Full
On Aug 13, 2014, at 16:42 , Randy Bush wrote:
> half the routing table is deagg crap. filter it.
We disagree.
Just because you don't like all more specifics doesn't mean they are useless.
Not everything is about minimizing FIB size. (And RIB size hasn't been relevant
for years.) People pay
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 6:47 PM, Chris Woodfield wrote:
> On Aug 13, 2014, at 1:42 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> half the routing table is deagg crap. filter it.
>>
>> you mean your vendor won't give you the knobs to do it smartly ([j]tac
>> tickets open for five years)? wonder why.
> Same reason n
>
> Pruning FIB entries, on the other hand, can be done quite safely as
> long as you're willing to accept the conversion of "null route" to
> "don't care." Some experiments were done on this in the IETF a couple
> years back. Draft-zhang-fibaggregation maybe? Savings of 30% in
> typical backbone
Yep. Most of the time I've seen this it's two data centers, both go TCAM
exception. You reboot DC1, when it comes back up you reboot DC2. This means
no iBGP learned routes so DC1 is fine. DC 2 is fine, until the iBGP peer
comes back and then start all over again.
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 6:06 PM,
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 07:53:45PM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> > you mean your vendor won't give you the knobs to do it smartly ([j]tac
> > tickets open for five years)? wonder why.
>
> Might be useful if you mentioned what you considered a "smart" way to
> trim the fib. But then you could
Swisscom or some other European SP has / used to have a limit where they
would not accept more specific routes than say a /22 from provider x, so if
you wanted to take a /24 and announce it you were SOL sending packets to
them from that /24 over provider y.
Still, for elderly and capacity limited
Once upon a time, Brett Frankenberger said:
> -- This isn't that hard to implement. Once you have a FIB and
> primitives for manipulating it, it's not especially difficult to extend
> them to also maintain a minimal-size-FIB.
I would say it is hard to implement, or at least non-trivial. Buildin
Composed on a virtual keyboard, please forgive typos.
> On Aug 13, 2014, at 22:59, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>
> Swisscom or some other European SP has / used to have a limit where they
> would not accept more specific routes than say a /22 from provider x, so if
> you wanted to take a /2
Sprint used to proxy aggregate… I remember 128.0.0.0/3
the real question, imho, is if folks are going to look into their crystal balls
and roadmap where the default offered is a /32 (either v4 or v6)
and plan accordingly, or just slap another bandaid on the oozing wound...
/bill
PO Box 1231
Sprint also had 192/2 in the RADB :)
manning bill wrote:
Sprint used to proxy aggregate… I remember 128.0.0.0/3
the real question, imho, is if folks are going to look into their
crystal balls and roadmap where the default offered is a /32 (either
v4 or v6)
and plan accordingly, or just slap
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 12:15:36AM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> Composed on a virtual keyboard, please forgive typos.
>
> > On Aug 13, 2014, at 22:59, Suresh Ramasubramanian
> > wrote:
> >
> > Swisscom or some other European SP has / used to have a limit where they
> > would not accept
On Monday, August 04, 2014 04:38:39 PM Jay Ashworth wrote:
> So that implies he really did mean 44x GigE to end-prem,
> from 4 $5500 10G ports -- or, $500/home in MRC *cost* to
> the provider.
>
> I'm confused.
With an edge router chassis filled with 10Gbps ports for
various things, they quickl
>>> you mean your vendor won't give you the knobs to do it smartly ([j]tac
>>> tickets open for five years)? wonder why.
>>
>> Might be useful if you mentioned what you considered a "smart" way to
>> trim the fib. But then you couldn't bitch and moan about people not
>> understanding you, which i
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 01:47:20AM -0400, Dorian Kim wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 12:15:36AM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> > Composed on a virtual keyboard, please forgive typos.
> >
> > > On Aug 13, 2014, at 22:59, Suresh Ramasubramanian
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > Swisscom or some othe
> It was kindly pointed out to me in private that my phrasing could be
> misleading here.
>
> When ACL112 came into being, there were old equipment that were being
> protected by the /19 filters. However, the filters were in place long
> after those equipment were replaced.
but by then it had dri
34 matches
Mail list logo
