Re: cogent spamming directly from ARIN records?

So is LAWKIWBO, which is the correct acronym mentioned downthread. Le 3 octobre 2023 00:29:08 UTC, Collider a écrit : >Congrats! LIOAWKI is a hapax legomenon in DuckDuckGo's search results! Could >you please tell me & the list what it means? > >Le 2 octobre 2023 15:28:03 UTC, Mel Beckman a

Re: cogent spamming directly from ARIN records?

Congrats! LIOAWKI is a hapax legomenon in DuckDuckGo's search results! Could you please tell me & the list what it means? Le 2 octobre 2023 15:28:03 UTC, Mel Beckman a écrit : >This morning I received an email from someone at Cogent asking about an ASN I >administer. They didn’t give any

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

> On Oct 2, 2023, at 12:19, Mark Tinka wrote: > > > > On 10/2/23 20:44, Tim Franklin wrote: > >> Had NOT considered the looping - that's what you get for writing in public >> without thinking it all the way through *blush*. >> >> Thanks for poking holes appropriately, >> > > Like I

Re: cogent spamming directly from ARIN records?

In this case, it came from a person with the title of “Global Account Manager”. Unless sales people are handling peering requests all of a sudden, it’s definitely a sales pitch. > On Oct 2, 2023, at 16:47, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: > >  Has anyone replied? > > If this is a peering request,

Re: MX204 tunnel services BW

AIUI, with Trio, you don’t have to disable a physical port, but that comes at the cost of “Tunnel gets whatever bandwidth is left after physical port packets are processed” and likely some additional overhead for managing the sharing. Could that be what’s happening to you? Owen > On Oct 2,

Re: cogent spamming directly from ARIN records?

Patrick, It’s a sales pitch, and ARIN acknowledges it violates their terms and has taken action. -mel > On Oct 2, 2023, at 2:47 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: > >  Has anyone replied? > > If this is a peering request, not sure that is a bad use of the AS contact > info. > > If it is a

Re: cogent spamming directly from ARIN records?

Has anyone replied? If this is a peering request, not sure that is a bad use of the AS contact info. If it is a sales pitch, then yeah, that’s a problem. -- TTFN, patrick > On Oct 2, 2023, at 14:58, Tim Burke wrote: > > Hurricane has been doing the same thing lately... but their schtick is

Anyone from OpenAI?

Is there anyone from OpenAI on this list who could reach out to me? This has to do with OpenAI access. Thank you! Yan Filyurin Oracle Cloud Infrastructure yan.filyu...@oracle.com

Re: cogent spamming directly from ARIN records?

On 10/2/23 22:59, Matthew Petach wrote: Huh? In all my decades of time in the network industry, I have never seen a case where a smaller transit contract had lower per mbit cost than a larger volume contract. I would expect that HE would make *more* money off 10 smaller customer

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

On a related note, I'm working on a project to handle FIB overflow in such a way as to cause the least disruption in the network. I welcome suggestions either on or off list. Kind Regards, Jakob

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 12:27 PM Matthew Petach wrote: > There is a difference between what the papers William cited are doing, which > is finding more optimal ways of storing the full structure in memory with > what I think the general thread here is talking about, which is >

Re: cogent spamming directly from ARIN records?

On Mon, Oct 2, 2023, 12:14 Mark Tinka wrote: > > > On 10/2/23 20:58, Tim Burke wrote: > > > Hurricane has been doing the same thing lately... but their schtick is > to say that "we are seeing a significant amount of hops in your AS path and > wanted to know if you are open to resolve this

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 11:46 AM Tim Franklin wrote: > On 02/10/2023 19:24, Matthew Petach wrote: > > The problem with this approach is you now have non-deterministic routing. > > Depending on the state of FIB compression, packets *may* flow out > interfaces that are not what the RIB thinks they

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

On 10/2/23 20:44, Tim Franklin wrote: Had NOT considered the looping - that's what you get for writing in public without thinking it all the way through *blush*. Thanks for poking holes appropriately, Like I said, it's going to be a messy experiment - for probably a decade, at least.

Re: cogent spamming directly from ARIN records?

On 10/2/23 20:58, Tim Burke wrote: Hurricane has been doing the same thing lately... but their schtick is to say that "we are seeing a significant amount of hops in your AS path and wanted to know if you are open to resolve this issue". I get what HE are trying to do here, as I am sure

RE: cogent spamming directly from ARIN records?

Hurricane has been doing the same thing lately... but their schtick is to say that "we are seeing a significant amount of hops in your AS path and wanted to know if you are open to resolve this issue". complia...@arin.net is about all that can be done, other than public shaming! Other outfits

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

On 02/10/2023 19:24, Matthew Petach wrote: The problem with this approach is you now have non-deterministic routing. Depending on the state of FIB compression, packets *may* flow out interfaces that are not what the RIB thinks they will be. This can be a good recipe for routing micro-loops

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

> > Come on man, go re-read the post. The two paragraphs you cut literally > explained what happens -instead of- routes dropping out of the FIB or > being black holed. > Ok On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 2:03 PM William Herrin wrote: > On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 6:05 AM Tom Beecher wrote: > >> That

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 6:21 AM t...@pelican.org wrote: > On Monday, 2 October, 2023 09:39, "William Herrin" said: > > > That depends. When the FIB gets too big, routers don't immediately > > die. Instead, their performance degrades. Just like what happens with > > oversubscription elsewhere in

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 6:05 AM Tom Beecher wrote: >> That depends. When the FIB gets too big, routers don't immediately >> die. Instead, their performance degrades. Just like what happens with >> oversubscription elsewhere in the system. > > If you consider blackholing traffic because the

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 6:40 AM Joshua Miller wrote: > At this point I'd like to see data demonstrating that it's at least viable > from a statistical perspective. https://conferences.sigcomm.org/sigcomm/2013/papers/sigcomm/p111.pdf https://yangtonghome.github.io/uploads/MAoFIBC.pdf More where

Re: cogent spamming directly from ARIN records?

Jay, Apparently my sarcasm was too subtle :) -mel > On Oct 2, 2023, at 10:01 AM, Jay Hennigan wrote: > > On 10/2/23 09:16, Mel Beckman wrote: >> Tom, >> Thanks for that pointer! apparently cogent has a history of abuse. > > Apparently? > > In other news, apparently bears have been using

MX204 tunnel services BW

Encountered an issue with an MX204 using all 4x100G ports and a logical tunnel to hairpin a VRF. The tunnel started dropping packets around 8Gbps. I bumped up tunnel-services BW from 10G to 100G which made the problem worse; the tunnel was now limited to around 1.3Gbps. To my knowledge with Trio

Re: cogent spamming directly from ARIN records?

On 10/2/23 09:16, Mel Beckman wrote: Tom, Thanks for that pointer! apparently cogent has a history of abuse. Apparently? In other news, apparently bears have been using our National Forests as their personal toilets for decades. -- Jay Hennigan - j...@west.net Network Engineering - CCIE

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

Isn’t that pretty much what Geoff Huston has done with the weekly reports William quoted earlier in this thread?Sure, that’s from a limited set of perspectives, but it probably represents the minimum achievable compression in most circumstances. OwenOn Oct 2, 2023, at 06:41, Joshua Miller

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

> On Oct 2, 2023, at 01:18, Nick Hilliard wrote: > > William Herrin wrote on 02/10/2023 08:56: >> All it means is that you have to keep an eye on your FIB >> size as well, since it's no longer the same as your RIB size. > > the point Jacob is making is is that when using FIB compression,

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

First, no, a transient where all route disaggregating disappears from the global table is extraordinarily unlikely. Second, as I understand it, each update cycle results in rebuilding the fib from scratch rather than figuring out how to splice and dice it, so the computation required to cope

Re: cogent spamming directly from ARIN records?

dang auto correct! I should’ve caught that bad change. what I meant to say, was: LAWKIWBO. -mel > On Oct 2, 2023, at 9:15 AM, Mel Beckman wrote: > > John, > > Thank you for your guidance! > > -mel > >> On Oct 2, 2023, at 8:33 AM, John Sweeting wrote: >> >> Mel, I will reply to you

Re: cogent spamming directly from ARIN records?

Tom, Thanks for that pointer! apparently cogent has a history of abuse. -mel On Oct 2, 2023, at 8:34 AM, Tom Beecher wrote:  complia...@arin.net Refer back to an email John Curran sent to this list on Jan 6 2020 , "Suspension of Cogent access to ARIN Whois" On

Re: cogent spamming directly from ARIN records?

John, Thank you for your guidance! -mel > On Oct 2, 2023, at 8:33 AM, John Sweeting wrote: > > Mel, I will reply to you off list. Thanks. > > On 10/2/23, 11:28 AM, "NANOG on behalf of Mel Beckman" > mailto:arin@nanog.org> on > behalf of m...@beckman.org >

Re: Legal system as a weapon (was Re: AFRINIC placed in receivership)

:-) > On Sep 30, 2023, at 1:49 PM, Mel Beckman wrote: > > Just like a lawyer, trying to add layers to the model. :) > > -mel > >> On Sep 30, 2023, at 8:58 AM, Anne Mitchell wrote: >> >>  >> >>> On Sep 29, 2023, at 11:20 PM, Mel Beckman wrote: >>> >>> The seven lawyers of the OSI model

Re: cogent spamming directly from ARIN records?

complia...@arin.net Refer back to an email John Curran sent to this list on Jan 6 2020 , "Suspension of Cogent access to ARIN Whois" On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 11:29 AM Mel Beckman wrote: > This morning I received an email from someone at Cogent asking about an > ASN I administer. They didn’t give

Re: cogent spamming directly from ARIN records?

Mel, I will reply to you off list. Thanks. On 10/2/23, 11:28 AM, "NANOG on behalf of Mel Beckman" mailto:arin@nanog.org> on behalf of m...@beckman.org > wrote: This morning I received an email from someone at Cogent asking about an ASN I administer. They didn’t

cogent spamming directly from ARIN records?

This morning I received an email from someone at Cogent asking about an ASN I administer. They didn’t give any details, but I assumed it might be related to some kind of network transport issue. I replied cordially, asking them what they needed. The person then replied with a blatant spam,

sendgrid.net contact

If you have a contact there can you please contact me off-list. Thanks. - Jared

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

> > Then you could have knobs for what other routes you discard when you run > out of space. Receiving a covering /16? Maybe you can drop the /24s, even > if they have a different next hop - routing will be sub-optimal, but it > will work. (I know, previous discussions around traffic

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

Seems like we've reached the limits of apriori speculation. At this point I'd like to see data demonstrating that it's at least viable from a statistical perspective. If someone is motivated to demonstrate this, a "backtest" against historical data would be the next step. Later, one could design

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

On Monday, 2 October, 2023 09:39, "William Herrin" said: > That depends. When the FIB gets too big, routers don't immediately > die. Instead, their performance degrades. Just like what happens with > oversubscription elsewhere in the system. > > With a TCAM-based router, the least specific

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

> > That depends. When the FIB gets too big, routers don't immediately > die. Instead, their performance degrades. Just like what happens with > oversubscription elsewhere in the system. > If you consider blackholing traffic because the relevant next-hops aren't present in the FIB to be looked up

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

On Mon, 2 Oct 2023, Jakob Heitz (jheitz) via NANOG wrote: While I did allude to some of the complexity, my main point is that FIB compression does not allow you to install a FIB with less memory. Because you must be prepared for transients during which the FIB needs to store mostly

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 1:18 AM Nick Hilliard wrote: > The difficulty with this is that if you end up with a > FIB overflow, your router will no longer route. Hi Nick, That depends. When the FIB gets too big, routers don't immediately die. Instead, their performance degrades. Just like what

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

William Herrin wrote on 02/10/2023 08:56: All it means is that you have to keep an eye on your FIB size as well, since it's no longer the same as your RIB size. the point Jacob is making is is that when using FIB compression, the FIB size depends on both RIB size and RIB complexity. I.e.

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

On Sun, 1 Oct 2023 at 21:19, Matthew Petach wrote: > Unfortunately, many coders today have not read Godel, Escher, Bach: An > Eternal Golden Braid, > and like the unfortunate Crab, consider their FIB compression algorithms to > be unbreakable[0]. > > In short: if you count on FIB compression

Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ?

On Sun, Oct 1, 2023 at 9:55 PM Jakob Heitz (jheitz) wrote: > my main point > is that FIB compression does not allow you to install a FIB with less memory. Hi Jakob, The math disagrees. It's called "oversubscription," and we use it all over the place in network engineering. There are only a