RE: Networks ignoring prepends?
> > William Herrin wrote: Until they tamper with it using localpref, BGP's default behavior with prepends does exactly the right thing, at least in my situation. I feel your pain Bill, but from a slightly different angle. For years the large CDNs have been disregarding prepends. When a source AS disregards BGP best path selection rules, it sets off a chain reaction of silliness not attributable to the transit AS's. At the terminus of that chain are destination / eyeball AS's now compelled to do undesirable things out of necessity such as: 1) Advertise specifics towards select peers - i.e. inconsistent edge routing policy & littering global table 2) Continuing to prepending a ridiculous amount anyway Gotta wonder how things would be if everyone just abided by the rules.
RE: Add communities on direct routes in Juniper
Junos doesn't maintain an intermediate BGP table / RIB as you would see on other Cisco-like platforms. Therefore you need to build comm-string actions into your neighborship policies.
RE: MX204 tunnel services BW
JTAC says we must disable a physical port to allocate BW for tunnel-services. Also leaving tunnel-services bandwidth unspecified is not possible on the 204. I haven't independently tested / validated in lab yet, but this is what they have told me. I advised JTAC to update the MX204 "port-checker" tool with a tunnel-services knob to make this caveat more apparent.
RE: MX204 tunnel services BW
-Original Message- From: Delong.com Sent: Monday, October 2, 2023 5:47 PM To: behrnsj...@yahoo.com Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: MX204 tunnel services BW > “Tunnel gets whatever bandwidth is left after physical port packets are > processed” and likely some additional overhead for managing the sharing. >Could that be what’s happening to you? Aggregate throughput for the box was less than 100Gbps while the tunnel was being starved.
MX204 tunnel services BW
Encountered an issue with an MX204 using all 4x100G ports and a logical tunnel to hairpin a VRF. The tunnel started dropping packets around 8Gbps. I bumped up tunnel-services BW from 10G to 100G which made the problem worse; the tunnel was now limited to around 1.3Gbps. To my knowledge with Trio PFE you shouldn't have to disable a physical port to allocate bandwidth for tunnel-services. Any helpful info is appreciated.
Re: 2749 routes AT RISK - Re: TIMELY/IMPORTANT - Approximately 40 hours until potentially significant routing changes (re: Retirement of ARIN Non-Authenticated IRR scheduled for 4 April 2022)
Lumen / Level3 filtergen is trimming these routes now. Don't bother trying to query filtergen.level3.net currently; server is full. Small AS cone does not equal small societal footprint & impact. While I appreciate the intention upthread of proxy registering at ATLDB, it really just distracted from finding the root issue.
