On Friday, February 07, 2014 09:11:38 AM Mikael Abrahamsson
wrote:
Violent agreement. Customers should not talk L2 directly
to each other using local switching, but they should be
able to send IP packets to each other.
And in fairness, given the positive security benefits
(barring extreme
Hi Faisal,
You might have to deploy some other means of (script ?) to bring your BGP
session down from the 'broken' Service Provider.
To the best of my knowledge, BGP does not have any mechanism to determine
broken connectivity upstream past the router you are BGP session is up with.
Hi Vlade,
Well, if you are trying to balance the incoming traffic load with local-pref
attribute, I can understand your disappointment :)
Since it doesn't work at all this way: local-pref is local to an AS and deals
with outgoing traffic only.
B) We have our own AS and IP space. I advertise
On (2014-02-06 21:14 -0500), Jay Ashworth wrote:
My usual practice is to set up two in house servers, each of which
talks to:
And then point everyone in house to both of them, assuming they accept
multiple server names.
Two is worst possible amount of NTP servers to have. Either one fails
On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 5:35 AM, Saku Ytti s...@ytti.fi wrote:
On (2014-02-06 21:14 -0500), Jay Ashworth wrote:
My usual practice is to set up two in house servers, each of which
talks to:
Two is worst possible amount of NTP servers to have. Either one fails and
your timing is wrong,
Rather than assign residential and business customers their own /30, to
conserve space we give those customers a /32 out of a /24. But when one of
these static IP customers wants to send email to another, or the employee wants
to VPN into work, they can't. MACFF is supposed to solve that (we
I'm not setting it on my router locally but sending it over to Cogent as
a community string per page 22 of their user guide.
http://cogentco.com/files/docs/customer_service/guide/global_cogent_customer_user_guide.pdf
They use it to manipulate how traffic gets back to me so that is
incoming
Based on my understanding on BFD, it will not help you... BFD will detect the
direct connected port being down quicker and force the BGP session down,
(faster than the time BGP session timers take to determine something is broken)
This is the common issue / challenge in how to determine
On Friday, February 07, 2014 03:30:08 PM Frank Bulk wrote:
Rather than assign residential and business customers
their own /30, to conserve space we give those customers
a /32 out of a /24. But when one of these static IP
customers wants to send email to another, or the
employee wants to
On Friday, February 07, 2014 04:49:09 PM Faisal Imtiaz
wrote:
Based on my understanding on BFD, it will not help you...
BFD will detect the direct connected port being down
quicker and force the BGP session down, (faster than the
time BGP session timers take to determine something is
On 2/7/2014 3:35 AM, Saku Ytti wrote:
On (2014-02-06 21:14 -0500), Jay Ashworth wrote:
My usual practice is to set up two in house servers, each of which
talks to:
And then point everyone in house to both of them, assuming they accept
multiple server names.
Two is worst possible amount of
I would assume that this whole mostly depends on which particular protocols and
approaches your edge equipment can implement most efficiently - efficiently
enough, that is, to be able to do it on every single port in a chassis.
On February 7, 2014 10:20:08 AM EST, Mark Tinka
On Friday, February 07, 2014 05:41:44 PM Jay Ashworth wrote:
I would assume that this whole mostly depends on which
particular protocols and approaches your edge equipment
can implement most efficiently - efficiently enough,
that is, to be able to do it on every single port in a
chassis.
Working in the financial world, the best practices is to have 4 ntp servers (if
not using PTP).
1) You need 3 to determine the correct time (and detect bad tickers)
2) If you lose 1 of the 3 above, then you no longer can determine the correct
time
3) Therefore with 4, you have redundancy.
We
This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet
Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan.
The posting is sent to APOPS, NANOG, AfNOG, AusNOG, SANOG, PacNOG, LacNOG,
TRNOG, CaribNOG and the RIPE Routing Working Group.
Daily listings are sent to
On Feb 7, 2014, at 10:56 AM, Matthew Huff mh...@ox.com wrote:
Working in the financial world, the best practices is to have 4 ntp servers
(if not using PTP).
1) You need 3 to determine the correct time (and detect bad tickers)
2) If you lose 1 of the 3 above, then you no longer can
On 2/5/14, 7:11 PM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
Well when industries don't self regulate governments step in. This
industry is demonstratably incapble of regulating itself in this
area despite lots of evidence of the problems being caused for lots
of years.
Which industry is that? App
On 2/7/2014 1:26 PM, Livingood, Jason wrote:
I do not know what is happening in other jurisdictions.
I find that seriously scary, if wide-spread.
--
Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics
of System Administrators:
Ex turpi
On 2/7/14, 2:30 PM, Larry Sheldon larryshel...@cox.net wrote:
On 2/7/2014 1:26 PM, Livingood, Jason wrote:
I do not know what is happening in other jurisdictions.
I find that seriously scary, if wide-spread.
Sorry - too many country-by-country regulators to keep track ofŠ
On 2/7/2014 1:44 PM, Livingood, Jason wrote:
On 2/7/14, 2:30 PM, Larry Sheldon larryshel...@cox.net wrote:
On 2/7/2014 1:26 PM, Livingood, Jason wrote:
I do not know what is happening in other jurisdictions.
I find that seriously scary, if wide-spread.
Sorry - too many country-by-country
Did you verify your problem was announcements on the other side of the
outage? This sounds to me like you are using a bgp announced default
route from cogent which is always sent.I think the problem was you were
sending traffic out a path that was broken. Since you mentioned your
outbound
On Feb 5, 2014, at 2:12 AM, Jimmy Hess mysi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 12:18:54 +1100, Mark Andrews said:
Now if we could get equipement vendors to stop shipping models
without the necessary support it would help but that also may require
government intervention.
...
A good
With a quick and easy mod, another option for $35 is a Sure Electronics
GPS board.
GPS: http://www.sureelectronics.net/goods.php?id=99
Mod: http://www.satsignal.eu/ntp/Sure-GPS.htm
-Alby
On 2/7/2014 1:14 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:
Having a number of NTP servers will help you detect false
On Feb 8, 2014, at 3:37 AM, John Curran jcur...@arin.net wrote:
It's also true that if a sizable group of network operators were to actually
deploy source address validation (thus proving that it really is a reasonable
approach and doesn't carry too much operational or vendor implications),
We don't get a default route from them. At the time of the outage my bgp
session was up and I had a full routing table from them. I didn't have
much time to troubleshoot it in that state since we were down so I had
to disable the session ASAP. Once the RFO comes in, I'll be asking a lot
more
On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 2:07 PM, Dobbins, Roland rdobb...@arbor.net wrote:
On Feb 8, 2014, at 3:37 AM, John Curran jcur...@arin.net wrote:
It's also true that if a sizable group of network operators were to
actually deploy source address validation (thus proving that it really is a
On Feb 8, 2014, at 4:25 AM, Chris Grundemann cgrundem...@gmail.com wrote:
Documenting those various mechanisms which are actually utilized is the key
here. =)
Yes, as well as the various limitations and caveats, like the wholesale/retail
issue (i.e., customers of my customer).
This is exactly what I thought had happenedThe outage that affected you was
one our two routers up-stream from your connection to that provider.
I am not trying to defend any Carrier, but there is no 'routing protocol' what
will react to this kind of an issue.
Regards.
Faisal Imtiaz
This report has been generated at Fri Feb 7 21:13:36 2014 AEST.
The report analyses the BGP Routing Table of AS2.0 router
and generates a report on aggregation potential within the table.
Check http://www.cidr-report.org/2.0 for a current version of this report.
Recent Table History
BGP Update Report
Interval: 30-Jan-14 -to- 06-Feb-14 (7 days)
Observation Point: BGP Peering with AS131072
TOP 20 Unstable Origin AS
Rank ASNUpds % Upds/PfxAS-Name
1 - AS480083579 3.9% 363.4 -- LINTASARTA-AS-AP Network Access
Provider and Internet
Raspberry Pi
---
This unfortunately doest give you trusted time. It gives you David's
Raspberry Pi with an Adafruit Ultimate GPS breakout board which is a
waste of time if you need an evidence grade of time service. It also
means you assemble it and run it yourself.
If you
If someone from Cogeco could ping me, I'd like to have a chat about something
odd and intermittent:
It works:
BlackBox:~ jlixfeld$ mtr -c 1 -rw 162.243.142.155
Start: Fri Feb 7 18:46:06 2014
HOST: BlackBox.localLoss% Drop Rcv Snt
Last Best Avg
1.|--
- Original Message -
From: Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se
To the original poster. People using PPPoE for FTTH makes me sad. When
someone suggests this, please just say go back to the drawingboard,
redo it right.
FWIW, when I dug this ground a couple Thanksgivings ago, I was
On 2014-02-06 20:04, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
No, you don't. It works perfectly well without direct port-to-port
communication, you just have to align L3 configuration with this L2 behavior
(which can be done in IPv6 but not in IPv4).
IPv6 can be made to work without on-link /64, with only
Hello -
While doing some traceroutes, I have found a few destinations that I
found a little odd. For example:
5.|-- bbr01aldlmi-bue-2.aldl.mi.charter.com 0.0%60
152.1 47.2 8.3 367.6 66.0
6.|-- bbr01sgnwmi-bue-5.sgnw.mi.charter.com 0.0%60
102.3 53.4 15.6
Active-E and GPON AN's support split horizons where shared
VLAN's allow for simple service delivery to the CPE, but do
not permit inter-customer communications at Layer 2.
Yes.
All communications happens upstream at the BNG, which works
for IPv4 and IPv6.
And no, Proxy ARP is recommended for
On 2014-02-07 07:14, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
and for IPv6 it's easily solvable by not announcing an on-link network so they
won't even try to communicate directly with each other but instead everything
is routed via the ISP upstream router and then down again to the other
customer
On Sat, 8 Feb 2014, Anders Löwinger wrote:
I guess you still need proxy-ND or similar as described in RFC4389, and
you don't accept clients with IP addresses not assigned over DHCPv6.
Fair tradeoffs, SLAAC does not work with abuse etc.
No, you don't need to do Proxy-ND either. With this
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 03:32:22PM -0500, Anthony Williams wrote:
With a quick and easy mod, another option for $35 is a Sure Electronics
GPS board.
GPS: http://www.sureelectronics.net/goods.php?id=99
Mod: http://www.satsignal.eu/ntp/Sure-GPS.htm
-Alby
On 2/7/2014 1:14 PM, Jared
On Sat, 8 Feb 2014, Anders Löwinger wrote:
I'm curious on the details:
1)
Do you give the client 64 bit using RA (with the A and L bit cleared), 64 bit
using DHCPv6, then force the traffic through the default since on-link is not
set?
Correct.
Has there been any test if modern
.
Mark.
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL:
http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140207/be185b23/attachment
Hi,
We are an ISP based in UK. We have got an ip block from RIPE which is
5.250.176.0/20. All the main search engines like yahoo shows we are based in
UK. But Google thinks we are from Saudi Arabia and we redirected to
www.google.com.sahttp://www.google.com.sa instead of googlw.co.uk. I have
Here's the FAQ on this topic:
https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/873?hl=en
It links to a contact form where you can ask for some redress.
Cheers,
jof
On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 7:20 AM, Praveen Unnikrishnan p...@pmgroupuk.comwrote:
Hi,
We are an ISP based in UK. We have got an ip
On Saturday, February 08, 2014 04:41:55 AM Anders Löwinger
wrote:
So, as I wrote to Mikael, don't you need to use proxy-ARP
or proxy-ND to get devices in same L2 domain to be able
to communicate? They are on same subnet so they will
ARP/ND for each other.
No, you don't, and you don't want
On Saturday, February 08, 2014 06:38:29 AM Mikael
Abrahamsson wrote:
That's one way of doing it, or you give it an IA_NA as
well if you want a WAN address.
We prefer DHCP_IA_NA to ND/RA.
But yes, either option works. Just depends on operator
choice as well as BNG and CPE support.
Mark.
On Sat, 8 Feb 2014, Mark Tinka wrote:
On Saturday, February 08, 2014 06:38:29 AM Mikael
Abrahamsson wrote:
That's one way of doing it, or you give it an IA_NA as
well if you want a WAN address.
We prefer DHCP_IA_NA to ND/RA.
I have never heard anyone refer to SLAAC as IA_NA. I meant the
46 matches
Mail list logo
