Thats either a cruel joke or jeer
Jan Gregor wrote:
Hi guys,
one of our customers requested PI adresses from RIPE (for whatever
reason) and got back /26.
Opinions?
Best regards,
Jan
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Hi,
Le jeudi 01 juillet 2010 à 12:05 +0800, Mark Tinka a écrit :
What is a Tier-1 network?
What is a Tier-1 network in Russia vs. one in Namibia vs.
another in Canada?
This tier classification is not necessarily feasible given
the size of the connected network. Well, not nowadays
On Thursday 01 July 2010 01:52:45 pm Clement Cavadore wrote:
someone who has no $transit.
If you don't get any full feed from someone else, then,
you could not setup a default route to any other
network.
What I was trying to say is that not all large transit
providers are so-called
Hi,
On 06/30/2010 02:39 PM, Jan Gregor wrote:
Hi,
one of our customers requested PI adresses from RIPE (for whatever
reason) and got back /26.
Opinions?
Best regards,
Jan
Will anybody accept a prefix smaller than a /24 (we won't for one ;-) ?
It isn't in addition to existing PI
On 7/1/10 12:30 AM, Jan Gregor wrote:
Hi,
On 06/30/2010 02:39 PM, Jan Gregor wrote:
Hi,
one of our customers requested PI adresses from RIPE (for whatever
reason) and got back /26.
Opinions?
Best regards,
Jan
Will anybody accept a prefix smaller than a /24 (we won't for one ;-) ?
-boun...@puck.nether.net [cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net]
p#229; vegne av Seth Mattinen [se...@rollernet.us]
Sendt: 1. juli 2010 17:33
Til: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Emne: Re: [c-nsp] smaller PI
On 7/1/10 12:30 AM, Jan Gregor wrote:
Hi,
On 06/30/2010 02:39 PM, Jan Gregor wrote:
Hi,
one
On 2010-07-01 18:50, Bøvre Jon Harald wrote:
1 72 bits (IPv4, MPLS, EoM) 524288 319732 61%
144 bits (IP mcast, IPv6) 262144 3008 1%
1: What would be the increase in usage of IPv4 TCAM if we increased
to accept /27? Additional 20k - 50 k
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 01, 2010 at 08:19:07PM +0200, ?ukasz Bromirski wrote:
I do not expect this hardware to handle 524k prefixes.
Why? First of all, if You're not handling IP multicasts and IPv6 that
much, repartition when the 330k IPv4 becomes 500k IPv4.
not handling IPv6 is a bit short-sighted
On 2010-07-01 20:34, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 01, 2010 at 08:19:07PM +0200, ?ukasz Bromirski wrote:
I do not expect this hardware to handle 524k prefixes.
Why? First of all, if You're not handling IP multicasts and IPv6 that
much, repartition when the 330k IPv4 becomes 500k IPv4.
On 2010-07-01 20:38, Matthias Müller wrote:
I do not expect this hardware to handle 524k prefixes.
Why? First of all, if You're not handling IP multicasts and IPv6 that
much, repartition when the 330k IPv4 becomes 500k IPv4.
Excluding IPv6 routes is a really bad idea while talking about
On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 20:50:20 +0200
Łukasz Bromirski luk...@bromirski.net wrote:
By not handling IPv6 I've meant
not allocating 200k IPv6-TCAM-space for it.
You know the partioning on older cisco gear like cat 6500 or the 7600 platform?
Matthias
___
On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 20:19:07 +0200
Łukasz Bromirski luk...@bromirski.net wrote:
I do not expect this hardware to handle 524k prefixes.
Why? First of all, if You're not handling IP multicasts and IPv6 that
much, repartition when the 330k IPv4 becomes 500k IPv4.
Excluding IPv6 routes is a
On 2010-07-01 21:04, Matthias Müller wrote:
On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 20:50:20 +0200
Łukasz Bromirskiluk...@bromirski.net wrote:
By not handling IPv6 I've meant
not allocating 200k IPv6-TCAM-space for it.
You know the partioning on older cisco gear like cat 6500 or the 7600 platform?
You
Hi guys,
one of our customers requested PI adresses from RIPE (for whatever
reason) and got back /26.
Opinions?
Best regards,
Jan
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 14:54
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: [c-nsp] smaller PI
Hi guys,
one of our customers requested PI adresses from RIPE (for whatever
reason) and got back /26.
Opinions?
Best regards,
Jan
___
cisco-nsp mailing list
...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Jan Gregor
Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 14:54
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: [c-nsp] smaller PI
Hi guys,
one of our customers requested PI adresses from RIPE (for whatever
reason) and got back /26.
Opinions?
Best regards,
Jan
Hi,
one of our customers requested PI adresses from RIPE (for whatever
reason) and got back /26.
Opinions?
Best regards,
Jan
Will anybody accept a prefix smaller than a /24 (we won't for one ;-) ?
It isn't in addition to existing PI space is it, so they actually have a
larger block
-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] Im Auftrag von Jan Gregor
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 30. Juni 2010 13:54
An: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Betreff: [c-nsp] smaller PI
Hi guys,
one of our customers requested PI adresses from RIPE (for whatever
reason) and got back
] On Behalf Of Sascha Pollok
Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 3:28 PM
To: Arie Vayner (avayner)
Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] smaller PI
It is like it is. RIPE NCC allocates PI according to the demand
within 12 months. If it is a /26, you'll get a /26. RIPE NCC does
not guarantee
On Wed, 30 Jun 2010, Ziv Leyes wrote:
That's weird, PI stands for provider independent. How can one be
independent with a non-routable IP range???
Where did the try to aggregate as much as possible concept go to?
The RIRs guarantee uniqueness, not routability. If the space just needs
to
...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Jan Gregor
Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 15:40
To: pete.barnw...@whole.net.uk
Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] smaller PI
Hi,
one of our customers requested PI adresses from RIPE (for whatever
reason) and got back
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 03:55:12PM +0300, Ziv Leyes wrote:
That's weird, PI stands for provider independent. How can one
be independent with a non-routable IP range???
PI space can be used for things that are not on the global Internet but
still need unique IP addresses (e.g. VPN
@puck.nether.netcisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] smaller PI
On Wed, 30 Jun 2010, Ziv Leyes wrote:
That's weird, PI stands for provider independent. How can one be
independent with a non-routable IP range???
Where did the try to aggregate as much as possible concept go
On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 tkap...@gmail.com wrote:
...And several shops filter on per-/8 RIR allocation min + maxes, too!
Bassically, a /24 isn't a safe, global assumption, unless from swamp space
and/or a RIR portion specifically created for micro-allocations.
Take note of the cisco isp ingress
Well, I just did a quick look up on the current routing table, and it
seems that there are quite a few /25 and /26 in there with quite long
as-paths, so it seems that this nothing longer than /24 policy is not
strongly enforced.
I'd say that depends. We certainly enforce /24 at our borders,
IIRC, even when I wrote that, there were one or more /8s from which RIPE
said the longest prefix they'd allocate was 24. 91/8, 193/8, and 194/7
are all listed as longest prefix = /29! When I wrote the filter
referenced above, I chose to ignore this and filter these ranges denying
/25
Does RIPE really expect everyone to accept BGP routes as long as /29?
Maybe they do. But it's not likely to happen on a universal scale. We
filter at /24 and have no plans to change.
Imho, that is not fair to network community to have such filters if
RIRs are giving these IPs to ppl out
On 6/30/10 6:18 AM, Arie Vayner (avayner) wrote:
Well, I just did a quick look up on the current routing table, and it
seems that there are quite a few /25 and /26 in there with quite long
as-paths, so it seems that this nothing longer than /24 policy is not
strongly enforced.
Many
On 30-6-2010 14:28, Sascha Pollok wrote:
It is like it is. RIPE NCC allocates PI according to the demand
within 12 months. If it is a /26, you'll get a /26. RIPE NCC does
not guarantee that the block they allocate is routable.
Tricky eh? There is a policy proposal to make PI blocks at
least /24
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 09:57:47AM -0400, Jon Lewis wrote:
Does RIPE really expect everyone to accept BGP routes as long as /29?
RIPE doesn't expect anyone to accept anything. RIPE deals in addresses,
not in routing.
(Yes, this sounds a bit academic - but there is a point to it: what if
On Wed, 30 Jun 2010, Gert Doering wrote:
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 09:57:47AM -0400, Jon Lewis wrote:
Does RIPE really expect everyone to accept BGP routes as long as /29?
RIPE doesn't expect anyone to accept anything. RIPE deals in addresses,
not in routing.
Yeah...I mentioned in my
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 12:54:49PM -0400, Jon Lewis wrote:
(Yes, this sounds a bit academic - but there is a point to it: what if
the operator community decides next year that /24s are evil, and only
/23s are to be accepted? Does this mean that RIPE will have to upgrade
all existing PI
On 30/06/2010 17:54, Jon Lewis wrote:
Have to? Maybe not...but I bet they'd get flooded with requests. The RIRs
can't guarantee general routability, but it seems disingenuous of them to
assign a /27 to a multihomed network when it's well known that a /27 won't
work for them...unless they
Hi,
I guess I have just opened jac-in-the-box here :).
IMHO if Tier1 accept these prefixes it is ok. Hands up anyone who does
not have 0.0.0.0/0 in their network pointing to the upstream :). Could
be problem for smaller providers though.
Best regards,
Jan
On 30. 6. 2010 16:00,
On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 18:28 +0200, Grzegorz Janoszka wrote:
It has been changed recently, now your needs will be meet only for 9
months. It is the run out fairly policy. In a couple of months it will
be 6 months, eventually 3. And then the IP's will be over.
So, what should we do ?
I'd say:
On Thursday 01 July 2010 01:20:59 am Jan Gregor wrote:
I guess I have just opened jac-in-the-box here :).
IMHO if Tier1 accept these prefixes it is ok. Hands up
anyone who does not have 0.0.0.0/0 in their network
pointing to the upstream :).
hand_up
We do, however, originate default to
On Thursday 01 July 2010 12:49:45 am Clement Cavadore wrote:
- Large transit providers (T1) should accept the
microalloc from customers peers.
- Non-T1 transit providers should setup a default route
to T1 upstreams.
What is a Tier-1 network?
What is a Tier-1 network in Russia vs. one in
On Thursday 01 July 2010 12:20:09 am Seth Mattinen wrote:
Many providers will send prefixes longer than a /24 to
their customers but not out to their peers. I could
announce a /25 to Sprint, for example, but only other
Sprint customers will see it.
It is also not uncommon to permit /32
38 matches
Mail list logo
