Re: IRR information & BYOIP (Bring Your Own IP) with Cloud Providers

On Jan 21, 2024, at 16:10, Christopher Morrow wrote:On Sun, Jan 21, 2024, 5:39 PM Owen DeLong wrote:On Jan 21, 2024, at 12:07, Christopher Morrow wrote:On Fri, Jan 19, 2024, 4:55 PM Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:Sounds like you’ve got

Re: IRR information & BYOIP (Bring Your Own IP) with Cloud Providers

On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 1:55 PM Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: > Sounds like you’ve got a weird mix of route origination. Why wouldn’t you > advertise to Google via BGP and have your prefix originate from your own ASN? Big Cloud byoip doesn't generally work that way. You register the addresses in

Re: IRR information & BYOIP (Bring Your Own IP) with Cloud Providers

> At least that's how the AWS offering works. AWS allows you to broadcast your own ASN when you BYOIP: https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2023/11/amazon-vpc-ip-address-manager-bring-your-own-asn-aws/ -Dan > On Jan 22, 2024, at 16:37, William Herrin wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 19, 2024

Re: Networks ignoring prepends?

On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 10:19 AM James Jun wrote: > So, as a customer, you actually SHOULD be demanding your ISPs > to positively identify and categorize their routes using local-pref > and communities. Hi James, The best path to me from Centurylink is: 3356 1299 20473 11875 The path

Re: Networks ignoring prepends?

On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 06:02:53AM -0800, William Herrin wrote: > On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 5:24???AM Patrick W. Gilmore > wrote: > > Standard practice is to localpref your customers up, which makes prepends > > irrelevant. Why would anyone expect different behavior? > > It gives me, your paying

Re: Networks ignoring prepends?

On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 5:23 AM Jon Lewis wrote: > You may be limited to seeing if your backup providers have community > controls that would let you tell them "don't share with Centurylink" As I already explained, neither the primary nor any of the backup providers directly peer with

Re: Networks ignoring prepends?

I really really wish there were a couple of well-known and globally respected communities which you could set to say either "this is a route of last resort" or "this is my preferred route". I feel like it would avoid many of us doing exactly what you're about to do which is pollute the routing

Re: Networks ignoring prepends?

On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 1:11 PM Andrew Hoyos wrote: > On Jan 22, 2024, at 14:35, William Herrin wrote: >> The best path to me from Centurylink is: 3356 1299 20473 11875 > >> The path Centurylink chose is: 3356 47787 47787 47787 47787 53356 >> 11875 11875 11875 > >> Do you want to tell me again

Re: Networks ignoring prepends?

William Herrin wrote on 22/01/2024 21:26: At which point Centurylink chooses 40676 7489 11875 11875 11875 11875 11875 11875 11875. [...] You're telling me with a straight face that you think that's*reasonable* routing? yep, looks pretty reasonable, if you're Centurylink and 40676 is a

Re: Networks ignoring prepends?

To expand on what others have said here, I find it helpful to think of BGP as a policy enforcement protocol, rather than as a distance vector routing protocol. To that end, there’s a generally expected hierarchy of routes, and then a lot of individuality between networks. Having done

Re: IRR information & BYOIP (Bring Your Own IP) with Cloud Providers

On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 1:27 PM Owen DeLong wrote: > > > > On Jan 21, 2024, at 16:10, Christopher Morrow wrote: > >  > > > On Sun, Jan 21, 2024, 5:39 PM Owen DeLong wrote: >> >> >> >> On Jan 21, 2024, at 12:07, Christopher Morrow >> wrote: >> >>  >> >> >> On Fri, Jan 19, 2024, 4:55 PM Owen

Odp: Re: IRR information & BYOIP (Bring Your Own IP) with Cloud Providers

Dnia 21 stycznia 2024 21:07 Christopher Morrow morrowc.li...@gmail.com napisał(a):On Fri, Jan 19, 2024, 4:55 PM Owen DeLong via NANOG nanog@nanog.org wrote: Sounds like you’ve got a weird mix of route origination. Why wouldn’t you advertise to Google via BGP and have your prefix

Odp: Re: IRR information & BYOIP (Bring Your Own IP) with Cloud Providers

We dont advertise our prefix anymore from any actual DataCenter, we still own prefixes and ASN and GCP is only place we want to advertise it. Dnia 21 stycznia 2024 23:39 Owen DeLong o...@delong.com napisał(a): On Jan 21, 2024, at 12:07, Christopher Morrow

Re: Mail to Microsoft being falsely marked as spam/bulk

On Sun, Jan 21, 2024 at 12:18:21PM +0100, Bjoern Franke via NANOG wrote a message of 25 lines which said: > I had the same issue in which they were unable (or unwillig) to resolve it, > and wouldn't have "the liberty to discuss the source of the block". Creating > a new ticket some weeks

Re: Networks ignoring prepends?

You can use the ultimate BOFH BGP tool, which is to include the network you don't want those announcements to go in the AS Path. Let's say your ASN is 65000, and the target you want to not route through that path is 65001. For the path you want that network to route to, announce this AS Path:

Re: Networks ignoring prepends?

On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 02:03:48PM -0800, William Herrin wrote: > > It offends my pride to handle it this way, but -you- shoulder the cost. > You're misdiagnosing the issue at hand. CL is choosing 3356 47787[x3] 53356 11875[x3] over better path via 1299: What you need to be doing is reaching

Re: Networks ignoring prepends?

On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 6:43 PM William Herrin wrote: > On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 5:59 PM James Jun wrote: > > CL is choosing 3356 47787[x3] 53356 11875[x3] over better path via 1299: > >This is not a Lumen/CenturyLink/Level 3 problem. > > What you need to be doing is > > Hi James, > > My solution

Re: Networks ignoring prepends?

And now you are faced with an object lesson as to why TE routes are so prevalent. Less specifics are your only functional alternative here. In most cases, you shouldn’t need more than 2 per prefix. Owen > On Jan 22, 2024, at 12:16, William Herrin wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 5:23 

Re: Networks ignoring prepends?

On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 3:34 PM Alex Le Heux wrote: > This is perfectly reasonable routing _if you're 3356_ > > In this profit-driven world, expecting 3356 to do something that's > unprofitable for them just because it happens to be convenient for you is, > well, unreasonable. Hi Alex, Every

Re: Networks ignoring prepends?

> > I’d bet that 47787 is a paying century link customer. As such, despite the > ugliness of the path, CL probably local prefs everything advertised by them > higher than any non-paying link. I’m willing to bet 1299 is peered and not > paying CL. > It's almost as if you've done this before. :)

Re: Networks ignoring prepends?

On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 5:59 PM James Jun wrote: > CL is choosing 3356 47787[x3] 53356 11875[x3] over better path via 1299: >This is not a Lumen/CenturyLink/Level 3 problem. > What you need to be doing is Hi James, My solution has been to add two more-specific routes to -your- routing table so

Re: Networks ignoring prepends?

On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 4:16 PM Alex Le Heux wrote: > > On Jan 23, 2024, at 00:43, William Herrin wrote: > > Every packet has two customers: the one sending it and the one > > receiving it. 3356 is providing a service to its customers. ALL of its > > customers. Not just 47787. Sending the packet

Re: Networks ignoring prepends?

> > As I already explained, neither the primary nor any of the backup > providers directly peer with Centurylink, thus have no communities for > controlling announcements to Centurylink. No, but they do have an option to not announce to 47787. https://docs.freerangecloud.com/en/bgp/communities

Re: Networks ignoring prepends?

I’d bet that 47787 is a paying century link customer. As such, despite the ugliness of the path, CL probably local prefs everything advertised by them higher than any non-paying link. I’m willing to bet 1299 is peered and not paying CL. Sending bits for revenue is almost always preferable to

RE: Networks ignoring prepends?

> > William Herrin wrote: Until they tamper with it using localpref, BGP's default behavior with prepends does exactly the right thing, at least in my situation. I feel your pain Bill, but from a slightly different angle. For years the large CDNs have been disregarding prepends. When a

Re: Networks ignoring prepends?

On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 1:55 PM Nick Hilliard wrote: > You have your own ASN, you have control over your own routing policy. > Centurylink probably aren't going to be interested in engaging with you > if you're not a customer. It's a pickle. It's not a pickle for me. I'll announce three prefixes

Re: IRR information & BYOIP (Bring Your Own IP) with Cloud Providers

On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 1:57 PM Daniel Marks wrote: > AWS allows you to broadcast your own ASN when you BYOIP: > https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2023/11/amazon-vpc-ip-address-manager-bring-your-own-asn-aws/ True, but even then they're not propagating a BGP announcement from you.

Re: Re: IRR information & BYOIP (Bring Your Own IP) with Cloud Providers

On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 7:39 AM kubanowy wrote: > On Jan 19, 2024, at 02:39, kubanowy wrote: > > Hi, > We have our own prefix assignment from ARIN. We have our infrastructure in > GCP (Google Cloud Platform) where we started using BYOIP functionality > (Google advertises our IPs). We followed

Re: Networks ignoring prepends?

Prepend contraction is becoming more common. You can’t really stop providers from doing it, and it reduces BGP table size, which I’ve heard as a secondary rationale. I’d love to see the statistics on that though. BGP Communities seem to be the only alternative, and that limits your engineering

Re: Networks ignoring prepends?

> The Internet is lying to itself, and that’s not a situation that can persist > forever. I am not sure I agree. First, prepends are a suggestion. Perhaps a request. It has never (or at least not for the 3 decades I’ve been doing this) been a guarantee. In the situation below, perhaps the 5K

Re: Networks ignoring prepends?

On Mon, 22 Jan 2024, William Herrin wrote: On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 5:24 AM Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: Standard practice is to localpref your customers up, which makes prepends irrelevant. Why would anyone expect different behavior? It gives me, your paying customer, less control over my

Networks ignoring prepends?

Howdy, Does anyone have suggestions for dealing with networks who ignore my BGP route prepends? I have a primary ingress with no prepends and then several distant backups with multiple prepends of my own AS number. My intention, of course, is that folks take the short path to me whenever it's

Re: Networks ignoring prepends?

* b...@herrin.us (William Herrin) [Mon 22 Jan 2024, 15:05 CET]: On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 5:24 AM Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: Standard practice is to localpref your customers up, which makes prepends irrelevant. Why would anyone expect different behavior? It gives me, your paying customer, less

Re: Networks ignoring prepends?

On Mon, 22 Jan 2024, William Herrin wrote: Howdy, Does anyone have suggestions for dealing with networks who ignore my BGP route prepends? I have a primary ingress with no prepends and then several distant backups with multiple prepends of my own AS number. My intention, of course, is that

Re: Networks ignoring prepends?

On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 5:24 AM Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: > Standard practice is to localpref your customers up, which makes prepends > irrelevant. Why would anyone expect different behavior? It gives me, your paying customer, less control over my routing through your network than if I wasn't