On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 7:31 PM, Christopher Gatlin
ch...@travelingtech.net wrote:
Using BGP to exchange routes between these types of untrusted networks is
like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. BGP was designed for unique AS's
to peer in large scale networks such as the internet. A far
In message aanlktikaibkwc3r2ijkhpyhb=i+acyn_ht7jgthth...@mail.gmail.com,
Ryan Hayes ryguill...@gmail.com wrote:
Can you please not use the word retarded in a pejorative sense?
Obviously not a Colbert fan.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/09/colbert-sarah-palin-is-a_n_454744.html
I think BGP is better for that job, ultimately because it was
specifically designed for that job, but also because it's now
available
in commodity routers for commodity prices e.g. Cisco 800 series.
+1 - for me, if I need a dynamic routing protocol between trust /
administrative domains,
Hi all,
Is there an easy way to see which iBGP routes are not being selected
due to next-hop not being in IGP?
Before and after IGP route added shown below, note both are marked as valid..
-- BEFORE IGP--
AS5000_LA#show ip bgp
BGP table version is 5, local router ID is 10.0.0.5
Status codes: s
Cheers Jeff.
I thought i'd give that a go, but it doesnt seem to be working for some reason!
(This is without next-hop in IGP)
AS5000_LA#show ip bgp
BGP table version is 3, local router ID is 10.0.0.5
Status codes: s suppressed, d damped, h history, * valid, best, i - internal,
r
On 9/29/2010 3:20 PM, Jesse Loggins wrote:
What are your views of when and
where the RIP protocol is useful?
Home networks when dual NAT isn't being used. It's also the perfect
protocol for v6 on home networks where multiple home routers might be
connected in a variety of ways.
Shocked I
On Sep 30, 2010, at 6:27 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
On 9/29/2010 3:20 PM, Jesse Loggins wrote:
What are your views of when and
where the RIP protocol is useful?
Home networks when dual NAT isn't being used. It's also the perfect protocol
for v6 on home networks where multiple home routers
One would assume you aren't doing this for nostalgic reasons. At least
I would hope that!
Like anything, if you decide to vary outside the 'accepted norms', then
have a reason for it! Understand your technology, understand your
topology (re: before about RIP not needing peered neighbors
On 9/30/10 12:57 AM, Mark Smith wrote:
On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 14:13:11 +1000
Julien Goodwin [1]na...@studio442.com.au wrote:
On 30/09/10 13:42, Mark Smith wrote:
One of the large delays you see in OSPF is election of the designated
router on multi-access links such as ethernets. As ethernet is
On 9/30/2010 8:46 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
I have no NAT whatsoever in my home network. RIP is not at all useful in my
scenario.
I have multiple routers in my home network. They use a combination of BGP and
OSPFv3.
Except you must configure those things. The average home user cannot.
If
In a message written on Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 10:49:17AM +0100, Heath Jones
wrote:
Is there an easy way to see which iBGP routes are not being selected
due to next-hop not being in IGP?
I have suggested more than a few times to vendors that the command:
show bgp ipv4 unicast 100.10.0.0/16
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 3:38 AM, Mark Smith
na...@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org wrote:
On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 01:15:45 -0500
William McCall william.mcc...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 7:31 PM, Christopher Gatlin
ch...@travelingtech.net wrote:
Using BGP to
Dear Cameron everybody,
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 8:32 PM, Job W. J. Snijders j...@instituut.net wrote:
The fact that LISP does help in IPv6 Transition solutions (due to its
inherent AF agnostic design), is compelling. As you say, real end 2 end is
the goal - and LISP helps here, regardless of
On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 13:20:48 -0700
Jesse Loggins jlogginsc...@gmail.com wrote:
OSPF. It seems that many Network Engineers consider RIP an old
antiquated protocol that should be thrown in back of a closet never
to be seen or heard from again. Some even preferred using a more
complex protocol
On Thu, 2010-09-30 at 07:01 -0700, Leo Bicknell wrote:
I have suggested more than a few times to vendors that the command:
show bgp ipv4 unicast 100.10.0.0/16 why-chosen
Would be insanely useful.
+1 for that, in a similar manner to packet-tracer on ASAs.
Peter
Dynamic routing is hard, let's go shopping.
Seriously though, I can't think of a topology I've ever encountered where
RIP would have made more sense than OSPF or BGP, or if you're really
die-hard, IS-IS. Let it die...
My $0.02,
-Jack
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 11:53 AM, John Kristoff
Hi,
I received 12 responses for the query that i had put up.
o 1 response stated that the provider was using IS-IS for IPv6 and not
using any authentication.
o 7 responses where OSPFv3 was being used without any authentication.
o 2 responses where OSPFv3 is being used with authentication
o 2
RIP cannot also be used for traffic engineering; so if you want MPLS
then you MUST use either OSPF or ISIS. RIP, like any other distance
vector protocol, converges extremely slowly - so if you want faster
convergence then you have to use one of ISIS or OSPF.
Glen
-Original Message-
From: Jack Carrozzo
Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 9:44 AM
To: John Kristoff
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: RIP Justification
Dynamic routing is hard, let's go shopping.
Seriously though, I can't think of a topology I've ever encountered
where
RIP
Hello All,
This is my first time writing to this list and wanted to check if
anyone experienced issues with L3 circuits between 12:50 ET and 13:05
ET. All our core backbone circuits re-converged and we saw a
significant drop in traffic.
Regards,
Khurram
Learn something new everyday, that's awesome. We've got several data
centers between San Diego, Denver, Tulsa, Chicago, Washington DC. All
of the circuit's between those POP's , and all are L3, just dropped
traffic.
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 11:35 AM, James Smith
ja...@smithwaysecurity.com wrote:
Can someone from Cogent responsible for security contact me? I'm seeing
some troubles that appear to originate within Cogent itself.
What I am seeing does not effect global BGP at all, it's some other
area. Thanks in advance ...
Sorry guys,
Have you already joined the LISP Beta Network? All you need is a
router that can run the LISP images (871, 1841, 2821, 7200 etc)
It's completely open, and the guys behind
lisp-supp...@external.cisco.com can hook you up for free,
The correct address is lisp-supp...@cisco.com
On Sep 30, 2010, at 12:43 PM, Jack Carrozzo wrote:
Dynamic routing is hard, let's go shopping.
Seriously though, I can't think of a topology I've ever encountered where
RIP would have made more sense than OSPF or BGP, or if you're really
die-hard, IS-IS. Let it die...
But what about all
Yes, clearly the next crowd of CCNAs will save the world. You know what they
say about giving CCNAs enable...
-Jack
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 2:37 PM, Marshall Eubanks t...@americafree.tvwrote:
On Sep 30, 2010, at 12:43 PM, Jack Carrozzo wrote:
Dynamic routing is hard, let's go shopping.
Not sure if this is related but my Level 3 BGP peer went down at 3:33:57 GMT
for just over 6 hours. This was in the San Jose/Santa Clara area. Their
reason was an OSPF problem.
Zaid
On 9/30/10 10:39 AM, Khurram Khan brokenf...@gmail.com wrote:
Learn something new everyday, that's awesome.
Seriously though, I can't think of a topology I've ever encountered where RIP
would have made more sense than OSPF or BGP, or if you're really die-hard,
IS-IS. Let it die...
I was just curious - why would IS-IS be more die-hard than OSPF or iBGP?
Best Regards,
Nathan Eisenberg
I was just curious - why would IS-IS be more die-hard than OSPF or iBGP?
It's like running apps on Solaris and Oracle these days instead of Linux
and MySQL. Both options work if you know what you're doing, but it's way
easier (and cheaper) to hire admins for the latter.
When was the last
Maybe I WAY under-read the initial poster's question, but I was pretty
sure he wasn't talking about running it as a CORE routing protocol or
anything on the middle of their network where MPLS would be expected on
top of it!
If I missed it and he did intend that, then I'd certainly agree with you
Has anyone had any luck lately getting dry pairs from ATT? I'm in the
Chicago area attempting to get a dry pair between two buildings (100ft
apart) for some equipment, but when speaking to several folks at ATT the
response I get is You want ATT service without the service? That's not
logical!. Had
On 9/30/2010 3:32 PM, Jack Carrozzo wrote:
When was the last time you ran into a younger neteng designing his topology
who went Yes! IS-IS!? It works fine (very well in fact) but it's just less
used.
Which makes no sense to me. I originally looked at both and thought OSPF
to be inferior to
As it was explained to me, the main difference is that you can have $lots of
prefixes in IS-IS without it falling over, whereas Dijkstra is far more
resource-intensive and as such OSPF doesn't get too happy after $a_lot_less
prefixes. Those numbers can be debated as you like, but I think if you
Years ago I managed to get a dry pair from Verizon for some homebrew DSL,
but there was some telco specific term for the dry pair, like series 7
alarm circuit or something. ATT may have their own term.
-Ryan
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 4:52 PM, Brandon Galbraith
brandon.galbra...@gmail.com wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Ryan Shea
Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 2:21 PM
To: Brandon Galbraith
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: ATT Dry Pairs?
Years ago I managed to get a dry pair from Verizon for some homebrew
DSL,
but there was some telco specific term for the dry
i was recently bitten by a cousin of this
research router getting an ebgp multi-hop full feed from 147.28.0.1
(address is relevant)
it is on a lan with a default gateway 42.666.77.11 (address not
relevant), so it has
ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 42.666.77.11
massive flapping results.
it
Because the path was broken everytime the bgp session was established and
rewriting the routing table with more specific routes?
- Original Message -
From: Randy Bush ra...@psg.com
To: North American Network Operators Group nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Thursday, 30 September, 2010 2:37:43 PM
i was recently bitten by a cousin of this
research router getting an ebgp multi-hop full feed from 147.28.0.1
(address is relevant)
it is on a lan with a default gateway 42.666.77.11 (address not
relevant), so it has
ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 42.666.77.11
massive flapping results.
it
If your sales contact don't know what an alarm circuit is, go find
ATT's tariff filed with your state's PUC. It will contain the name of the
service. This will take some digging...
Verizon Maryland calls this an Intraexchange local channel, regular voice
grade and they go for $15.53/month. There
If the buildings are a 100ft apart, can't you just go with a wireless
connection? Speeds would probably be better and no monthly fee!
On 09/30/2010 06:08 PM, Robert Johnson wrote:
If your sales contact don't know what an alarm circuit is, go find
ATT's tariff filed with your state's PUC. It
last time severall years ago on cisco I used a route-map to rewrite the
next-hop.
route-map xx-in permit 10
set ip next-hop 42.666.77.11
route-map xx-out permit 10
set ip next-hop x.x.x.x
neighbor 147.28.0.1 remote-as yyy
neighbor 147.28.0.1 ebgp-multihop 8
neighbor
On 9/30/2010 15:12, Bret Clark wrote:
If the buildings are a 100ft apart, can't you just go with a wireless
connection? Speeds would probably be better and no monthly fee!
Wireless is not the end all solution for everything.
~Seth
On Sep 30, 2010, at 6:30 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
On 9/30/2010 15:12, Bret Clark wrote:
If the buildings are a 100ft apart, can't you just go with a wireless
connection? Speeds would probably be better and no monthly fee!
Wireless is not the end all solution for everything.
Understood,
On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 17:20:52 -0400, Ryan Shea ryans...@google.com wrote:
ATT may have their own term.
The industry standard term is UNE (unbundled network element.) However,
the sales drones may not recognize that either.
--Ricky
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 07:01:19AM -0700, Leo Bicknell wrote:
I have suggested more than a few times to vendors that the command:
show bgp ipv4 unicast 100.10.0.0/16 why-chosen
Would be insanely useful.
Been in JUNOS show route since day one, and IMHO is easily in the top
10 list of why I
On 9/30/2010 15:34, Jared Mauch wrote:
On Sep 30, 2010, at 6:30 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
On 9/30/2010 15:12, Bret Clark wrote:
If the buildings are a 100ft apart, can't you just go with a wireless
connection? Speeds would probably be better and no monthly fee!
Wireless is not the end
On 30 September 2010 22:11, Jack Carrozzo j...@crepinc.com wrote:
As it was explained to me, the main difference is that you can have $lots of
prefixes in IS-IS without it falling over, whereas Dijkstra is far more
resource-intensive and as such OSPF doesn't get too happy after $a_lot_less
Both OSPF and IS-IS use Dijkstra. IS-IS isn't as widely used because
of the ISO addressing. Atleast thats my take on it..
Sorry, my mistake. I'll go sit in my corner now...
-Jack
show bgp ipv4 unicast 100.10.0.0/16 why-chosen
Would be insanely useful.
Been in JUNOS show route since day one, and IMHO is easily in the top
10 list of why I still buy Juniper instead of Cisco despite all the
$%^*ing bugs these days.
Its interesting, I was heavy into cisco years back and
Haha It's all good :)
You are right about IS-IS being less resource intensive than OSPF, and
that it scales better!
On 30 September 2010 23:50, Jack Carrozzo j...@crepinc.com wrote:
Both OSPF and IS-IS use Dijkstra. IS-IS isn't as widely used because
of the ISO addressing. Atleast thats my
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 11:56:06PM +0100, Heath Jones wrote:
Its interesting, I was heavy into cisco years back and then juniper
for a while. Going back to cisco now is great (always good for me to
keep my exposure up), but there is just so much unclear in it's CLI.
It wasn't until going
it seems it gets the bgp route for 147.28.0.0/16 and then can not
resolve the next hop. it would not recurse to the default exit.
of course it was solved by
ip route 147.28.0.0 255.255.0.0 42.666.77.11
but i do not really understand in my heart why i needed to do this.
Neither do I,
it seems it gets the bgp route for 147.28.0.0/16 and then can not
resolve the next hop. it would not recurse to the default exit.
of course it was solved by
ip route 147.28.0.0 255.255.0.0 42.666.77.11
but i do not really understand in my heart why i needed to do this.
Neither do I,
On Sep 30, 2010, at 4:57 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
it seems it gets the bgp route for 147.28.0.0/16 and then can not
resolve the next hop. it would not recurse to the default exit.
of course it was solved by
ip route 147.28.0.0 255.255.0.0 42.666.77.11
but i do not really understand in
On Sep 30, 2010, at 5:37 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
i was recently bitten by a cousin of this
research router getting an ebgp multi-hop full feed from 147.28.0.1
(address is relevant)
it is on a lan with a default gateway 42.666.77.11 (address not
relevant), so it has
ip
I am with Scott on this one.. I took the initial question as a focus on the
edge... not the CORE. RIP is perfect for the edge to commercial CPEs. Why would
want to run OSPF/ISIS at the edge. I would hope that it would be common
practice to not use RIP in the CORE
peace
--
Ruben Guerra
On Sep 30, 2010, at 3:37 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
it seems it gets the bgp route for 147.28.0.0/16 and then can not
resolve the next hop. it would not recurse to the default exit.
of course it was solved by
ip route 147.28.0.0 255.255.0.0 42.666.77.11
but i do not really understand
Hi,
I believe, based on what i have heard, that some operators turn on
cryptographic authentication because the internet checksum that OSPF,
etc use for packet sanity is quite weak and offers trifle little
protection against lot of known errors like:
- re-ordering of 2-byte aligned words
-
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 11:34 PM, Manav Bhatia manavbha...@gmail.com wrote:
I would be interested in knowing if operators use the cryptographic
authentication for detecting the errors that i just described above.
yes.
On Sep 30, 2010, at 11:34 PM, Manav Bhatia wrote:
I would be interested in knowing if operators use the cryptographic
authentication for detecting the errors that i just described above.
Additionally, one might venture to understand the effects of such mechanisms and
why knob's such as
Sent from my iThing
On Oct 1, 2010, at 12:16 AM, Danny McPherson da...@tcb.net wrote:
On Sep 30, 2010, at 11:34 PM, Manav Bhatia wrote:
I would be interested in knowing if operators use the cryptographic
authentication for detecting the errors that i just described above.
Thu, 30 Sep 2010 14:22:07 + nanog-requ...@nanog.org fuream loqour :
If your network is of a scale where it exceeds the utility of static,
then, it is almost certainly of a scale
and topology where it exceeds the utility of RIP.
I'd agree that RIP is old, aged, and we all can probably go on
I really wish there was a good way to (generically) keep a 4-6 hour buffer of
all control-plane traffic on devices. While you can do that with some, the
forensic value is immense when you have a problem.
Buffering for 4-6 hours worth of control traffic is HUGE! What about
mirroring your
I received a nice email from a very polite graduate student just now,
who shall remain nameless, and I decided that I wanted to give him
the reply below, but also to post this all to NANOG too, so here it
is. I hope this may ally some of the concern that has been expressed
about me not being
63 matches
Mail list logo
