Re: How Not to Multihome

Justin M. Streiner wrote: On Tue, 9 Oct 2007, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: Justin, if Provider A _has_ permission from Provider B to announce a prefix, do you believe Provider A should be allowed to announce the prefix? As long as all of the relevant parties know about it and are OK with it,

Re: Upstreams blocking /24s? (was Re: How Not to Multihome)

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 10/08/2007 10:28:37 PM: > > Hi, > > On Oct 8, 2007, at 6:28 PM, Justin M. Streiner wrote: > > On Mon, 8 Oct 2007, Jon Lewis wrote: > >>> adopted /24 as the cutoff point. If you make the cutoff point > >>> smaller, > >>> what is the new point... /26? /32? > > Pres

Re: How Not to Multihome

On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 14:01:40 EDT, "Patrick W. Gilmore" said: > Considering the number of inconsistently originated prefixes has been > non-trivial for at least a decade, I have trouble believing this is a > huge threat to the internet. Or even those 1500 NOC monkeys. (And > wouldn't it be

Re: How Not to Multihome

On Oct 9, 2007, at 1:53 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There are currently ~1500 prefixes with inconsistent origin AS. These are trivially identifiable: Some of them are obvious mistakes (I doubt HKSuper is supposed to originate 4/8). But many

Re: How Not to Multihome

On Tue, 9 Oct 2007, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: Justin, if Provider A _has_ permission from Provider B to announce a prefix, do you believe Provider A should be allowed to announce the prefix? As long as all of the relevant parties know about it and are OK with it, that's fine. It's just not

Re: How Not to Multihome

On 10/8/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > That brings up an interesing point. My biggest fear was that one of my > other customers could possible be closer to me that the ISP that provides > the primary link and it would cause them to favor the backup link because of > AS path.

Re: How Not to Multihome

On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 21:32:50 EDT, "Patrick W. Gilmore" said: > On Oct 8, 2007, at 6:45 PM, Justin M. Streiner wrote: > > I never said it was. My experience, both in my previous life as > > the operator of a regional ISP and since then in other capacities > > is that having disjoint origins for

Re: How Not to Multihome

On 9 Oct 2007, at 18:48, Leo Vegoda wrote: On 9 Oct 2007, at 17:47, Andy Davidson wrote: However, if a different third-party network then sweeps up their routing table by looking to remove more specifics that seem 'spoofed' using IRR data, the routes you intend to push onto the internet

Re: How Not to Multihome

On 9 Oct 2007, at 17:47, Andy Davidson wrote: [...] However, if a different third-party network then sweeps up their routing table by looking to remove more specifics that seem 'spoofed' using IRR data, the routes you intend to push onto the internet may well start to disappear from their

Re: How Not to Multihome

On 8 Oct 2007, at 22:43, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have a client that wants us to advertise an IP block assigned by another ISP. I know that the best practice is to have them request an AS number from ARIN and peer with us, etc. However, I cannot find any information that states as law

Re: How Not to Multihome

On Oct 9, 2007, at 8:15 AM, Jamie Bowden wrote: On Oct 8, 2007, at 6:45 PM, Justin M. Streiner wrote: On Mon, 8 Oct 2007, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: If you do you have permission from the owner of the block, you Should Not Announce it. Agreed. I stated above that you should not announce

RE: How Not to Multihome

-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick W. Gilmore Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 9:33 PM To: nanog Cc: Patrick W. Gilmore Subject: Re: How Not to Multihome On Oct 8, 2007, at 6:45 PM, Justin M. Streiner wrote: > On Mon, 8 Oct 2

Re: Upstreams blocking /24s? (was Re: How Not to Multihome)

Scott Weeks wrote: > > > --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Oct 8, 2007, at 2:48 PM, Scott Weeks wrote: > >> However, if it's less than a /24 it won't get very far as most >> upstreams block prefixes longer than a /24. > > I'm curious: a couple of people have indicated they do not believe >

Re: Upstreams blocking /24s? (was Re: How Not to Multihome)

On Oct 8, 2007, at 10:28 PM, David Conrad wrote: The argument, as I understand it (and those who argue this direction feel free to correct me if I misstate), is that as the IPv4 free pool exhausts, there will be a natural pressure to increase address utilization efficiency. This will like

Re: How Not to Multihome

On Mon, 8 Oct 2007, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: :To be clear, I am not suggesting de-aggregating every CIDR down to / :24s. But the global table doesn't grow any more whether the customer :announces the /24 from their own ASN, or if you muti-originate it :from two upstreams - or just one upstream

Re: Upstreams blocking /24s? (was Re: How Not to Multihome)

Hi, On Oct 8, 2007, at 6:28 PM, Justin M. Streiner wrote: On Mon, 8 Oct 2007, Jon Lewis wrote: adopted /24 as the cutoff point. If you make the cutoff point smaller, what is the new point... /26? /32? Presumably the fear is there being no limitation, that is, /32. Anything longer than

Re: How Not to Multihome

On Oct 8, 2007, at 9:46 PM, Justin M. Streiner wrote: On Mon, 8 Oct 2007, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: If you went ahead and did this, the more specific route being announced by you on behalf of your customer would be more likely to attract traffic back to you. Prefix length is checked in the

Re: How Not to Multihome

On Mon, 8 Oct 2007, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: If you went ahead and did this, the more specific route being announced by you on behalf of your customer would be more likely to attract traffic back to you. Prefix length is checked in the BGP route selection process before AS path length. Thi

Re: How Not to Multihome

On Oct 8, 2007, at 6:45 PM, Justin M. Streiner wrote: On Mon, 8 Oct 2007, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: It's not 'law' per se, but having the customer originate their own announcements is definitely the Right Way to go. That is not at all guaranteed. I never said it was. My experience, both

Re: Upstreams blocking /24s? (was Re: How Not to Multihome)

On Mon, 8 Oct 2007, Jon Lewis wrote: adopted /24 as the cutoff point. If you make the cutoff point smaller, what is the new point... /26? /32? Anything longer than /24 is unlikely to propogate far on the internet. You can all check your filters to see. I just checked mine, and neither L

Re: IPv6 routes, was: How Not to Multihome

On 10/8/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Wouldn't resources still be an issue. Since the address space is so much > larger wouldn't the 235k v6 routes take up more than 4 times the router > memory? Keegan, According to Cisco's product feature pages IPv6 routes take up twice as

Re: How Not to Multihome

On Oct 8, 2007, at 6:19 PM, Justin M. Streiner wrote: On Mon, 8 Oct 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That brings up an interesing point. My biggest fear was that one of my other customers could possible be closer to me that the ISP that provides the primary link and it would cause them to fa

Re: Upstreams blocking /24s? (was Re: How Not to Multihome)

On Mon, 8 Oct 2007, Justin M. Streiner wrote: As far as allowing prefixes longer than a /24, that decision was made when the Internet was considerably smaller than it is now, and many networks adopted /24 as the cutoff point. If you make the cutoff point smaller, what is the new point... /26

Re: Upstreams blocking /24s? (was Re: How Not to Multihome)

On Mon, 8 Oct 2007, David Conrad wrote: Others have indicated that such filters (assuming they exist) will not last in the face of paying customers presenting longer than /24 prefixes for routing. Specifically, that ISPs will relax their filters (allowing longer than /24) in order to get the

Re: Upstreams blocking /24s? (was Re: How Not to Multihome)

--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Oct 8, 2007, at 2:48 PM, Scott Weeks wrote: > However, if it's less than a /24 it won't get very far as most > upstreams block prefixes longer than a /24. I'm curious: a couple of people have indicated they do not believe this to be the case. Anybody have an

Re: How Not to Multihome

On Mon, 8 Oct 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: please elaborate. My knowledge of IPv6 is admittedly lacking, but I always assumed that the routing tables would be much larger if the internet were to convert from IPv4 due to the sheer number of networks available. Not many networks are pushing

Re: IPv6 routes, was: How Not to Multihome

Mike Leber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 10/08/2007 07:36:56 PM: > > On Mon, 8 Oct 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > I'm really interested to see what happens when we start filling those same > > routers with ipv6 routes. > > Well, IPv6 prefixes will eventually be some number between the total

Re: How Not to Multihome

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > please elaborate. My knowledge of IPv6 is admittedly lacking, but I > always assumed that the routing tables would be much larger if the > internet were to convert from IPv4 due to the sheer number of networks > available. > Currently The IPv6 DFZ is 970 routes fro

Re: Upstreams blocking /24s? (was Re: How Not to Multihome)

On Mon, 8 Oct 2007 16:06:52 -0700 David Conrad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi, > > On Oct 8, 2007, at 2:48 PM, Scott Weeks wrote: > > However, if it's less than a /24 it won't get very far as most > > > upstreams block prefixes longer than a /24. > > I'm curious: a couple of people have ind

Re: IPv6 routes, was: How Not to Multihome

On Mon, 8 Oct 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I'm really interested to see what happens when we start filling those same > routers with ipv6 routes. Well, IPv6 prefixes will eventually be some number between the total number of ASes in use (which represents the number of networks that can affor

Re: How Not to Multihome

8/2007 06:49 PM To [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc Randy Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, nanog , [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Justin M. Streiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject Re: How Not to Multihome [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > I'm really interested to see what happens when we start

Upstreams blocking /24s? (was Re: How Not to Multihome)

Hi, On Oct 8, 2007, at 2:48 PM, Scott Weeks wrote: However, if it's less than a /24 it won't get very far as most upstreams block prefixes longer than a /24. I'm curious: a couple of people have indicated they do not believe this to be the case. Anybody have any hard data on what filters a

Re: How Not to Multihome

PM > > > To > "Justin M. Streiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > cc > nanog > Subject > Re: How Not to Multihome > > > > > > > > > >> It's not 'law' per se, but having the customer orig

Re: How Not to Multihome

On Mon, 8 Oct 2007, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: It's not 'law' per se, but having the customer originate their own announcements is definitely the Right Way to go. That is not at all guaranteed. I never said it was. My experience, both in my previous life as the operator of a regional ISP a

Re: How Not to Multihome

"Patrick W. Gilmore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/08/2007 06:16 PM To nanog cc "Patrick W. Gilmore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject Re: How Not to Multihome On Oct 8, 2007, at 5:55 PM, Justin M. Streiner wrote: > On Mon, 8 Oct 2007, [E

Re: How Not to Multihome

I'm really interested to see what happens when we start filling those same routers with ipv6 routes. Randy Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/08/2007 06:10 PM To "Justin M. Streiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cc nanog Subject Re: How Not to Multi

Re: How Not to Multihome

On Mon, 8 Oct 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That brings up an interesing point. My biggest fear was that one of my other customers could possible be closer to me that the ISP that provides the primary link and it would cause them to favor the backup link because of AS path. I think they are

Re: How Not to Multihome

On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 05:43:03PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I have a client that wants us to advertise an IP block assigned by another > ISP. I know that the best practice is to have them request an AS number > from ARIN and peer with us, etc. However, I cannot find any information >

Re: How Not to Multihome

(office) 609.670.2149 (cell) [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Keeping People and Information Connected® http://www.availability.sungard.com "Wayne E. Bouchard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 10/08/2007 05:53 PM To [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc nanog , [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sub

Re: How Not to Multihome

On Oct 8, 2007, at 5:55 PM, Justin M. Streiner wrote: On Mon, 8 Oct 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have a client that wants us to advertise an IP block assigned by another ISP. I know that the best practice is to have them request an AS number from ARIN and peer with us, etc. However, I

Re: How Not to Multihome

TECTED] cc nanog Subject Re: How Not to Multihome On Mon, 8 Oct 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I have a client that wants us to advertise an IP block assigned by another > ISP. I know that the best practice is to have them request an AS number > from ARIN and peer with us, etc. H

Re: How Not to Multihome

> It's not 'law' per se, but having the customer originate their own > announcements is definitely the Right Way to go. it is interesting, and worrysome, to consider this in light of likely growth in the routing table (ref ipv4 free pool run out discussion) and vendors' inability to handle large

Re: How Not to Multihome

On Mon, 8 Oct 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have a client that wants us to advertise an IP block assigned by another ISP. I know that the best practice is to have them request an AS number from ARIN and peer with us, etc. However, I cannot find any information that states as law. Does any

Re: How Not to Multihome

Slightly different approach... Needing to multihome is justification for requesting an ASN. Is this strictly necessary? No. You can source the block on his behalf but that creates various routing inconsistancies. There are other even more unpleasant ways of doing this that are perfectly feasible.

Re: How Not to Multihome

On Oct 8, 2007, at 5:43 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have a client that wants us to advertise an IP block assigned by another ISP. I know that the best practice is to have them request an AS number from ARIN and peer with us, etc. However, I cannot find any information that states as

Re: How Not to Multihome

--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have a client that wants us to advertise an IP block assigned by another ISP. I know that the best practice is to have them request an AS number from ARIN and peer with us, etc. However, I cannot find any information that states as law. Does anyone know of a

How Not to Multihome

I have a client that wants us to advertise an IP block assigned by another ISP. I know that the best practice is to have them request an AS number from ARIN and peer with us, etc. However, I cannot find any information that states as law. Does anyone know of a document or RFC that states thi