Re: nested prefixes in Internet

On Mon, 21 Nov 2016, Victor Sudakov wrote: That's all correct from the point of view of the provider annoncing the /19 route, and should be their risk. My question was however from a different perspective. If AS333 receives a /19 from AS111 and a /24 from AS222 (where AS222's /24 is nested

Re: nested prefixes in Internet

Hopefully they would be flexible with this sort of policy under certain circumstances. I could see this as being somewhat problematic for mitigation providers, since longer mask preemption is a commonly used method to take on traffic for scrubbing, as well as customers potentially using a more

Re: nested prefixes in Internet

Niels Bakker wrote: > >I have reports that in case (2), some operators (e.g. Rostelecom) > >don't accept the /24 or even /23 prefix on the grounds that it is > >part of a larger /19 route already present in the routing table. > > > >Could they have a reason not to accept these more specific

Re: nested prefixes in Internet

* v...@mpeks.tomsk.su (Victor Sudakov) [Sun 20 Nov 2016, 03:07 CET]: I have reports that in case (2), some operators (e.g. Rostelecom) don't accept the /24 or even /23 prefix on the grounds that it is part of a larger /19 route already present in the routing table. Could they have a reason

Re: nested prefixes in Internet

Martin T wrote: > > let's assume that there is an ISP "A" operating in Europe region who > has /19 IPv4 allocation from RIPE. From this /19 they have leased /24 > to ISP "B" who is multi-homed. This means that ISP "B" would like to > announce this /24 prefix to ISP "A" and also to ISP "C". AFAIK

Re: nested prefixes in Internet

ruses. Luke Guillory therefore does not accept >> liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which >> arise as a result of e-mail transmission. . >> >> -----Original Message- >> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Marti

Re: nested prefixes in Internet

rtin T > Sent: Monday, October 24, 2016 7:06 AM > To: Matt Buford; Baldur Norddahl > Cc: nanog > Subject: Re: nested prefixes in Internet > > Thank you all for the replies! I'll go with the solution where "ISP A" > announces both /19 prefix and /24 prefix. >

RE: nested prefixes in Internet

] On Behalf Of Martin T Sent: Monday, October 24, 2016 7:06 AM To: Matt Buford; Baldur Norddahl Cc: nanog Subject: Re: nested prefixes in Internet Thank you all for the replies! I'll go with the solution where "ISP A" announces both /19 prefix and /24 prefix. Martin On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 1:1

Re: nested prefixes in Internet

Thank you all for the replies! I'll go with the solution where "ISP A" announces both /19 prefix and /24 prefix. Martin On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 1:16 AM, Matt Buford wrote: > On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 2:44 PM, Baldur Norddahl > wrote: > > >> Is

Re: nested prefixes in Internet

On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 2:44 PM, Baldur Norddahl wrote: > Is that a real problem? In my experience a /24 is honoured almost > universially. > Here's a real-world issue I ran into with this. In this case, it isn't that someone filtered /24s, but that they didn't have

Re: nested prefixes in Internet

Hi Solution B is what happens by default and requires no changes by any party. A, B and C just do what they would do in any transit relation. The default BGP shortest AS path length first algorithm will make sure that traffic is delivered correctly. Solution A requires that ISP A actively

Re: nested prefixes in Internet

Assuming that there is a PNI A<->C assumes facts not in evidence. Owen > On Oct 19, 2016, at 11:27 AM, Martin T wrote: > > Hi, > > I made a drawing of those two best solutions: http://i.imgur.com/7NQVgUH.png > > As much as I understand, both solutions require no special

Re: nested prefixes in Internet

Hi, I made a drawing of those two best solutions: http://i.imgur.com/7NQVgUH.png As much as I understand, both solutions require no special changes from "ISP C". Only advantage of solution B over solution A, that I can see, is that at the time when link between "ISP C" and "ISP B" is up, the

Re: nested prefixes in Internet

> On Oct 10, 2016, at 14:59 , Baldur Norddahl wrote: > > > > Den 10/10/2016 kl. 22.27 skrev Owen DeLong: >> Not true… There are myriad reasons that the /24 might not reach a network >> peered with ISP-A, including the possibility of being a downstream customer >>

Re: nested prefixes in Internet

On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 12:24 PM, Niels Bakker

Re: nested prefixes in Internet

Den 10/10/2016 kl. 22.27 skrev Owen DeLong: Not true… There are myriad reasons that the /24 might not reach a network peered with ISP-A, including the possibility of being a downstream customer of a network peered with or buying transit from ISP-A. In the latter case, not an issue, since

Re: nested prefixes in Internet

* baldur.nordd...@gmail.com (Baldur Norddahl) [Mon 10 Oct 2016, 21:45 CEST]: Den 10/10/2016 kl. 19.24 skrev Niels Bakker: * r.engehau...@gmail.com (Roy) [Mon 10 Oct 2016, 19:19 CEST]: I don't think I ever said that ISP-B would announce the /19. That would only be announced by ISP-A. ISP-B

Re: nested prefixes in Internet

> On Oct 10, 2016, at 12:44 PM, Baldur Norddahl > wrote: > > > > Den 10/10/2016 kl. 19.24 skrev Niels Bakker: >> * r.engehau...@gmail.com (Roy) [Mon 10 Oct 2016, 19:19 CEST]: >>> I don't think I ever said that ISP-B would announce the /19. That would >>> only be

Re: nested prefixes in Internet

Den 10/10/2016 kl. 19.24 skrev Niels Bakker: * r.engehau...@gmail.com (Roy) [Mon 10 Oct 2016, 19:19 CEST]: I don't think I ever said that ISP-B would announce the /19. That would only be announced by ISP-A. ISP-B would only announce the /24 that has been delegated to it. If the

Re: nested prefixes in Internet

* r.engehau...@gmail.com (Roy) [Mon 10 Oct 2016, 19:19 CEST]: I don't think I ever said that ISP-B would announce the /19. That would only be announced by ISP-A. ISP-B would only announce the /24 that has been delegated to it. If the ISP-A/ISP-B link goes down then the /24 would be seen

Re: nested prefixes in Internet

I don't think I ever said that ISP-B would announce the /19. That would only be announced by ISP-A. ISP-B would only announce the /24 that has been delegated to it. If the ISP-A/ISP-B link goes down then the /24 would be seen only via ISP-C which is the desired result. On

Re: nested prefixes in Internet

On 10/10/16 9:04 AM, Roy wrote: > > > The solution proposed allows ISP-B to use both paths at the same time, > needs ISP-C to minimal changes, and has low impact on the global > routing tables.. I have successfully used it in the past and my old > company is still using it today. Having two

Re: nested prefixes in Internet

The solution proposed allows ISP-B to use both paths at the same time, needs ISP-C to minimal changes, and has low impact on the global routing tables.. I have successfully used it in the past and my old company is still using it today. .On 10/9/2016 11:50 PM, Martin T wrote: Florian:

Re: nested prefixes in Internet

Florian: as I told in my initial e-mail, ISP-B is multi-homed, i.e connected to ISP-A(who leases the /24 to ISP-B from their /19 block) and also to ISP-C. ISP-B wants to announce this /24 both to ISP-A and ISP-C. That's the reason why either solution 1 or 2 in my initial e-mail is needed.

Re: nested prefixes in Internet

* Martin T.: > Florian: > >> Are the autonomous systems for the /19 and /24 connected directly? > > Yes they are. Then deaggregation really isn't necessary at all. >> (1) can be better from B's perspective because it prevents certain >> routing table optimizations (due to the lack of the

Re: nested prefixes in Internet

Florian: > Are the autonomous systems for the /19 and /24 connected directly? Yes they are. > (1) can be better from B's perspective because it prevents certain routing > table optimizations (due to the lack of the covering prefix) What kind of routing table optimizations are possible if

Re: nested prefixes in Internet

Hi Martin, What do you want to do? Move from A to B or add A to B? Cheers, mh Le 27 sept. 2016 17:52, à 17:52, Mel Beckman a écrit: >Precisely. This is how it's done by providers I've worked with. > > -mel beckman > >> On Sep 27, 2016, at 7:06 AM, Roy

Re: nested prefixes in Internet

Precisely. This is how it's done by providers I've worked with. -mel beckman > On Sep 27, 2016, at 7:06 AM, Roy wrote: > > > > Option 3? > > ISP A announces the /19 and the /24 while ISP B does just the /24 > >> On 9/27/2016 4:20 AM, Martin T wrote: >> Hi, >> >>

Re: nested prefixes in Internet

Option 3? ISP A announces the /19 and the /24 while ISP B does just the /24 On 9/27/2016 4:20 AM, Martin T wrote: Hi, let's assume that there is an ISP "A" operating in Europe region who has /19 IPv4 allocation from RIPE. From this /19 they have leased /24 to ISP "B" who is multi-homed.

Re: nested prefixes in Internet

* Martin T.: > let's assume that there is an ISP "A" operating in Europe region who > has /19 IPv4 allocation from RIPE. From this /19 they have leased /24 > to ISP "B" who is multi-homed. This means that ISP "B" would like to > announce this /24 prefix to ISP "A" and also to ISP "C". AFAIK this

nested prefixes in Internet

Hi, let's assume that there is an ISP "A" operating in Europe region who has /19 IPv4 allocation from RIPE. From this /19 they have leased /24 to ISP "B" who is multi-homed. This means that ISP "B" would like to announce this /24 prefix to ISP "A" and also to ISP "C". AFAIK this gives two