On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 3:50 AM, Matthew Petach mpet...@netflight.com wrote:
I've outlawed the use of multihop eBGP for load-sharing here; when we get
multiple links off the same router to a peer or upstream, they are configured
with multipath. We've got hundreds of BGP sessions across the
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 1:10 AM, Doug Lane lan...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 3:50 AM, Matthew Petach mpet...@netflight.com wrote:
I've outlawed the use of multihop eBGP for load-sharing here; when we get
multiple links off the same router to a peer or upstream, they are configured
If nothing else by the time this deployment is finished I will surely have
become extremely cynical. Now reading through peoples answers, I think the
general consensus is that
I would be giving too much control to provider A in the scenario I suggested
below. So as someone mentioned they
On 10/11/2009 09:52, a...@baklawasecrets.com wrote:
3) Arrange for PI space and ASN myself, so become an LIR through RIPE.
You don't need to become a LIR to get PI space and an ASN.
Do I really lose a lot by asking Level3 or GBLX to get the PI and ASN
for me?
You lose relatively little.
On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 18:15:09 -0500
David Ulevitch dav...@everydns.net wrote:
On 11/9/09 6:06 PM, Alex Balashov wrote:
Anything else is COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE. I don't understand how or
why this could possibly be controversial.
Because some people want the ability and choice to block
When the conficker worms phones home to one of the 50,000 potential
domains names it computes each day, there are a lot of IT folks out
there that wish their local resolver would simply reject those DNS
requests so that infected machines in their network fail to phone
home.
To
On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 06:15:09PM -0500,
David Ulevitch dav...@everydns.net wrote
a message of 18 lines which said:
When the conficker worms phones home to one of the 50,000 potential
domains names it computes each day, there are a lot of IT folks out
there that wish their local resolver
AfNOG-11 and AfriNIC-12: Meetings 23 May-4 June, 2010
The African Network Operators' Group (AfNOG) and the African Network
Information Centre (AfriNIC) are pleased to announce that the 11th AfNOG
Meeting and the AfriNIC-12 Meeting would be held in Kigali, Rwanda
during May June 2010.
About the
When the conficker worms phones home to one of the 50,000 potential
domains names it computes each day, there are a lot of IT folks out
there that wish their local resolver would simply reject those DNS
requests so that infected machines in their network fail to phone
home.
That's an
On 11/10/09 9:04 AM, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
When the conficker worms phones home to one of the 50,000 potential
domains names it computes each day, there are a lot of IT folks out
there that wish their local resolver would simply reject those DNS
requests so that infected machines in their
On 11/10/09 8:05 AM, John Peach wrote:
On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 18:15:09 -0500
David Ulevitchdav...@everydns.net wrote:
On 11/9/09 6:06 PM, Alex Balashov wrote:
Anything else is COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE. I don't understand how or
why this could possibly be controversial.
Because some people
Howdy,
If you have several transit providers connected to your network and much of
your traffic is generally directed by the BGP tiebreaker (i.e. lowest IP
address) is there a way, without specifying on a per-prefix basis to prefer the
tie breaker winner slightly less often? I don't want to
Isn't Route Science EOL?
Jeff
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 1:31 PM, Drew Weaver drew.wea...@thenap.com wrote:
Howdy,
If you have several transit providers connected to your network and much of
your traffic is generally directed by the BGP tiebreaker (i.e. lowest IP
address) is there a way,
Sure, it still works however (for now).
-Drew
-Original Message-
From: jeffrey.l...@gmail.com [mailto:jeffrey.l...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
Jeffrey Lyon
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 1:34 PM
To: Drew Weaver
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: BGP Traffic Engineering question
Isn't Route
Greetings!
By the way, Jeffrey, by the 24th of October, when you posted the information
that the RBN is located in our networks we couldn't even know about any
malware redirectors on our clients resources -
http://www.stopbadware.org/reports/asn/44571. I'm trying to solve the Google
SB issue
Kanak,
NANOG moderators have requested this conversation go off list.
Jeff
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 1:50 PM, noc acrino noc.akr...@gmail.com wrote:
Greetings!
By the way, Jeffrey, by the 24th of October, when you posted the information
that the RBN is located in our networks we couldn't even
We use multipath setups for our EIGRP and iBGP configurations for our
internal routing as well. Although for larger networks iBGP multipath
might be of use due to memory limitations on a lot of devices.
Doug Lane wrote:
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 3:50 AM, Matthew Petach mpet...@netflight.com wrote:
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009, Drew Weaver wrote:
If you have several transit providers connected to your network and much
of your traffic is generally directed by the BGP tiebreaker (i.e. lowest
IP address) is there a way, without specifying on a per-prefix basis to
prefer the tie breaker winner
Aaron Hopkins wrote:
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009, Drew Weaver wrote:
If you have several transit providers connected to your network and much
of your traffic is generally directed by the BGP tiebreaker (i.e.
lowest
IP address) is there a way, without specifying on a per-prefix basis to
prefer the
a...@baklawasecrets.com wrote:
Actually thinking about this, I still need to understand the
implications of not taking a full routing table to my setup. So what
is the likely impact going to be if I take partial instead of full
routing table. Would appreciate any feedback on this. My
I've decided to get transit from provider B independently of A, so I don't
create a conflict of interest as mentioned below. However I think that I will
have to use provider A's dark fibre network to connect to both peerings.
Provider A tells me that they will use different routes and
Stef Walter wrote:
In this day of and age of wild-west, cowboy attitudes between some of
the biggest players on the Internet, does protecting against these
problems require a routing device that can handle multiple full routing
tables? It would seem so...
It has been routinely observed in
It has been routinely observed in nanog presentations that settlement
free providers by their nature miss a few prefixes that well connected
transit purchasing ISPs carry.
just trying to understand what you mean,
o no transit-free provider actually has all (covering) prefixes needed
to
I would have thought that this lesson would still be fresh in the
minds of people, as we just passed 256K routes a little while ago
and broke a whole bunch of Catalyst 6500/7600 SUP720-3B's (etc).
I guess the pain isn't as memorable as I thought.
Not all of us forgot... I remember the day
24 matches
Mail list logo
