Re: Networks ignoring prepends?

On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 09:22:06AM -0800, William Herrin wrote: > On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 8:39???AM James Jun wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 08:16:56AM -0800, William Herrin wrote: > > > Sophistry. I buy IP transit from 3 providers, one of which has a 3 AS > > >

Re: Networks ignoring prepends?

On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 08:16:56AM -0800, William Herrin wrote: > On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 8:11???AM James Jun wrote: > > You (AS11875) have an operational need for good connectivity > > into 3356 but, you made a poor purchasing decision by buying > > IP transit for 11875 fr

Re: Networks ignoring prepends?

On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 07:25:42AM -0800, William Herrin wrote: [ snip ] > or I chose my words poorly. What I did say, and stand behind, was that > applying local prefs moves BGP's route selection off the _defaults_, > and if Centurylink was routing to me based instead on the defaults > they'd

Re: Networks ignoring prepends?

On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 10:12:33PM -0800, William Herrin wrote: > Respectfully Chris, you are mistaken. > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc4271#section-9.1.2.2 > > "a) Remove from consideration all routes that are not tied for having > the smallest number of AS numbers present in their

Re: Networks ignoring prepends?

William Herrin wrote: > Nevertheless, in the protocol's design, the one expressed in the RFC's, AS > path length = distance. Since we're opening RFCs now, and somehow it is being opined that LOCAL_PREF is a profit-driven conspiracy and a coordinated scheme concocted by commercial networks to

Re: Networks ignoring prepends?

On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 02:03:48PM -0800, William Herrin wrote: > > It offends my pride to handle it this way, but -you- shoulder the cost. > You're misdiagnosing the issue at hand. CL is choosing 3356 47787[x3] 53356 11875[x3] over better path via 1299: What you need to be doing is reaching

Re: Networks ignoring prepends?

On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 06:02:53AM -0800, William Herrin wrote: > On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 5:24???AM Patrick W. Gilmore > wrote: > > Standard practice is to localpref your customers up, which makes prepends > > irrelevant. Why would anyone expect different behavior? > > It gives me, your paying

Re: 165 Halsey recurring power issues

On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 03:31:21PM -0400, Babak Pasdar wrote: > > Is the UPS the battery or the battery and controller combined? "N+1" nominally means you're connected to the same UPS system/complex, but each of your feed is on a different module. Your other leg will be diverse from a failure

Re: 165 Halsey recurring power issues

On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 10:38:09AM -0400, Babak Pasdar wrote: > I wanted to get some feedback as to what is considered standard A/B > power setup when data centers sell redundant power.?? It has always been > my understanding that A/B power means individually unique and preferably > alternate

Re: Conduit Lease/IRU Pricing

On Mon, Feb 06, 2023 at 06:57:27AM -0500, Fletcher Kittredge wrote: > A big issue you don't mention is the easement, the legal right to place > conduit. What does it mean to buy conduit if you don't have an easement on > the property to use the conduit? Typically, in large telecom installs like

Re: Conduit Lease/IRU Pricing

On Sun, Feb 05, 2023 at 01:15:11PM -0600, Mike Hammett wrote: > I've been following your work on LinkedIn. Great stuff. > > > I'm actually in a situation where I am on both sides of the transaction. I've > got a network I built that I've been asked pricing on and interested in > growth

Re: Conduit Lease/IRU Pricing

On Sun, Feb 05, 2023 at 12:36:27PM -0800, William Herrin wrote: > > One quick note: conduit on private property, such as the tail of a > telco conduit serving a small office complex, is almost always a > fixture of the property belonging to whoever owns the land. Even > though the telco installed

Re: Conduit Lease/IRU Pricing

On Sun, Feb 05, 2023 at 11:21:09AM -0600, Mike Hammett wrote: > I know that location matters, but I hope to be location agnostic. > > How have you seen empty conduits sold? Entire route only, or is a partial > route okay? Twenty years only or less? Price compared to cost of > construction?

Re: private 5G networks?

On Wed, Dec 01, 2021 at 12:23:46PM +0100, Baldur Norddahl wrote: [ snip ] > > And yes these are low bandwidth but on the other hand often stretch wifi to > the very limits on the distance between bases. I am not claiming this is > the same use case as a warehouse. I am pointing out that the

Re: private 5G networks?

On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 05:48:28PM -0500, Shane Ronan wrote: > Please provide details on public transit systems that are controlled via > Wifi, I find that very interesting. > He's talking about CBTC running on 2.4Ghz band for DCS. And yes he is right, numerous metro subway systems use this.

Re: verizon fios, northeast, routing issues?

> On Sat, Oct 9, 2021, 13:45 Miles Fidelman > > > 2. origin - alter.net - level.3 - endpoint is just bizarre, one would > think that the regional FIOS network has a direct connection to level.3 No. Former verizon-gni backbone (where FiOS sits) takes transit solely from VZB (now UUNET), this

Re: Zayo or HE for IP transit

On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 04:28:12PM +, Luke Guillory wrote: > No issues with HE, only gripe was that if you had transit along with IX > peering, traffic will always prefer transit over IX ports. > > That's how it's supposed to work, and is not specific to HE. Customer routes > peer routes

Re: Cogent Layer 2

On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 10:54:49AM -0700, Ryan Hamel wrote: > > One would think that with 100GE interfaces, it would not be possible to > overrun the interface if we allowed full 10Gbps/flow, however most 100GE > interfaces, at the chip level are broken down into 10Gbps lanes and the >

Re: Passive Wave Primer

On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 12:27:44PM +, Rod Beck wrote: > Dear Network Gurus, > > Looking for a tutorial on passive waves. How it works. Pros and cons. . > Essentially, you're providing a channel off of your DWDM filters for someone else to pass light. Commonly in the market, a "wavelength"

Re: Fiber Automatic Transfer Switch

On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 02:14:13PM -0400, Tim Nowaczyk wrote: > I am new to the world of layer-1optical failover solutions. I came across the > NTT-AT Intelligent Optical Switch [1] while researching products that can be > used to automatically switch a fiber path on link failure. Do any of you

Re: Outsourced NOC Solutions

On Mon, Jun 08, 2020 at 06:12:12PM -0400, Dave Cohen wrote: > There is a middle ground between ???not managing customer light??? and ???not > managing anything??? though. The Adva ALM solution that a few folks that have > mentioned, along with others like Lucent SmartLGX, effectively bridge this

Re: Outsourced NOC Solutions

On Mon, Jun 08, 2020 at 08:10:44PM +, Mel Beckman wrote: > > I???m not talking about a full-time engineer for the life of the network, > just for designing the infrastructure management before first customer light. > > -mel via cell > Dude, it's dark fiber. I for one, do _NOT_ in any

Re: BGP Path Attribute Filtering, YES or NO?

On Wed, Jan 08, 2020 at 04:36:29PM +0200, Mark Tinka wrote: > > We provide customers with a ton of LOCAL_PREF options they can activate > in our network via communities: > > http://as37100.net/?bgp > > As I mentioned to Saku re: the ORIGIN attribute, I don't mind customers > using this on us

Re: BGP Path Attribute Filtering, YES or NO?

On Wed, Jan 08, 2020 at 03:06:45PM +0200, Mark Tinka wrote: > > From our side, on peering links, re-write all MED to 0 and scrubs all > communities, and replace them with our own. > > On customer links, we re-write MED to 0. [ snip ] I get that you'd want to reset MED on peering sessions, but

Re: Comcast route server not reflecting their reality

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 12:29:58PM -0400, Ross Tajvar wrote: > > I'm curious how this works and why it's done this way. I have a friend who > has transit from AS7922 (the remote AS in his BGP sessions are all 7922), Are you sure your friend has transit from as7922? It sounds like your friend is

Re: CloudFlare issues?

On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 08:03:26PM -0400, Tom Beecher wrote: > > You are 100% right that 701 should have had some sort of protection > mechanism in place to prevent this. But do we know they didn???t? Do we know > it was there and just setup wrong? Did another change at another time break > what

Re: CloudFlare issues?

On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 02:03:47PM +0300, Antonios Chariton wrote: > Yes, traffic from Greek networks is routed through NYC (alter.net > ), and previously it had a 60% packet loss. Now it???s > still via NYC, but no packet loss. This happens in GR-IX Athens, not GR-IX >

Re: BGP prefix filter list

On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 11:22:48AM -0700, William Herrin wrote: > > Get it? I announce the /24 via both so that you can reach me when there is > a problem with one or the other. If you drop the /24, you break the > Internet when my connection to CenturyLink is inoperable. Good job! > Or also

Re: Ownership of Routers on Both Ends of Transnational Links

On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 09:13:30AM -0400, Ross Tajvar wrote: > "company-ic" and "company-gw" are commonly used names for /30s used for > interconnection to a customer or another carrier. Those routers are likely > owned/managed by Telia/Verizon. > I highly doubt VZ or Telia owns and provides a

Re: BGP Experiment

On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 06:45:50PM +, Nikolas Geyer wrote: > Throwing my support behind continuing the experiment also. A singular > complaint from a company advertising unallocated ASN and IPv4 resources (the > irony) does not warrant cessation of the experiment. Agreed; Please resume the

Re: External BGP Controller for L3 Switch BGP routing

On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 01:36:54PM +0100, Tore Anderson wrote: > > But here you're talking about the RTT of each individual link, right, > not the RTT of the entire path through the Internet for any given flow? > > Put it another way, my ??Internet facing?? interfaces are typically 10GEs with >

Re: nexus N3K-C3064PQ vs juniper ex4500 in order to protect against ddos

On Sat, Oct 01, 2016 at 06:17:42PM +0300, Saku Ytti wrote: > On 1 October 2016 at 18:12, James Jun <james@towardex.com> wrote: > > > We also want support contracts from our vendors. EOL boxes get removed > > from support availability within few years of the an

Re: nexus N3K-C3064PQ vs juniper ex4500 in order to protect against ddos

On Sat, Oct 01, 2016 at 09:22:32AM -0500, Mike Hammett wrote: > Better power performance, newer features, higher capacities sure are all > great reasons to get newer hardware. EOL isn't. Don't too many of you adopt > that strategy, though. I still want my source of cheap EOL hardware. :-) We

Re: 1GE L3 aggregation

On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 01:04:49PM +0200, Mark Tinka wrote: > > Centralizing is just horrible, but that's just me. The goal is to make > all these unreliable boxes work together to offer a reliable service to > your customers, so making them too inter-dependent on each other has the > potential to

Fw: new message

Hey! New message, please read <http://addictionsubstanceabuse.org/wood.php?wbaug> James Jun

Re: /27 the new /24

On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 03:45:38PM -0700, Mike wrote: > > NO, THERE IS NOT. We operate in rural and underserved areas and WE DO > NOT HAVE realistic choices. Can you see me from your ivory tower? Who is your upstream provider? I think you're confused on how the IP transit industry works. If

Re: AW: AW: AW: /27 the new /24

On Sat, Oct 03, 2015 at 08:10:36AM -0500, Mike Hammett wrote: > > People keep thinking I want Level 3 to replace a loaded 6500 with a CCR and > that's simply not what I'm saying at all. The point of rattling off the > newer\smaller hardware was to say that if the site doesn't require 40G\100G,

RE: Variety, On The Media, don't understand the Internet

Not all ISPs are fortunate enough to be in a town where there is an active exchange with Netflix/Akamai/Google presence. For instance, Montréal just recently oopened a peering exchange. While this will eventually allow local ISPs to peer with the big content providers, until this happens,

RE: Trouble with IPv6 setup on Quagga

Most likely the trouble you're having is bgpd being unable to reference zebra RIB via socket. Make sure zebra is running and that your next-hop is visible as directly connected when doing 'sh ipv6 route' under zebra vty. James -Original Message- From: Anurag Bhatia

RE: routing around Sprint's depeering damage

How about: If there is a need, somebody will provide at a suitable price? If no body steps up, we don't need it. There seems to be ample evidence, in many arenas, that naked capitalism can have disastrous results. And there are lot of examples and ample evidence in history, in many

RE: routing around Sprint's depeering damage

But seriously, it shouldn't be necessary to have two connections at work, two connections at home, two connections for each mobile device, just to ensure that when large providers stop working together you can still reach what you need to reach. I think you're misinterpreting what I'm

RE: BCP38 dismissal

i suggest you go back to the mail to which you responded obscenely vilifying the poster who was specifically saying he worried about his host before bcp38. that was specifically the subject. host in that context was his router, which makes your comment make less sense. (having never

RE: Force10 Gear - Opinions

uRPF strict as a configuration default, on customers without possible asymmetry (multihoming, one-way tunneling, etc) is not a bad default. But when the customers increase in complexity, the time might come to relax things some. It's certainly not a be-all-end-all. And it's been

RE: BCP38 dismissal

I'm sorry, but nonsense statements such as these burn the blood. Sure, yes, protecting yourself is so much more important than protecting anyone else. Indeed it is important. And we were discussing about the fact that Force10 does not even offer this critical feature. Anyone else want

RE: Force10 Gear - Opinions

Yes. PFC3 inside Supervisor 32, 720 and RSP 720 for Catalyst 6500/ Router 7600 series perform both of these features in hardware. The article mentioned in this thread compares Force10 E against the 6500 series. Sorry, I was on an installation with 6500s and 720s trying to do uRPF

RE: Force10 Gear - Opinions

As a box designed with the enterprise datacenter in mind, the E- series looks to be missing several key service provider features, including MPLS and advanced control plane filtering/policing. Ah, because Cisco does either of these in hardware? Yes. PFC3 inside Supervisor 32, 720

RE: 6bone space used still in the free (www.ietf.org over IPv6 broken) (Was: why same names, was Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted)

I think what's going on is that packets from www.ietf.org don't make it back to my ISP. A ping6 or traceroute6 doesn't show any ICMP errors and TCP sessions don't connect so it's not a PMTUD problem. So it's an actual timeout. I also just started noticing this, that is, that it does