AT&T AVPN BGP Communities

[Andrey Khomyakov]

paging AT&T peeps

Does anyone have AT&T's AVPN BGP communities reference guide?
e.g. 13979:120 to set local_pref to 120 and so on.

Thanks in advance!

--Andrey

Charter Communications Contact

[N. Max Pierson]

Can someone from Charter Communications engineering/support hit me up off
list please? Sorry for the noise.

Regards,
Max

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation for Loopback Address

[Roland Dobbins]

On Oct 11, 2014, at 2:09 PM, Tim Raphael  wrote:

> From my research, various authorities have recommended that a single /64 be 
> allocated to router loopbacks with /128s assigned on interfaces.

Yes, this is what I advocate for loopbacks.

--
Roland Dobbins  // 

   Equo ne credite, Teucri.

  -- Laocoön

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation for Loopback Address

[Tim Raphael]

From my research, various authorities have recommended that a single /64 be 
allocated to router loopbacks with /128s assigned on interfaces. This makes a 
lot of sense to me as (which has been said) there is no other *need* in the 
foreseeable future to have more than one IP on the loopback - this is the 
purpose of it. Any technology or design that requires this has got scaling 
issues and should not be used anyway.

Regards,

Tim Raphael

> On 11 Oct 2014, at 2:37 pm, Roland Dobbins  wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Oct 11, 2014, at 1:33 PM, Faisal Imtiaz  wrote:
>> 
>> I am trying to understand what is sub-optimal about doing so...Waste of Ipv6 
>> space ? or some other technical reason ?
> 
> It's wasteful of address space, but more importantly, it turns your router 
> into a sinkole.
> 
>> (is a /64 address are a 'sinkhole' the only reason ? )
> 
> That's a pretty big reason not to use /64s.
> 
> --
> Roland Dobbins  // 
> 
>   Equo ne credite, Teucri.
> 
> -- Laocoön
> 

Re: astraceroute on MAC

[Mansoor Nathani]

Hi Anurag

Here is sample output from using the mtr command: the -z flag shows AS
Numbers however, I am not sure where they come from or are looked up.

mtr can be downloaded :
https://code.google.com/p/rudix/downloads/detail?name=mtr-0.82-0.pkg

mtr -4z google.com

x61 (0.0.0.0)

Fri Oct 10
17:24:21 2014
Keys:  Help   Display mode   Restart statistics   Order of fields   quit


Packets   Pings
 Host

  Loss%   Snt   Last   Avg  Best
 Wrst StDev
 1. AS???   10.10.10.10

   0.0% 40.3   0.4   0.3
0.6   0.0
 2. AS???   7.207.122.129

   0.0% 48.3   7.1   6.5
8.3   0.6
 3. AS812   209.148.245.53

0.0% 48.8  10.0   8.8
 11.1   1.0
 4. AS812   24.153.5.233

0.0% 38.8  10.2   8.8
 11.5   1.0
 5. AS5645  ae0_2140-bdr04-tor.teksavvy.com

   0.0% 3   12.6  12.1  10.2
 13.6   1.6
 6. AS15169 72.14.212.134

   0.0% 3   10.4   9.7   8.2
 10.4   1.0
 7. AS15169 216.239.47.114

0.0% 3   10.1   9.9   9.5
 10.2   0.0
 8. AS15169 209.85.250.207

0.0% 39.5  11.0   9.5
 12.9   1.6
 9. AS15169 yyz08s13-in-f2.1e100.net

0.0% 39.7   9.8   9.2
 10.3   0.0

And to your IP:

mtr -z 203.122.59.75

x61 (0.0.0.0)

Fri Oct 10
17:26:32 2014
Keys:  Help   Display mode   Restart statistics   Order of fields   quit


Packets   Pings
 Host

  Loss%   Snt   Last   Avg  Best
 Wrst StDev
 1. AS???   10.10.10.10

   0.0% 60.3   0.3   0.2
0.6   0.0
 2. AS???   7.207.122.129

   0.0% 68.2   9.0   7.5
 14.4   2.6
 3. AS812   209.148.245.53

0.0% 6   14.0  14.6  10.7
 21.0   3.7
 4. AS812   24.153.5.233

0.0% 67.9   9.5   7.9
 10.5   1.0
 5. AS5645  ae0_2140-bdr04-tor.teksavvy.com

   0.0% 69.8   9.5   8.0
 10.2   0.6
 6. AS6453  ix-0-0-2-0.tcore1.tnk-toronto.as6453.net

0.0% 69.4  11.2   9.0
 18.8   3.7
 7. AS6453  if-5-0-0-5.core4.tnk-toronto.as6453.net

   0.0% 6   11.2  11.1   9.7
 15.0   1.9
 8. AS6453  if-2-3-2-0.tcore1.ct8-chicago.as6453.net

0.0% 6  118.5 118.7 117.2
122.0   1.8
 9. AS6453  if-12-6.tcore2.nyy-new-york.as6453.net

   80.0% 6  118.8 118.8 118.8
118.8   0.0
10. AS6453  if-20-2.tcore2.l78-london.as6453.net

0.0% 6  120.2 116.6 112.9
120.2   3.2
11. AS6453  80.231.131.66

   0.0% 6  227.5 228.4 227.5
229.5   0.7
12. AS???   172.29.252.34

   0.0% 6  279.2 278.8 277.9
279.2   0.0
13. AS4755  14.141.116.30.static-delhi.vsnl.net.in

0.0% 5  246.0 244.6 243.6
246.0   0.7
14. AS10029 203.122.61.148.reverse.spectranet.in

0.0% 5  246.1 247.7 246.1
249.8   1.5
15. ???
16. ???
17. AS10029 jane.spectranet.in

0.0% 5  247.7 249.1 246.5
257.3   4.6

Mansoor

On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 4:45 PM, Anurag Bhatia  wrote:

> Dear Tim and Niels
>
>
> Surely default traceroute in MAC is there but the -a option isn't good. It
> picks data from RADB and not from actually visible prefix in global routing
> table. Hence wrongly registered RADB objects / old objects and more give
> weird output.
>
> E.g take example of trace to one of AS10029's IP's (the company I work
> for...)
>
>
> traceroute to 203.122.59.75 (203.122.59.75), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets
>  1  gw.giga-dns.com (91.194.90.1) [AS51167]  0.332 ms  0.348 ms  0.386 ms
>  2  host-93-104-204-33.customer.m-online.net (93.104.204.33) [AS8767]
>  0.376 ms  0.368 ms  0.358 ms
>  3  xe-2-2-1.r3.muc2.m-online.net (212.18.6.81) [AS8767]  0.748 ms
> xe-2-0-1.r3.muc2.m-online.net (212.18.6.83) [AS8767]  0.639 ms
> xe-2-2-1.r3.muc2.m-online.net (212.18.6.81) [AS8767]  0.731 ms
>  4  DEMUE1IB03.de.en.vodafone.com (80.81.202.17) [AS51531/AS6695]  4.268
> ms
>  4.246 ms  4.238 ms
>  5  85.205.25.114 (85.205.25.114) [AS3209/AS34419]  35.070 ms  35.009 ms
>  35.038 ms
>  6 

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation for Loopback Address

[Frank Habicht]

On 10/11/2014 8:41 AM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:
> For Router Loopback Address  what is wisdom in allocating a /64 vs /128 ?

The number of IPs addresses used on them subnets on them loopbacks is as
far as I can foresee only one [for each loopback]. So a subnet of size "one
address" should do it.
And that seems to be the same in v4 and v6

Frank

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

[Lee]

On 10/10/14, Tore Anderson  wrote:
> * Baldur Norddahl
>
>> Why do people assign addresses to point-to-point links at all? You can just
>> use a host /128 route to the loopback address of the peer. Saves you the
>> hassle of coming up with new addresses for every link.

Some people think the benefit is worth the hassle.

> Why do you need those host routes?

network management, logging, troubleshooting.. you need at least one
loopback with a global address.

> Most IPv6 IGPs work just fine without global addresses or host routes.
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-opsec-lla-only-11

Look at the discussion of the draft - there seemed >>to me<< a clear
consensus that using only link local addressing was a Bad Idea.  I
thought the caveats section made the draft worth publishing, but this
bit was left out:

   And while the caveats hint at it, there's also an operational
   complexity burden that isn't called out - the ping and NMS/discovery
   limitations also apply to human operators troubleshooting faults and
   attempting to understand a deployed topology.  LLDP and NDP add a
   layer of indirection in identifying what devices should be adjacent to
   a given interface, and only work when there is operational state
   available and links are up (whereas GUAs on interconnected devices can
   be compared by configuration alone, telling you what's supposed to be
   there).
 Erik Muller

so the draft isn't as clear as I'd hoped regarding the caveats :(

Best Regards,
Lee