On 15/Jun/18 00:02, Zach Puls wrote:
> Does anyone have a contact for Google Peering / PNI?
>
> We have a caching appliance whose BGP session has been flapping nonstop for
> the past month or so. We've had a ticket open with Google since it started,
> but they haven't really made any headway, o
On Sat 2018-Jun-16 00:51:15 -0500, Jimmy Hess wrote:
Running the BGP application in a container on a shared storage system managed by
a host cluster would also make it easier to start the service up on a
different host when
the first host fails or requires maintenance.
On the other hand, run
On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 at 22:17, Marcus Leske wrote:
> Any thought leader on the list to shed some light to what is happening
> in the world of open networking ? OVS vs OpenNSL vs Cumulus vs fd.io
> vs Snabb vs a lot of stuff :)
>
> Where is this going ?
I work on Snabb and to me our most interest
Years back I ran ExaBGP inside a Docker container (when it wasn't
"production ready") to anycast a contained service both within a datacenter
and across them. To make routing work correctly I had to also run another
BGP daemon on the Docker host machine; I can't remember if I used bird for
this, bu
These days I think the idea is to use unnumbered or dynamic neighbors so
most of the configuration complexity goes away:
https://docs.cumulusnetworks.com/display/DOCS/Border+Gateway+Protocol+-+BGP#BorderGatewayProtocol-BGP-ConfiguringBGPUnnumberedInterfaces
In this case, your container would peer
Dear all,
TL;DR: Perhaps it is time to add 2002::/16 to our EBGP bogon filters?
It is kind of strange that in the default-free zone (where we don’t
announce defaults to each other) - we will propagate what is effectively an
IPv4 default-route, in the IPv6 DFZ.
IETF has politely abandoned the pre
On Mon, 18 Jun 2018 21:08:05 +
Job Snijders wrote:
> TL;DR: Perhaps it is time to add 2002::/16 to our EBGP bogon filters?
Hi Job,
I've been asking people about this recently. I don't particularly like
having misdirected traffic or badly configured hosts sending junk to
those who happen to
This should have been filtered before.
Lots of people improperly implemented this so it caused issues.
Mack
-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of John Kristoff
Sent: Monday, June 18, 2018 3:48 PM
To: Job Snijders
Cc: NANOG [nanog@nanog.org]
Subject
> On Jun 18, 2018, at 5:08 PM, Job Snijders wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> TL;DR: Perhaps it is time to add 2002::/16 to our EBGP bogon filters?
>
> It is kind of strange that in the default-free zone (where we don’t
> announce defaults to each other) - we will propagate what is effectively an
> I
If a ASN is announcing 2002::/16 then they are are happy to get the traffic. It
they don’t want it all they have to do is withdraw the prefix. It is not up to
the rest of us to second guess their decision to keep providing support.
If you filter 2002::/16 then you are performing a denial-of-serv
On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 4:37 PM Mark Andrews wrote:
> If a ASN is announcing 2002::/16 then they are are happy to get the
> traffic. It
> they don’t want it all they have to do is withdraw the prefix. It is not
> up to
> the rest of us to second guess their decision to keep providing support.
>
If you are using 2002::/16 you know are relying on third parties. Not that it
is much
different to any other address where you are relying on third parties.
If one is going to filter 2002::/16 from BGP then install your own gateway to
preserve
the functionality.
> On 19 Jun 2018, at 10:23 am,
On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 5:31 PM Mark Andrews wrote:
> If you are using 2002::/16 you know are relying on third parties.
I highlly doubt most people using 6to4 know they are using it, let alone
the arbitrary nature of its routing.
Not that it is much
> different to any other address where you a
> On Jun 18, 2018, at 8:31 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> If you are using 2002::/16 you know are relying on third parties. Not that
> it is much
> different to any other address where you are relying on third parties.
>
> If one is going to filter 2002::/16 from BGP then install your own gate
This week I began mapping IPv6 SPAM headers "Received:" and "X-Received:"
and have discovered over 50% are from:
10.0.0.0 – 10.255.255.255
2002:0a00:: - 2002:aff::::::
172.16.0.0 – 172.31.255.255
2002:ac10:: - 2002:ac10::::::
192.168.0.0 – 192.168.
20 years from now when the IETF decides to reclaim / repurpose that prefix,
y'all are going to have to run around removing it from your filters again...
--
Harald
I personally would love to see social pressure applied removing this
from the internet.
certain prominent google search results. e.g.
https://getipv6.info/display/IPv6/Linux+or+BSD+6to4+Relays probably also
could use some curation given the appropriateness of reling on a anycast
translator for you
On 6/18/18 6:18 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:
> I don’t believe most providers are intending to offer 6to4 as a global
> service. Even the large providers (eg: Comcast) seem to have disabled it ~4+
> years ago. While I know there’s people on the internet that like to hang on
> to legacy things, th
18 matches
Mail list logo
