Jared Mauch wrote on 1/28/14 10:11 PM:
192.168.0.1 has a rule that says send UDP/53 packets I process to 172.16.0.1.
Since i'm outside it's NAT, the rule ends up taking the source IP, which
isn't part of it's NAT set, and ends up copying my source IP into the
packet, then forwards it to
Hi,
Jared Mauch wrote on 1/28/14 9:03 PM:
I'd rather share some data and how others can observe this to determine how
we can approach a fix. Someone spoofing your IP address out some other
carrier is something you may be interested to know about, even if you have a
non-spoofing network.
On 14-01-28 11:08 AM, Alexander Bochmann wrote:
...on Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 10:37:14AM +0100, Octavio Alfageme wrote:
network, but we are starting to need a better inventory of services and
network
resources and better troubleticketing procedures. We can not afford
acquiring
For the
I am seeking some feedback/help with my BGP configuration. I am peering with
two providers level3 and tw. Unfortunately all of my address spaces are
preferring the route over tw rather than level3. I have tried Prepending my AS
and the carriers AS to the path on the tw side and I see those
How are you announcing your address space now?
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 12:32 PM, Joseph Jenkins
j...@breathe-underwater.com wrote:
I am seeking some feedback/help with my BGP configuration. I am peering with
two providers level3 and tw. Unfortunately all of my address spaces are
preferring
I am announcing two separate /24s. 8.37.93.0 and 207.114.212.0.
Joe
On Jan 29, 2014, at 4:21 AM, Sasa Ristic ristic.s...@gmail.com wrote:
How are you announcing your address space now?
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 12:32 PM, Joseph Jenkins
j...@breathe-underwater.com wrote:
I am seeking some
Perhaps L3 is preferring the routes it hears from TW over the ones it hears
from you. Perhaps there is a community string you can attach to your
announcements to one or both providers which can help you further manipulate
what they do with your routes ...
-Original Message-
From: Joseph
Another thing to keep in mind that some providers will use local pref. as well
for traffic engineering,
Looking at the TW Telecom Community strings, it would appear that they do...
http://www.onesc.net/communities/as4323/
http://www.onesc.net/communities/as3356/
Try using the communities to
It is likely that level3 is aggregating your route, but tw can't. Longest match
wins.
--
Jakob Heitz.
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 03:32:17 -0800
From: Joseph Jenkins j...@breathe-underwater.com
I am seeking some feedback/help with my BGP configuration. I am peering with
two providers level3
According to telnet://route-server.twtelecom.net and
http://lookingglass.level3.net/bgp/lg_bgp_main.php BGP is working as
designed. Your single prepend on one prefix with TWTC causes a slight
preference for LVL3. Add another prepend if you want to further balance
your ingress load away from TWTC.
NTT-AT presented their optical bypass products at LINX81, seems like they
might do what you want:
http://www.ntt-at.com/product/optical-switch/
I haven't used them myself.
Aled
On 27 January 2014 19:26, Keyser, Philip pkey...@fibertech.com wrote:
Looking for something similar to this.
Is it best practice to have the internet facing BGP router's peering ip (or for
that matter any key gateway or security appliance) use a statically configured
address or use EUI-64 auto config?
I have seen comments on both sides and am leaning to EUI-64 (except for the
VIP's like the
On Jan 29, 2014, at 12:35 PM, Philip Lavine source_ro...@yahoo.com wrote:
Is it best practice to have the internet facing BGP router's peering ip (or
for that matter any key gateway or security appliance) use a statically
configured address or use EUI-64 auto config?
I have seen
On 29/01/2014 17:35, Philip Lavine wrote:
Is it best practice to have the internet facing BGP router's peering ip
(or for that matter any key gateway or security appliance) use a
statically configured address or use EUI-64 auto config?
how are you going to set up the bgp session from the
Hi,
Is it best practice to have the internet facing BGP router's peering ip (or
for that matter any key gateway or security appliance) use a statically
configured address or use EUI-64 auto config?
I have seen comments on both sides and am leaning to EUI-64 (except for the
VIP's like
On Wed, 29 Jan 2014, Nick Hilliard wrote:
On 29/01/2014 17:35, Philip Lavine wrote:
Is it best practice to have the internet facing BGP router's peering ip
(or for that matter any key gateway or security appliance) use a
statically configured address or use EUI-64 auto config?
how are you
Agreed,
We do a /64 allocation which is reserved for each point to point link, but then
subnet it to a /126 for actual use. That way we've got a /64 available if it's
ever needed, while keeping the broadcast domain small for now when we don't.
JJ Stonebraker
IP Network Engineering
Grande
There are tradeoffs in both directions.
Personally I think administrative simplicity wins over security through
obscurity, so I recommend each organization pick a random pair of static
addresses and use those two addresses for all of their point to point links.
e.g. If your prefix for a given
If only there was a best practices doc to help here... Oh wait there is!
http://bcop.nanog.org/index.php/IPv6_Subnetting
It doesn't specifically mention BGP so as to be protocol agnostic but
does recommend allocating a /64 and using a /126 or /127.
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Philip
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 6:32 AM, Joseph Jenkins
j...@breathe-underwater.com wrote:
I am seeking some feedback/help with my BGP configuration.
I am peering with two providers level3 and tw. Unfortunately all of
my address spaces are preferring the route over tw rather than level3.
Hi Joe,
I
I am looking for a clueful networking contact at Tata communications as
the IP noc is not being terribly helpful. When i turn up advertisements
to you I suddenly become unreachable to large swaths of the Internet.
Please contact me off-list
Thanks in advance
-Ryan
This sort of local-pref default seems to be a common practice with
backbones. It's very annoying. I wish they'd stop.
Most of their customers would actually be very unhappy if they stopped. This
local-pref default prevents many many problems and in the vast majority of
cases provides the
Le 29/01/2014 20:34, Owen DeLong a écrit :
This sort of local-pref default seems to be a common practice with
backbones. It's very annoying. I wish they'd stop.
Most of their customers would actually be very unhappy if they stopped. This
local-pref default prevents many many problems and in
Apologies for a RIPE question on NANOG, although I believe this issue will
soon enough to be relevant for the ARIN region as well.
I had a customer ask if we could provide him with BGP such that he could be
multihomed. He already has 128 IP addresses from another ISP. Obviously a
/25 is a non go
On Wed, 29 Jan 2014, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
I had a customer ask if we could provide him with BGP such that he could be
multihomed. He already has 128 IP addresses from another ISP. Obviously a
/25 is a non go for multihoming as everyone are going to ignore his route.
Not necessarily
Interesting question, and to add to that, I have another one. With the
rapid depletion of IPv4 address space from ARIN, are there private
end-user companies that are leasing off unused portions of their assigned
address blocks to other private and unrelated end user companies? Does
that cause
* Baldur Norddahl
Apologies for a RIPE question on NANOG, although I believe this issue
will soon enough to be relevant for the ARIN region as well.
Relevant perhaps, but as the policies differ, so may the correct answers...
I had a customer ask if we could provide him with BGP such that he
ARIN would like to share two items of information that may be of interest to
the community.
First, ARIN has recently begun to issue address space from its last contiguous
/8, 104.0.0.0 /8. The minimum allocation size for this /8 will be a /24. You
may wish to adjust any filters you have in
On 1/29/14, 14:01, Leslie Nobile wrote:
Additionally, ARIN has placed 23.128.0.0/10 in its reserves in accordance with the
policy Dedicated IPv4 block to facilitate IPv6 Deployment (NRPM 4.10). There
have been no allocations made from this block as of yet, however, once we do begin
issuing
rfc 6164
Hello,
Was wondering if anyone could share any experiences.
Prerequsites:
a.) reliable upstream provider with established peering.
b.) relatively acessible support staff.
c.) FreeBSD preferring but CentOS is ok...
any help would greatly be appreciated.
Cheers,
Carlos.
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 06:37:35PM -0500, Carlos Kamtha wrote:
b.) relatively acessible support staff.
Accessable for what? Hardware maintenance, or full-service outsourced
sysadmin assistance? What timezones, and what communication method?
(Also, there's AusNOG if you want to get local
Colleagues:
In partnership, the American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) and the
North American Network Operators Group (NANOG) will bring ARIN+NANOG on the
Road to San Diego, CA on Tuesday, February 25, 2014. The one day event
will be held at the Handerly Hotel Resort.
Please pass along
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 5:16 PM, Seth Mattinen se...@rollernet.us wrote:
On 1/29/14, 14:01, Leslie Nobile wrote:
Additionally, ARIN has placed 23.128.0.0/10 in its reserves in accordance
with the policy Dedicated IPv4 block to facilitate IPv6 Deployment (NRPM
4.10). There have been no
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 3:45 PM, Michael Braun (michbrau)
michb...@cisco.com wrote:
Does
that cause any problems where address space is being advertised from a
non-assigned AS?
how do you mean 'non-assigned' ?
perhaps you have an example in the routing system today you could point at?
Carlos,
Is this for Wan connectivity between where you're and Australia?
Best,
Nanda
-Original Message-
From: Carlos Kamtha [mailto:kam...@ak-labs.net]
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2014 5:08 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: looking for good AU dedicated server providers..
Hello,
In message
CAL9jLabq=CSJSv4hufv+LSJ4d2JBhLQPukDcX3gxtc6-1PZA=a...@mail.gmail.com
, Christopher Morrow writes:
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 5:16 PM, Seth Mattinen se...@rollernet.us wrote:
On 1/29/14, 14:01, Leslie Nobile wrote:
Additionally, ARIN has placed 23.128.0.0/10 in its reserves in
On Thursday, January 30, 2014 07:17:11 AM Mark Andrews
wrote:
Or you could just accept that there needs to be more
routing slots as the number of businesses on the net
increases. I can see some interesting anti-cartel law
suits happening if ISP's refuse to accept /28's from
this block.
I
38 matches
Mail list logo
