I'm waiting for the client to verify (again) that their route server
configurations are the same, but I've got a network that's peered with two
route servers in v4 and v6. Their advertisements are being seen in v4 on both
RSes and in v6 on one RS.
Here's the problem peer:
v6BridgeMaxx 63060
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 08:21:55AM -0500, Mike Hammett wrote:
I'm waiting for the client to verify (again) that their route server
configurations are the same, but I've got a network that's peered with two
route servers in v4 and v6. Their advertisements are being seen in v4 on both
RSes
* Stuart Henderson s...@spacehopper.org [2015-04-16 22:41]:
(filtering is just slow rather than buggy afaik; but then AIUI this
wasn't supposed to be the final implementation of filters ;)
amazing how long temporary solutions can last...
--
Henning Brauer, h...@bsws.de, henn...@openbsd.org
BS
Hi,
at BCIX we still use OpenBGPd as transparent route server. With about 120 (IPv4
+ IPv6) peering sessions it's still stable.
We have multiple RIBS per peer but we don't have IRRDB prefix filtering per
peer applied,
as we know this brings issues regarding performance and convergence times.
On 2015-04-15, Mike Hammett openbsd-m...@ics-il.net wrote:
With the decline of OpenBGPd's popularity among IXPs, it's difficult
to track down examples of how IXPs are configuring their servers. I saw
a couple presentations in the 2010 - 2011 timeframe with new things that
were coming for 32
Subject: Re: OpenBGPd Route Server
On 2015-04-15, Mike Hammett openbsd-m...@ics-il.net wrote:
With the decline of OpenBGPd's popularity among IXPs, it's difficult
to track down examples of how IXPs are configuring their servers. I saw
a couple presentations in the 2010 - 2011 timeframe with new
On 2015-04-16, Mike Hammett openbsd-m...@ics-il.net wrote:
I had seen some complaints about OpenBGPd for IX RS usage, but they were all
2009 - 2011 area. I had assumed the most egregious of them had been fixed by
now.
I think most of the medium/larger ones have simply stopped using it
: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 4:34:19 AM
Subject: Re: OpenBGPd Route Server
On 15.4.2015. 5:23, Mike Hammett wrote:
With the decline of OpenBGPd's popularity among IXPs, it's difficult to track
down examples of how IXPs are configuring their servers. I saw a couple
presentations in the 2010 - 2011
On 15.4.2015. 19:45, Mike Hammett wrote:
What do you have $my_ip4_net and $my_ip6_net set to? I assume the IPv4 and
IPv6 blocks that the IX is using?
yes, that's IX network..
On 4/15/15 3:37 PM, Hrvoje Popovski wrote:
On 15.4.2015. 19:45, Mike Hammett wrote:
What do you have $my_ip4_net and $my_ip6_net set to? I assume the IPv4 and
IPv6 blocks that the IX is using?
yes, that's IX network..
You could add as well the 192/24 filter also from RFC's as well in
On 15.4.2015. 5:23, Mike Hammett wrote:
With the decline of OpenBGPd's popularity among IXPs, it's difficult to track
down examples of how IXPs are configuring their servers. I saw a couple
presentations in the 2010 - 2011 timeframe with new things that were coming
for 32 bit communities
With the decline of OpenBGPd's popularity among IXPs, it's difficult to track
down examples of how IXPs are configuring their servers. I saw a couple
presentations in the 2010 - 2011 timeframe with new things that were coming for
32 bit communities among other things.
I have a route server
So the guys at PLIX actually send me an email that the feature I was
talking about already has a Internet-Draft. For this to become a RFC, it
needs at least two implementations before June 2009.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-add-paths-00
Kind regards,
Arnoud
On 3/18/09 11:00 AM,
In that case, if this is the only work-around possible, then I would
like to send in a feature request for per-filtered-peer local-RIB.
Currently it is the only thing blocking us from putting OpenBGPD in
production as a route server. Filtering is just an absolute requirement
for us at AMS-IX,
The 'standard' (for at least one vendor's definition of standard) way
to get around this, is to slap a different route distinguisher (RD) on
each of the desired 'duplicate' paths. BGP then sees these as
individual paths and will happily communicate both concurrently.
Separate but related,
I have a problem with filtering on the current route server
implementation. I currently have the following setup:
* 10.0.1.0/24 10.0.1.0/24
+---+ +---+
|AS1| |AS2|
| 10.0.0.50 | | 10.0.0.51
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 11:00:32AM +0100, Arnoud Vermeer wrote:
I have a problem with filtering on the current route server
implementation. I currently have the following setup:
* 10.0.1.0/24 10.0.1.0/24
+---+ +---+
|AS1|
Hi,
The LINX route servers currently support this. For what it's worth we took a
straw poll at the last LINX meeting of the ~100 attendees only 1 network was
doing any filtering on the route server. Everyone else was being
'promiscuous'. It may be different at AMSIX however although LINX staff
Hi,
The LINX route servers currently support this. For what it's worth we took
a straw poll at the last LINX meeting of the ~100 attendees only 1 network
was doing any filtering on the route server. Everyone else was being
'promiscuous'. It may be different at AMSIX however although LINX
19 matches
Mail list logo
