On Thu, Aug 12, 2021 at 4:32 PM Baldur Norddahl
wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 12, 2021 at 7:39 PM Amir Herzberg
> wrote:
>
>> Bill, I beg to respectfully differ, knowing that I'm just a researcher
>> and working `for real' like you guys, so pls take no offence.
>>
>> I don't think A would be right
On Thu, Aug 12, 2021 at 7:39 PM Amir Herzberg wrote:
> Bill, I beg to respectfully differ, knowing that I'm just a researcher and
> working `for real' like you guys, so pls take no offence.
>
> I don't think A would be right to filter these packets to 10.0.1.0/24; A
> has announced 10.0.0.0/16
I agree that this would be an interesting feature as it is something we
commonly do over here using two or more queries.
-B
-Original Message-
From: NANOG On Behalf Of
Alarig Le Lay
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2021 3:10 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: PeeringDB
On Thu 12 Aug 2021 15:27:48 GMT, Steve McManus wrote:
> PeeringDB is looking at participating at an upcoming NANOG Hackathon.
> One of the ideas for a theme is to improve the API. Specifically by
> adding API calls for common use cases that people need to handle
> outside of the API. Typically, by
PeeringDB is looking at participating at an upcoming NANOG Hackathon. One of
the ideas for a theme is to improve the API. Specifically by adding API calls
for common use cases that people need to handle outside of the API. Typically,
by dumping the entire database to SQL For example - given two
On Thu, 12 Aug 2021, William Herrin wrote:
On Thu, Aug 12, 2021 at 9:41 AM Hank Nussbacher wrote:
On 12/08/2021 17:59, William Herrin wrote:
If you prune the routes from the Routing Information Base instead, for
any widely accepted size (i.e. /24 or shorter netmask) you break the
Internet.
On Thu, Aug 12, 2021 at 10:39 AM Amir Herzberg wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 12, 2021 at 1:22 PM William Herrin wrote:
>> A originates 10.0.0.0/16 to paid transit C
>> B originates 10.0.1.0/24 also to paid transit C
> Bill, I beg to respectfully differ, knowing that I'm just a researcher and
> working
On Thu, 12 Aug 2021, Nick Hilliard wrote:
Jon Lewis wrote on 12/08/2021 18:09:
Arista. They call it FIB compression. They mention it's a trade-off,
more memory and CPU utilization (keeping track of things) in exchange for
being able to keep hardware that might otherwise be out of FIB
On Thu, Aug 12, 2021 at 1:22 PM William Herrin wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 12, 2021 at 9:41 AM Hank Nussbacher
> wrote:
> > On 12/08/2021 17:59, William Herrin wrote:
> > > If you prune the routes from the Routing Information Base instead, for
> > > any widely accepted size (i.e. /24 or shorter
Jon Lewis wrote on 12/08/2021 18:09:
Arista. They call it FIB compression. They mention it's a trade-off,
more memory and CPU utilization (keeping track of things) in exchange
for being able to keep hardware that might otherwise be out of FIB space
able to cope with full tables.
it also
On Thu, Aug 12, 2021 at 10:19 AM William Herrin wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 12, 2021 at 9:41 AM Hank Nussbacher wrote:
> > On 12/08/2021 17:59, William Herrin wrote:
> > > If you prune the routes from the Routing Information Base instead, for
> > > any widely accepted size (i.e. /24 or shorter netmask)
On 12/08/2021 18:09, Jon Lewis wrote:
>>
>> Having an upstream provider that did it, in a very aggressive
>> fashion.
>
> Odds are, they did it wrong, and you had no control and limited, if
> any, visibility into what they did. Obviously, if you're going to
> blindly filter routes based on
On Thu, Aug 12, 2021 at 9:41 AM Hank Nussbacher wrote:
> On 12/08/2021 17:59, William Herrin wrote:
> > If you prune the routes from the Routing Information Base instead, for
> > any widely accepted size (i.e. /24 or shorter netmask) you break the
> > Internet.
>
> How does this break the
On Thu, Aug 12, 2021 at 12:43 PM Hank Nussbacher
wrote:
> On 12/08/2021 17:59, William Herrin wrote:
>
> > If you prune the routes from the Routing Information Base instead, for
> > any widely accepted size (i.e. /24 or shorter netmask) you break the
> > Internet.
>
> How does this break the
On Thu, 12 Aug 2021, Tom Hill wrote:
On 11/08/2021 14:09, Jon Lewis wrote:
What sort of hands-on experience is this opinion based on?
Having an upstream provider that did it, in a very aggressive fashion.
Odds are, they did it wrong, and you had no control and limited, if any,
visibility
On 12/08/2021 17:59, William Herrin wrote:
If you prune the routes from the Routing Information Base instead, for
any widely accepted size (i.e. /24 or shorter netmask) you break the
Internet.
How does this break the Internet? I would think it would just result in
sub-optimal routing
On Thu, Aug 12, 2021 at 7:44 AM Tom Hill wrote:
> On 11/08/2021 14:09, Jon Lewis wrote:
> > At least one major network hardware vendor has implemented it as a
> > feature. Turn it on, and the "deaggregates" with same next-hop as an
> > aggregate are not programmed into the FIB. The savings will
On 11/08/2021 14:09, Jon Lewis wrote:
> What sort of hands-on experience is this opinion based on?
Having an upstream provider that did it, in a very aggressive fashion.
> I've done this manually in the past (quite some time ago), and done
> properly, it works fine.
>
> At least one major
List-Id: North American Network Operators Group
IMO good enough for mail filters.
On 2021-08-10 19:20, Mike Hammett wrote:
Are you referring to mailing lists that lack some kind of added prefix
to the subject?
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions [1]
[2] [3] [4] [5]
Midwest
19 matches
Mail list logo
