On 6/4/20 11:00 PM, James Breeden wrote:
> And before I get asked why not just run full tables, I'm looking at
> regional approaches to being able to use smaller, less powerful routers
> (or even layer3 switches) to run some areas of the network where we can
> benefit from summarization and full
On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 9:25 AM Robert Blayzor wrote:
> One caveat that may or may not play into this is if you use uRPF (loose)
> on your transit links.
Hi Robert,
The answer is "no," you're not running reverse-path filtering on a BGP
speaker, not even in loose mode, because that's STUPID. At
Ah yes, I would say LDPv6 and/or SR/MPLS IPv6. SRv6 reads like a science
project.
Either way, I would like to achieve a full IPv6 control plane.
On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 2:46 PM Saku Ytti wrote:
> I'm pretty sure that one or more of Mark, Gert or Tim are thinking
> SR/MPLS IPv6 when they say
Hello,
Luma Systems has built a SaaS-based optical monitoring platform enabling
vendor-neutral DWDM Channel Monitoring and In-Service OTDR with a robust
predictive analytics engine. We've met with many Nanogers over the last
couple years but if you're interested in learning more, please contact
In its simplest form without TE paths, there isn't much to SRv6. You use a v6
address as an endpoint and a portion of the address to specify a specific VPN
service. You completely eliminate the label distribution protocol.
Thanks,
Phil
On 6/10/20, 2:49 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Saku Ytti"
On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 11:20 AM Brian Johnson wrote:
> Disagree with Bill here. It will depend on the complexity of the network as
> to use of uRPF in any mode (loose or strict). In general, I never use uRPF on
> transit links and use pure filters to ensure accurate filters are in place.
>
On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 9:43 AM William Herrin wrote:
> The answer is "no," you're not running reverse-path filtering on a BGP
> speaker, not even in loose mode, because that's STUPID.
Sorry, it'd be pre-coffee if I drank coffee and I was overly harsh
here. Let me back up:
The most basic
Disagree with Bill here. It will depend on the complexity of the network as to
use of uRPF in any mode (loose or strict). In general, I never use uRPF on
transit links and use pure filters to ensure accurate filters are in place.
uRPF may be used internally in either mode to great advantage and
I'm pretty sure that one or more of Mark, Gert or Tim are thinking
SR/MPLS IPv6 when they say SRv6?
No one in their right minds thinks SRv6 is a good idea, terrible snake
oil and waste of NRE. SR/MPLS IPv6 of course is terrific.
LDPv6 and SRv6 seem like an odd couple, LDPv6 SR/MPLS IPv6 seem far
I would take either LDPv6 or SRv6 - but also need L3VPN (and now EVPN)
re-wired to use IPv6 NH.
I have requested LDPv6 and SRv6 many times from Cisco to migrate the
routing control plane from IPv4 to IPv6
I have lots of IPv6 address space. I don't have a lot of IPv4
address space. RFC1918 is not
On 10/Jun/20 20:10, Gert Doering wrote:
> To be honest, I do not think we're going to buy any IOS XE gear in the
> foreseeable future. But if we did, LDPv6 would be nice to have - to get
> rid of IPv4 in the backbone network.
We have LDPv6 working beautifully between IOS XR (6.4.2) and Junos
On 10/Jun/20 20:29, Tim Durack wrote:
> I would take either LDPv6 or SRv6 - but also need L3VPN (and now EVPN)
> re-wired to use IPv6 NH.
At the moment, LDPv6 doesn't have what I call "service" support, i.e.,
l3vpn's, l2vpn's, MPLSv6-TE, mLDP, CsC, e.t.c. To be honest, I don't
mind those so
NANOGers -
ARIN has released its updated IRR system - if you are relying on ARIN’s IRR
data, please refer to details below and update access methods accordingly.
Thanks!
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers
Begin forwarded message:
From: ARIN
On 10/Jun/20 20:45, Saku Ytti wrote:
> I'm pretty sure that one or more of Mark, Gert or Tim are thinking
> SR/MPLS IPv6 when they say SRv6?
Oh, not at all, Saku.
> No one in their right minds thinks SRv6 is a good idea, terrible snake
> oil and waste of NRE. SR/MPLS IPv6 of course is
On 10/Jun/20 21:20, Gert Doering wrote:
> Oh. Indeed, sorry for being unclear here.
>
> SR/MPLS sounds like a good idea (reducing label state).
>
> SR/IPv6 does not sound convincing.
+1.
2010 - 2019 has been a decade of "pushing stuff".
2020 is the year of deciding what snake oil no longer
On 10/Jun/20 21:36, Phil Bedard wrote:
> In its simplest form without TE paths, there isn't much to SRv6. You use a
> v6 address as an endpoint and a portion of the address to specify a specific
> VPN service. You completely eliminate the label distribution protocol.
A BGPv6-free core is
hey there,
today we have interviewed Vint Cerf and asked him some questions about the
internet, development after covid19, if you are interested in watching this
interview, check it out -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hL3nV5x4fHc=youtu.be
if you have suggestions on who you would like to see
On 10/Jun/20 21:17, Gert Doering wrote:
>
> We do have IOS XEs today (ASR920), and based on that, we're not going
> to buy new IOS XE devices any time soon.
>
> The amount of... strangeness... that this BU considers acceptable
> is... not.
It's been a week of trying to get them to see reason.
Dear John, group,
On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 06:51:53PM +, John Curran wrote:
> ARIN has released its updated IRR system - if you are relying on
> ARIN’s IRR data, please refer to details below and update access
> methods accordingly.
Ack - NTT has done so.
The 'rr.ntt.net' instance now
On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 at 00:48, Mark Tinka wrote:
> On 10/Jun/20 21:36, Phil Bedard wrote:
> > In its simplest form without TE paths, there isn't much to SRv6. You use a
> > v6 address as an endpoint and a portion of the address to specify a
> > specific VPN service. You completely eliminate
On Wed, 10 Jun 2020 at 22:36, Phil Bedard wrote:
> In its simplest form without TE paths, there isn't much to SRv6. You use a
> v6 address as an endpoint and a portion of the address to specify a specific
> VPN service. You completely eliminate the label distribution protocol.
Then do
Once upon a time, William Herrin said:
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 3:02 PM Baldur Norddahl
> wrote:
> > Am I correct in assuming loose mode RPF only drops packets from unannounced
> > address space in the global routing table?
>
> Actually, I'm not sure since my plan around RPF is "10 foot
> Hello, Luma Systems has built a SaaS-based optical monitoring platform
> enabling vendor-neutral DWDM Channel Monitoring and In-Service OTDR with a
> robust predictive analytics engine. We've met with many Nanogers over the
> last couple years but if you're interested in learning more, please
Am I correct in assuming loose mode RPF only drops packets from unannounced
address space in the global routing table? And the downside of doing so is
that sometimes we do receive packets from that address space, usually back
scatter from traceroute or other ICMP messages.
Currently about 25% of
On Tue, Jun 9, 2020, at 08:04, Mark Tinka wrote:
> On 5/Jun/20 18:49, Saku Ytti wrote:
> > The comparison isn't between full or default, the comparison is
> > between static default or dynamic default. Of course with any default
> > scenario there are more failure modes you cannot route around.
On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 3:02 PM Baldur Norddahl
wrote:
> Am I correct in assuming loose mode RPF only drops packets from unannounced
> address space in the global routing table?
Actually, I'm not sure since my plan around RPF is "10 foot pole." Is
"loose mode" really just filtering packets the
Hi all.
Just want to sample the room and find out if anyone here - especially
those running an LDP-based BGPv4-free core (or something close to it) -
would be interested in LDPv6, in order to achieve the same for BGPv6?
A discussion I've been having with Cisco on the matter is that they do
not
27 matches
Mail list logo
