On Wed, 6 Dec 2006, Deepak Jain wrote:
An easy way around this is to be consistent about your transit and peering
arrangements across locations. If your anycast network has transit from a
network in one location, get transit from them in your other locations, and
let hot potato routing do
An easy way around this is to be consistent about your transit and
peering arrangements across locations. If your anycast network has
transit from a network in one location, get transit from them in your
other locations, and let hot potato routing do its thing. For cases
where this isn't p
On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 09:38:10AM -0800, matthew zeier wrote:
> Are there any practical issues with announcing the same route behind
> different ASNs?
[snip]
In addition to all the sound advice already provided, I would add that
if you decide to do something unusual, make sure the documentation
> This is a common confusion by many
low/mid-level engineers and sales engineers who claim their network having
lower AS number somehow makes them more trafficked and preferred AS :)
Reminds of me Genuity's old website that, in declared Autonomous
System 1.
> My real question was whether anyone actually cared about inconsistent AS
> paths and did something (drop traffic) because of it. Appears that it's
> not much of an issue.
Not any significantly sized AS at least.. IMO, filtering inconsistent AS
would be more "too much time on hands" and hectic
william(at)elan.net wrote:
What is the problem you're trying to solve that you think inconsistent
origin AS announcements of the same network would solve which announcements
(from same locations) with same AS would not solve?
Mostly to avoid GRE tunnels and the added "complexity" therein.
On Wed, 6 Dec 2006, matthew zeier wrote:
Are there any practical issues with announcing the same route behind
different ASNs?
Shortly I'll have two seperate sites (EU, US) announcing their own space
behind their own ASNs but have a desire to anycast a particular network out
of both locatio
On Wed, 6 Dec 2006, John Kristoff wrote:
On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 09:38:10 -0800
matthew zeier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Are there any practical issues with announcing the same route behind
different ASNs?
This is known as Multiple Origin AS of which you should be able to
find plenty of discus
On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 09:38:10 -0800
matthew zeier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Are there any practical issues with announcing the same route behind
> different ASNs?
This is known as Multiple Origin AS of which you should be able to
find plenty of discussion and articles about. It's not uncommo
On 6-Dec-2006, at 13:03, James Jun wrote:
Check 192.88.99.0/24. It is an anycasted prefix for 6to4
tunneling. No AS
number was assigned for 6to4, thus it has inconsistent AS origin,
and works
without any problems.
Well, without any problems that a consistent origin AS would fix,
anyw
On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 09:38:10AM -0800, matthew zeier wrote:
>
>
> Are there any practical issues with announcing the same route behind
> different ASNs?
there are any nubmer of self-appointed routing police
who will instruct you on their particular brand of
correct
>
> Are there any practical issues with announcing the same route behind
> different ASNs?
No.
>
> Shortly I'll have two seperate sites (EU, US) announcing their own space
> behind their own ASNs but have a desire to anycast a particular network
> out of both locations as well.
>
> (This is j
Are there any practical issues with announcing the same route behind
different ASNs?
Shortly I'll have two seperate sites (EU, US) announcing their own space
behind their own ASNs but have a desire to anycast a particular network
out of both locations as well.
(This is just my attempted t
> "You cannae break the laws of physics, Captain!"
>
> Seriously, LINX is the obvious first step.
To find a low latency connection from Chicago to Europe?
Somehow I think that he should be shopping locally but
it might be useful to use the LINX looking-glass
to validate what his local vendors t
Get ip-transit from a provider that is peering with tier2s in the uk.
I'm seeing problems with tier1s again and again: they have a great global
network but they won't reach most of the end users on a direct way since
they are only peering with other tier1s. The route will always go trough a
tier1
"You cannae break the laws of physics, Captain!"
Seriously, LINX is the obvious first step.
On 12/6/06, David Temkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Have you ever had to use Radianz' service? :-)
(disclaimer: it's far, far better nowadays)
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Have you ever had to use Radianz' service? :-)
(disclaimer: it's far, far better nowadays)
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Robert E. Seastrom
> Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 6:38 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTE
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> BTW, the speed of light in fibre is roughly equal to
> the speed of electrons in copper and roughly equal to
> two-thirds the speed of light in a vacuum. You just
> can't move information faster than about 200,000 km/hr.
Slow day at work, Michael? In my universe lig
> I am doing some work on a network in central Illinois that is
> currently peering with Sprint and McLeod. They have a number of
> customers in the U.K. and they want to reduce latency to that part of
> the world.
Make sure they're not trying to reduce latency below
the speed of light in
19 matches
Mail list logo
