Some facts:
RIPE is an operator forum, comparable to NANOG, APRICOT, AFNOG,
(Strictly speaking RIPE pre-dates all of the others if one disregards
that NANOG started as the NSFnet regional network meetings. ;-)
RIPE NCC is a Regional Internet Registry, comparable to ARIN, APNIC, LACNIC,
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Daniel Karrenberg
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
RIPE NCC policies and procedures are *extremely* careful not to prescribe
any inter-domain routing practises and go out of their way to stress that
operators have the authority about that.
RIPE also makes general
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Rodney Joffe
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
For those who care, based on responses and some analysis, it appears
that very few networks do follow the ripe-229 recommendations regarding
golden networks, including, oddly enough, parts of RIPE itself.
Did you mean parts of
Roland Perry wrote:
Did you mean parts of RIPE-NCC?
Sorry to be so pedantic, but this thread started off with a mild
diversion caused by confusion between RIPE and RIPE-NCC.
You're right - it is a little confusing. According to their joined
about pages, RIPE-NCC provides the administrative
On Fri, 3 Sep 2004, Rodney Joffe wrote:
On Sep 3, 2004, at 10:46 AM, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
Given Network A, which has golden network content behind it as described
by the RIPE paper (root and tld data), if the network has some combination
of events that result in all of their
--On 02 September 2004 16:09 -0700 John Bender [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
This would not be as problematic if dampening could be applied to a path
rather than a prefix, since an alternate could then be selected. But
since this would require modifications to core aspects of BGP (and
additional
On Sat, 4 Sep 2004, Alex Bligh wrote:
if in a heavily plural anycast domain prefix route changes are more
common than normal routes (albeit without - dampening aside -
affecting reachability), does this mean route dampening
disproportionately harms such routes?
This
Bill Woodcock wrote:
On Fri, 3 Sep 2004, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
the logic seems rather irrefutable:
- as a rule, shorter prefixes are more important and/or more stable
than long ones
- so we dampen long prefixes more aggressively
- the root DNS servers tend to live in
--- Petri Helenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
Pay me to treat your prefixes more nicely? 1/2 :-)
Isn't that the difference between transit and peering?
Does anyone dampen people who are paying them?
=
David Barak
-fully RFC 1925 compliant-
On Thu, 2 Sep 2004, Rodney Joffe wrote:
On Sep 2, 2004, at 2:58 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
If you don't implement ripe-229, why not?
because the golden address space stuff is stupid
OK. I'll bite...
Given Network A, which has golden network content behind it as described by
the RIPE
On Sep 3, 2004, at 10:46 AM, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
Given Network A, which has golden network content behind it as
described by
the RIPE paper (root and tld data), if the network has some
combination of
events that result in all of their announcements to you being
dampened by you,
your users
On Thu, 2 Sep 2004, Rodney Joffe wrote:
You are absolutely right in suggesting that .foo has to get its act
together. You may even tell your users that. But you'll be telling
every single one of them, because every single one of them is going to
attempt to resolve .foo domain names during
Hi Steve,
Steve Gibbard wrote:
On Thu, 2 Sep 2004, Rodney Joffe wrote:
snip
So, it seems to me that there are three questions here:
What is critical infrastructure? DNS for which domains? What about other
services? Google? Hotmail or Yahoo? The answer to this presumably
varies considerably
Hello folks,
This is actually NANOG applicable, despite referring to RIPE... ;-)
How many of you who manage BGP speaking networks implement the RIPE
best practices regarding dampening parameters for so-called golden
networks?
See: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/routeflap-damping.html
and
well
RIPE is the RIR for Europe. RIPE-229 is, from my viewpoint, arbitrary
and capricious.
the root servers are -ONE- set of interesting servers. what about the
web sites that point
to these important documents? or the time servers, or my NOC
monitoring machines?
The idea of an
On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 04:06:12AM +1200, Bill Manning wrote:
well
RIPE is the RIR for Europe. RIPE-229 is, from my viewpoint, arbitrary
and capricious.
the root servers are -ONE- set of interesting servers. what about the
web sites that point
to these important documents? or
Bill,
I agree with your general line of reasoning, but would likely characterize
RIPE as an RIR *and* operator forum... formulating and reviewing
recommendations on operational matters make some sense as a result.
As to the particular set of prefixes, there's a great question as to
On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 08:44:34AM -0700, Rodney Joffe wrote:
See: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/routeflap-damping.html
and
http://www.qorbit.net/documents/golden-networks (thanks, Steve!)
If you do, what parameters do you use, or do you not dampen the golden
networks at all?
If you
Is bgp dampening really necessary anymore? Obviously we should
dampen people that flap a high number of times in an hour, but the vast
majority of the internet operates in a state where dampening causes more
pain than benifit, imho.
I agree with your line of reasoning. However, if you
If you don't implement ripe-229, why not?
because the golden address space stuff is stupid
I don't fundamentally have a problem with any of it. 4 flaps before you
start dampening in a time window is a lot of flapping.
you may want to look at
http://rip.psg.com/~randy/030226.apnic-flap.pdf
randy
On 2-sep-04, at 23:58, Randy Bush wrote:
If you don't implement ripe-229, why not?
because the golden address space stuff is stupid
Maybe so, but the logic seems rather irrefutable:
- as a rule, shorter prefixes are more important and/or more stable
than long ones
- so we dampen long prefixes
Hi Randy,
On Sep 2, 2004, at 2:58 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
If you don't implement ripe-229, why not?
because the golden address space stuff is stupid
OK. I'll bite...
Given Network A, which has golden network content behind it as
described by the RIPE paper (root and tld data), if the network has
because the golden address space stuff is stupid
Given Network A, which has golden network content behind it as
described by the RIPE paper
i don't care. if i had spare time on my hands, i would damp them
more quickly for stupidity and greed. again, golden network space
is a stupid idea.
On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 00:15:42 +0200
Iljitsch van Beijnum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But then again, dampening really doesn't buy you much as it only
applies to routes that are flapping beyond the link to the next AS. So if you have
an instable link somewhere, you can't dampen that
On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 10:03:26AM +1200, Randy Bush wrote:
I don't fundamentally have a problem with any of it. 4 flaps before you
start dampening in a time window is a lot of flapping.
you may want to look at
http://rip.psg.com/~randy/030226.apnic-flap.pdf
I've been
26 matches
Mail list logo
