MikroTik RouterOS is indeed based on Linux, however I believe they rolled their
own MPLS stack.
Last time I looked, the mpls-linux project over at SourceForge was incomplete
and slow - I have no idea if this has changed at all recently however.
Edward Dore
Freethought Internet
-
MPLS and VPLS on RouterOS works very well.
--
Eduardo Schoedler
Em 29/08/2012, às 12:39, Edward J. Dore
edward.d...@freethought-internet.co.uk escreveu:
MikroTik RouterOS is indeed based on Linux, however I believe they rolled
their own MPLS stack.
Last time I looked, the mpls-linux
Greetings all.
In practice, We've always advertised our space all the way down to /24's
but also the aggregate block (the /20 or the /21). Just so there was still
reachability to our network in the event that someone made the foolish
mistake of filtering lets say prefixes smaller /23...
On 29 Aug 2012, at 20:28, Nick Olsen n...@flhsi.com wrote:
In practice, We've always advertised our space all the way down to /24's
but also the aggregate block (the /20 or the /21). Just so there was still
reachability to our network in the event that someone made the foolish
mistake of
[...]
Please, unless you really know why you need to do otherwise, just
originate your aggregates.
+1
On Wed, 29 Aug 2012, Nick Olsen wrote:
Anyways, I've always thought that was standard practice. And its never been
a problem. Until we brought up peering with level 3..
No...I'd call that global table pollution. In general, there's no reason
you should announce your CIDRs and all their /24
--- On Wed, 8/29/12, Nick Olsen n...@flhsi.com wrote:
From: Nick Olsen n...@flhsi.com
Subject: Level 3 BGP Advertisements
To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Wednesday, August 29, 2012, 12:28 PM
Greetings all.
In practice, We've always advertised our space all the way
down to /24's
but also the
Thanks for the input Jon.
I should note that is exactly what we are doing. The /24's are actually
tagged with the advertise to customers, prepend to peers community.
Nick Olsen
Network Operations (855) FLSPEED x106
From: Jon Lewis jle...@lewis.org
No, that's not standard practice. I do this exact thing with Level 3 and have
been for many many many years. Whoever is telling you this must be green.
I would recommend adding the no-export community to your more specific routes
if you can so as to be a good steward of the ever growing
I hear you guys, It's done that way for a bit of traffic steering.
If I could get away with just the aggregates I would, Trust me.
Nick Olsen
Network Operations (855) FLSPEED x106
From: Berry Mobley be...@gadsdenst.org
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 2:56 PM, Nick Olsen n...@flhsi.com wrote:
I hear you guys, It's done that way for a bit of traffic steering.
If I could get away with just the aggregates I would, Trust me.
Nick Olsen
Network Operations (855) FLSPEED x106
My more specifics are advertise to customers only (not supposed to be
visible to peers), which was how I found that TWT had transitioned from
Level3 peer to customer...and I'm only going 1 bit more specific (not down
to the /24s) for TE purposes.
On Wed, 29 Aug 2012, Nick Olsen wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Blake Dunlap [mailto:iki...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 4:00 PM
To: n...@flhsi.com
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Level 3 BGP Advertisements
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 2:56 PM, Nick Olsen n...@flhsi.com wrote:
I hear you guys, It's done that
If you have provided addressing from your aggregate to your customer and
they have indicated that they are multi-homing, you need to preserve their
prefix-length in your outbound advertisements, or the redundant provider
carries the inbound traffic. Is this also frowned on? To me, this is
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Nick Olsen n...@flhsi.com wrote:
In practice, We've always advertised our space all the way down to /24's
but also the aggregate block (the /20 or the /21). Just so there was still
reachability to our network in the event that someone made the foolish
mistake
- Original Message -
From: William Herrin b...@herrin.us
That's very poor practice. Each announcements costs *other people* the
better part of $10k per year.
That sounds ... really really big to me, Bill. Do you have a source
for that cust-accounting number?
Cheers,
-- jra '2 or 3
Sorry for the top post...
Not necessarily a Level 3 problem but;
We are announcing our /19 network as one block via BGP through ATT, not broken
up into smaller announcements.
Earlier in the year I started receiving complaints that some of our client
systems were having problems connecting to
On 29-08-12 22:55, STARNES, CURTIS wrote:
We are announcing our /19 network as one block via BGP through ATT, not
broken up into smaller announcements.
Earlier in the year I started receiving complaints that some of our client
systems were having problems connecting to different web sites.
On 12-08-29 04:55 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
- Original Message -
From: William Herrin b...@herrin.us
That's very poor practice. Each announcements costs *other people* the
better part of $10k per year.
That sounds ... really really big to me, Bill. Do you have a source
for that
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 4:55 PM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
That's very poor practice. Each announcements costs *other people* the
better part of $10k per year.
That sounds ... really really big to me, Bill. Do you have a source
for that cust-accounting number?
Hi Jay,
The better
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 1:55 PM, STARNES, CURTIS
curtis.star...@granburyisd.org wrote:
Sorry for the top post...
Not necessarily a Level 3 problem but;
We are announcing our /19 network as one block via BGP through ATT, not
broken up into smaller announcements.
Earlier in the year I
I have ended up excluding .0 and .255 from our DHCP pools in larger than /24
subents due to this exact issue in the past... It is a PITA. I wish people
would update filters.
John
Sent from my mobile device, so please excuse any horrible misspellings.
On Aug 29, 2012, at 18:30, james machado hvgeekwt...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 1:55 PM, STARNES, CURTIS
curtis.star...@granburyisd.org wrote:
Sorry for the top post...
Not necessarily a Level 3 problem
(my apologies to those receiving a second copy of this. The first copy ran
into a mail filtering issue and didn't go out to most of the list)
At the Vancouver meeting in June, I presented a preliminary proposal for a
NANOG education initiative, which would put together a NANOG-created
Trendy name for the new racetrack/event venue outside austin.
Does anyone know how one might get connectivity there? I figure there
must be a few folks here prepping the place for the upcoming formula
1.
The place seems to be a black hole to all the usual suspects.
tia,
chris
--
Sent from my
This is what happens when old network folk don't learn about new convention or
new network / security folk read old books.
And it happens alot!
Although not as common as blanket blocking of ICMP .
--
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
STARNES, CURTIS
Hi Harry,
You sent your message direct to Curtis in addition to Nanog. Looks
like his mailer acted on the direct one, not the list-relayed message.
The message from Curtis' mailer implies that it's not a blanket
challenge. Maybe you just discovered a problem with your mail server
that he can
In practice, We've always advertised our space all the way down to /24's
^ really bad anti-social and disgusting
28 matches
Mail list logo
