Send Netdot-users mailing list submissions to
[email protected]
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://osl.uoregon.edu/mailman/listinfo/netdot-users
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[email protected]
You can reach the person managing the list at
[email protected]
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Netdot-users digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Collecting subnets from routing tables? (Heidrich Attila)
2. Re: Collecting subnets from routing tables? (Phil Regnauld)
3. Re: FW: Collecting subnets from routing tables? (Attila Heidrich)
4. Re: FW: Collecting subnets from routing tables? (Carlos Vicente)
5. Re: Netdot-users Digest, Vol 48, Issue 9 (Carlos Vicente)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 10:07:07 +0000
From: Heidrich Attila <[email protected]>
Subject: [Netdot-users] Collecting subnets from routing tables?
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Message-ID:
<[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2"
Hi!
Did anyone implement something like this? There are too many routers in the
network to SNMP manage all - just to collect the subnets on the
"LAN/customer-side" interfaces!
Attila
--------------
Ezen uzenet kizarolag a cimzettjenek szol es olyan bizalmas jellegu
informaciokat tartalmazhat, amelyek feltarasat jogszabaly vagy szerzodes
tiltja. Amennyiben a jelen uzenetet On teves kezbesites folytan kapta,
kerjuk haladektalanul ertesitsen bennunket es az uzenetet annak
csatolmanyaival egyutt torolje. Amennyiben On nem cimzettje a jelen
uzenetnek, annak es mellekleteinek elolvasasa, masolasa, tovabbitasa, vagy
barmely celbol torteno felhasznalasa szigoruan tilos. Megjegyezzuk, hogy az
e-mail utjan torteno kozlesek nem garantaljak az elkuldott uzenetek
bizalmas jellegenek es teljessegenek megorzeset, valamint az uzenetek
megfelelo kezbesiteset. A fentieken tulmenoen, az Invitel Zrt.,
annak kapcsolt vallalkozasai, illetve az altaluk megbizott
harmadik felek a jelen e-mail cimrol kuldott, vagy arra erkezo barmely
uzenetet ellenorizhetnek, lemasolhatnak, felhasznalhatnak vagy harmadik fel
reszere tovabbithatnak.
This message is
intended exclusively for its addressee and may contain
confidential information protected from disclosure by law or contract. If
you have received this message in error, please immediately notify us and
delete it together with its attachments. If you are not an addressee of
this message, reading, copying, distribution or use for any purpose of the
contents of this message or its attachments is strictly forbidden.
Additionally, please note that communication by email guarantees neither
the confidentiality nor the completeness or proper receipt of the messages
sent. Furthermore, Invitel Zrt., its affiliates and
third parties retained by them may monitor, copy, use or forward to third
parties any outgoing messages from and incoming messages to this email
address.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://osl.uoregon.edu/pipermail/netdot-users/attachments/20121119/7fc24755/attachment-0001.html
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 11:12:20 +0100
From: Phil Regnauld <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Netdot-users] Collecting subnets from routing tables?
To: Heidrich Attila <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Heidrich Attila (HeidrichA) writes:
> Hi!
>
> Did anyone implement something like this? There are too many routers in the
> network to SNMP manage all - just to collect the subnets on the
> "LAN/customer-side" interfaces!
Hi Attila,
Could you define "too many routers in the network" ?
Since you don't know if the routes collected by the equipment
belongs to you (managed by you) or announced by a peer network
or some customer facing equipment, I'd consider it dangerous
to simply harvest the routing table for building the list
of subnets (what happens if a customer injects thousands of
routes by mistake in your IGP ?)
> Attila
PS: you probably don't control this, but you sent a 2 line
message with 28 lines of disclaimer in two languages. In
data transmission, we call that "low signal / noise ratio" :)
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 12:48:48 +0100
From: Attila Heidrich <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Netdot-users] FW: Collecting subnets from routing
tables?
To: [email protected]
Message-ID:
<CAJ4uBugtHzPvf0sWCH=uxjwdseswokvn_ireno4urg94aio...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Hi,
too many means several thousand - mainly, but not necessarily maintained by
ourselves.
You are perfectly right considering it dangerous, but I can still imagine
things like:
- taking only the static/connected routes
- in case of any routing protocoll, we can still set a "trusted" flag for
any the announcers
- we can also filter the announcements to be inside the already defined
top-level containers f.e.
or whatever... ;)
Alternatively... If I happen to have a generated list of subnets, I think I
can insert them with the bulk-uploader, but I would still prefer to have
some of these built is.
And a few other Questions:
- If I remember well, there was something about handling VRFs. Is it still
a feature request? Is there a targetted future version to introduce this
feature?
- I guess netdot considers VLAN numbers to be globally unique - but they
are really not. Is it possible to only relay the L3 information, instead of
the L2? In our network there are several pre-defined VLAN ranges, some of
them are global, but most of them are unique to the site/local L2 domain.
Regards,
Attila
P.S. You are right here as well, I have changed my primary e-mail, hope
"the big G" won't attach any disclaimer!
2012/11/19 Heidrich Attila <[email protected]>
>
> ________________________________________
> Felad?: Phil Regnauld [[email protected]]
> K?ldve: 2012. november 19. 11:12
> To: Heidrich Attila
> Cc: [email protected]
> T?rgy: Re: [Netdot-users] Collecting subnets from routing tables?
>
> Heidrich Attila (HeidrichA) writes:
> > Hi!
> >
> > Did anyone implement something like this? There are too many routers in
> the network to SNMP manage all - just to collect the subnets on the
> "LAN/customer-side" interfaces!
>
> Hi Attila,
>
> Could you define "too many routers in the network" ?
>
> Since you don't know if the routes collected by the equipment
> belongs to you (managed by you) or announced by a peer network
> or some customer facing equipment, I'd consider it dangerous
> to simply harvest the routing table for building the list
> of subnets (what happens if a customer injects thousands of
> routes by mistake in your IGP ?)
>
> > Attila
>
> PS: you probably don't control this, but you sent a 2 line
> message with 28 lines of disclaimer in two languages. In
> data transmission, we call that "low signal / noise ratio" :)
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://osl.uoregon.edu/pipermail/netdot-users/attachments/20121119/93b4db17/attachment-0001.html
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 09:41:06 -0500
From: Carlos Vicente <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Netdot-users] FW: Collecting subnets from routing
tables?
To: Attila Heidrich <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Hi Attila,
On 11/19/12 6:48 AM, Attila Heidrich wrote:
> Hi,
>
> too many means several thousand - mainly, but not necessarily maintained
> by ourselves.
>
> You are perfectly right considering it dangerous, but I can still
> imagine things like:
>
> - taking only the static/connected routes
> - in case of any routing protocoll, we can still set a "trusted" flag
> for any the announcers
> - we can also filter the announcements to be inside the already defined
> top-level containers f.e.
>
> or whatever... ;)
You are welcome to implement this and send patches. Make it optional
(non-default).
>
> - If I remember well, there was something about handling VRFs. Is it
> still a feature request? Is there a targetted future version to
> introduce this feature?
https://osl.uoregon.edu/redmine/issues/531
We intend to do this soon, but the target version is not clear. Maybe
1.2 or 2.0.
> - I guess netdot considers VLAN numbers to be globally unique - but they
> are really not. Is it possible to only relay the L3 information, instead
> of the L2? In our network there are several pre-defined VLAN ranges,
> some of them are global, but most of them are unique to the site/local
> L2 domain.
This will be worked out together with the previous item.
cv
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 10:45:14 -0500
From: Carlos Vicente <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Netdot-users] Netdot-users Digest, Vol 48, Issue 9
To: Heidrich Attila <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On 11/15/12 3:54 AM, Heidrich Attila wrote:
> There existed some temporary (?) tables, like fwtable_blahblahblah (2 pieces)
> and fwtableentry_blahblahblah,
> there were no fwtable at all.
> I have deleted fwtableentry_blahblahblah, and one of the
> fwtable_blahblahblah's, the other was not possible to delete becouse of some
> foreign key contraint, so I have renamed it to fwtable, and now it works.
>
> Any idea, how to avoid situations like this?
These tables were left over from previous Netdot versions in which,
after rotating the tables, we kept a backup copy. After adding foreign
key constraints to Netdot 1.0, that became a problem so we changed the
code to just rotate without backing up.
So in the latest version these tables should no longer be created.
cv
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Netdot-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://osl.uoregon.edu/mailman/listinfo/netdot-users
End of Netdot-users Digest, Vol 48, Issue 11
********************************************
