On 30/Jul/20 12:00, Simon Leinen wrote:
> As Nick mentions, the hostnames are from the BGP hostname extension.
>
> I should have noticed that, but we use "BGP unnumbered"[1][2], which
> uses RAs to discover the peer's IPv6 link-local address, and then builds
> an IPv6 BGP session (that uses RFC
Mark Tinka writes:
> On 29/Jul/20 15:51, Simon Leinen wrote:
>>
>> Neighbor V AS MsgRcvd MsgSent TblVer InQ OutQ Up/Down
>> State/PfxRcd
>> sw-o(swp16)465108 953559 938348000 03w5d00h
>> 688
>> sw-m(swp18)465108 885442 938
> On Jul 29, 2020, at 09:43 , Douglas Fischer wrote:
>
> Does anybody here knows what Gambiarra means?
The english translation would be “Jury Rig” or “Hack”.
Synonyms include “McGyverism”, “Rube Goldberg”, “Kludge”, etc.
Foreign address family as next-hop is definitely in this category.
>
Does anybody here knows what Gambiarra means?
Alejandro mentioned that IPv6 NextHop on IPv4 routing breaks traceroute and
difficult troubleshooting.
Well... Since a while I have been thinking about a Gambiarra that I'm using
on other scenarios, but I think could help to reduce de bad impacts of I
On 29/Jul/20 18:35, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> You can't use hostnames, if that's what you're asking.
Yes, couldn't fathom how.
So really it's convenience of troubleshooting, not convenience of setup
:-). I can live with that.
> FRR will also do
> unnumbered BGP with auto-config.
Interesting
Mark Tinka wrote on 29/07/2020 17:06:
> Meaning the initial setup would still require the use of literal IP
> addresses?
You can't use hostnames, if that's what you're asking. FRR will also do
unnumbered BGP with auto-config.
Nick
On Wed, 29 Jul 2020 at 18:06, Mark Tinka wrote:
> On 29/Jul/20 16:54, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> > it's a capability negotiation, so is handled on session setup.
>
> Meaning the initial setup would still require the use of literal IP addresses?
Unless your (e.g. DC equipment) is set up for automatic b
On 29/Jul/20 16:57, Saku Ytti wrote:
> I'm not sure I understand what the option space is. This is like ISIS
> TLV137, protocol will populate some trash there and you'll politely
> access. It won't allow you to refer to the peer with any name prior to
> having the session up. Much like you won'
On 29/Jul/20 16:54, Nick Hilliard wrote:
>
> it's a capability negotiation, so is handled on session setup.
Meaning the initial setup would still require the use of literal IP
addresses?
Mark.
On Wed, 29 Jul 2020 at 18:51, Owen DeLong wrote:
> In reality, next hop isn’t really a layer 3 address. The layer 3 address is a
> stand-in that is resolved to
> a layer 2 address for forwarding. The layer 3 next-hop address never makes it
> into the packet.
I wish you had shared in the draft
> On Jul 29, 2020, at 02:13 , Saku Ytti wrote:
>
> On Wed, 29 Jul 2020 at 10:03, Vincent Bernat wrote:
>
>> This is the solution Cumulus is advocating to its users, so I suppose
>> they have some real users behind that. Juniper also supports RFC 5549
>> but, from the documentation, the forwa
On Wed, 29 Jul 2020 at 17:54, Mark Tinka wrote:
> I'm curious to know if this is after-the-fact, as I can't think of a way
> that BGP would find hostnames to setup sessions with, outside of some
> kind of upper layer name resolution capability.
>
> The draft isn't clear on how this happens, if it
Mark Tinka wrote on 29/07/2020 15:51:
> I'm curious to know if this is after-the-fact, as I can't think of a way
> that BGP would find hostnames to setup sessions with, outside of some
> kind of upper layer name resolution capability.
>
> The draft isn't clear on how this happens, if it is, indeed
On 29/Jul/20 16:30, Nick Hilliard wrote:
>
> afaik, this is an implementation of draft-walton-bgp-hostname-capability.
Nice.
I'm curious to know if this is after-the-fact, as I can't think of a way
that BGP would find hostnames to setup sessions with, outside of some
kind of upper layer name
Mark Tinka wrote on 29/07/2020 15:09:
> Are the names based on DNS look-ups, or is there some kind of protocol
> association between the device underlay and its hostname, as it pertains
> to neighbors?
afaik, this is an implementation of draft-walton-bgp-hostname-capability.
Nick
On 29/Jul/20 15:51, Simon Leinen wrote:
>
> Neighbor V AS MsgRcvd MsgSent TblVer InQ OutQ Up/Down
> State/PfxRcd
> sw-o(swp16)465108 953559 938348000 03w5d00h
> 688
> sw-m(swp18)465108 885442 9383480
Douglas Fischer writes:
> And today, I reached on https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5549
[...]
> But the questions are:
> There is any network that really implements RFC5549?
We've been using it for more than two years in our data center networks.
We use the Cumulus/FRR implementation on switches and
Hey,
On Wed, 29 Jul 2020 at 14:26, Alejandro Acosta
wrote:
> https://blog.acostasite.com/2013/02/publicar-prefijos-ipv4-sobre-una-sesion.html
> https://blog.acostasite.com/2013/02/publicando-prefijos-ipv6-sobre-sesiones.html
>
> I did not like, difficult troubleshooting in case something goes wr
Long time ago I tried it out:
https://blog.acostasite.com/2013/02/publicar-prefijos-ipv4-sobre-una-sesion.html
https://blog.acostasite.com/2013/02/publicando-prefijos-ipv6-sobre-sesiones.html
I did not like, difficult troubleshooting in case something goes wrong
(however I can understand it's
On Wed, 29 Jul 2020 at 12:58, Vincent Bernat wrote:
> I didn't test, but the documentation states:
I think only disconnect here is definition of tunnel, there are no
additional headers and I don't think the document implies it and the
RFC it refers to does not. I've not tried it myself, but my
e
❦ 29 juillet 2020 12:13 +03, Saku Ytti:
>> This is the solution Cumulus is advocating to its users, so I suppose
>> they have some real users behind that. Juniper also supports RFC 5549
>> but, from the documentation, the forwarding part is done using
>> lightweight tunnels.
>
> I'm not sure if y
On Wed, 29 Jul 2020 at 10:03, Vincent Bernat wrote:
> This is the solution Cumulus is advocating to its users, so I suppose
> they have some real users behind that. Juniper also supports RFC 5549
> but, from the documentation, the forwarding part is done using
> lightweight tunnels.
I'm not sure
or it.
--
Let the machine do the dirty work.
- The Elements of Programming Style (Kernighan & Plauger)
――― Original Message ―――
From: Douglas Fischer
Sent: 29 juillet 2020 02:51 -03
Subject: RFC 5549 - IPv4 Routes with IPv6 next-hop - Does it really exists?
To: nanog@
Let's just jump all the arguing about lack of IPv4, the need of IPv6, and
etc...
I must confess that I don't know all the RFCs.
I would like it, but I don't!
And today, I reached on https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5549
I knew that was possible to transfer v4 routes over v6 BGP sessions, or v6
rou
24 matches
Mail list logo
