Re: Dear Windstream engineers

2016-02-01 Thread Saku Ytti 
On 1 February 2016 at 08:17, joel jaeggli  wrote:

Hey,

> source based RTBH requires urpf, which while generally available may
> have practical limitations on implementation.

I'd say uRPF/loose is one way to do it on some platforms. In JunOS for
longest time it was not possible, and in default config it still is
not, as source route pointing to null does not fail uRPF/loose check.
However JunOS has had ~always SCU (I compare it to QPPB in CSCO) which
can be used to implement source based RTBH, without use of uRPF. It
likely out-performs uRPF/loose massively, as you don't have to do two
LPM lookups.

-- 
  ++ytti

Re: Dear Windstream engineers

2016-02-01 Thread Hoyt, Michael 
Yes, of course Windstream supports RTBH, we have a standard community and have 
had for years, depending on which legacy AS you connect with us the tag you 
would have been given might be different. Our current AS7029 standard for RTBH 
is to tag your route(s) with 4506 and we will black hole the tagged route at 
our edge.

As you know Windstream (like many ISP's) is a collection of legacy AS's, we 
have merged all our legacy AS's into one and now operate as only AS7029 but you 
might still be peering as a customer with us using one of our 12 former AS's, 
such as Paetec AS1785, as we employed the alias knob to integrate our AS's to 
not have to "touch" every BGP customer, this is pretty standard practice as we 
work on consolidating our IP Networks.

We have been and continue to work through our standardization of our BGP policy 
and have not yet reached all of the thousands of BGP speaking customers. We 
have been working with our Product, Sales and Sales Engineering organizations 
to get the word out to our customers about our *new* standard communities and 
policies and the fact that ultimately we would like all our BGP customers to 
peer with AS7029 and convert from using one of the many legacy AS's we operated 
under.

Please contact me directly 
(michael.h...@windstream.com) and/or Paul 
Thompson  (paul.thomp...@windstream.com) 
and we can involve your account team and work with any Windstream  BGP customer 
to ensure you can tag your routes with our new standards and receive your 
desired route propagation results.

Thanks,

Mike Hoyt
VP, IP Engineering
Windstream Communications

--
This email message and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended 
recipient(s). Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is 
prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by 
reply email and destroy all copies of the original message and any attachments.

Re: Dear Windstream engineers

2016-01-31 Thread George Skorup 


On 1/30/2016 2:33 PM, Job Snijders wrote:

vote with your wallet?


If this doesn't change, then that's the plan at the conclusion of the 
contract.



On 1/30/2016 4:29 PM, Matthew D. Hardeman wrote:

Seriously, it’s a good question.  Most IP transit providers offering BGP 
services do offer RTBH.


Our other peer right now is GTT. The merged AS4436/3257's BGP is freakin 
amazing, I love it.

Re: Dear Windstream engineers

2016-01-31 Thread joel jaeggli 
On 1/30/16 2:29 PM, Matthew D. Hardeman wrote:
> You offer this service to your customers, don’t you?   ;-)

source based RTBH requires urpf, which while generally available may
have practical limitations on implementation.

> Seriously, it’s a good question.  Most IP transit providers offering BGP 
> services do offer RTBH.
> 
>> On Jan 29, 2016, at 10:51 PM, George Skorup  wrote:
>>
>> Why doesn't Windstream have RTBH for their BGP customers? It cannot be 
>> impossible to implement.
> 




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Dear Windstream engineers

2016-01-30 Thread George Skorup 
Why doesn't Windstream have RTBH for their BGP customers? It cannot be 
impossible to implement.

Re: Dear Windstream engineers

2016-01-30 Thread Job Snijders 
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 10:51:05PM -0600, George Skorup wrote:
> Why doesn't Windstream have RTBH for their BGP customers? It cannot be
> impossible to implement.

vote with your wallet?

Re: Dear Windstream engineers

2016-01-30 Thread Matthew D. Hardeman 
You offer this service to your customers, don’t you?   ;-)

Seriously, it’s a good question.  Most IP transit providers offering BGP 
services do offer RTBH.

> On Jan 29, 2016, at 10:51 PM, George Skorup  wrote:
> 
> Why doesn't Windstream have RTBH for their BGP customers? It cannot be 
> impossible to implement.



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature