It looks great though I would not want to troubleshoot the RIB to FIB
programing errors unless there's a note somewhere saying what abbreviation to
search for in FIB.
The other think that comes to mind is that the more specifics could have
different backup next-hops programed.
adam
From:
you mean your vendor won't give you the knobs to do it smartly ([j]tac
tickets open for five years)? wonder why.
Might be useful if you mentioned what you considered a smart way to
trim the fib. But then you couldn't bitch and moan about people not
understanding you, which is the real
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 01:47:20AM -0400, Dorian Kim wrote:
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 12:15:36AM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
Composed on a virtual keyboard, please forgive typos.
On Aug 13, 2014, at 22:59, Suresh Ramasubramanian ops.li...@gmail.com
wrote:
Swisscom or some
It was kindly pointed out to me in private that my phrasing could be
misleading here.
When ACL112 came into being, there were old equipment that were being
protected by the /19 filters. However, the filters were in place long
after those equipment were replaced.
but by then it had driven
Subject: Re: So Philip Smith / Geoff Huston's CIDR report becomes worth a good
hard look today Date: Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 11:27:46AM -0700 Quoting Merike Kaeo
(mer...@doubleshotsecurity.com):
B: they *did* know about the issue, but convincing management to spend
the cash to buy hardware
I believe at one point, SPRINT had in the RADB (and actively advertised)
0.0.0.0/2, 64.0.0.0/2, 128.0.0.0/2, and 192.0.0.0/2 under something called
“Quarter Default Route, see Rational Default Project” or words to that effect.
I could be wrong. It was a long time ago and I barely remember
On Aug 14, 2014, at 02:36 , Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
It was kindly pointed out to me in private that my phrasing could be
misleading here.
When ACL112 came into being, there were old equipment that were being
protected by the /19 filters. However, the filters were in place long
When ACL112 came into being, there were old equipment that were being
protected by the /19 filters. However, the filters were in place long
after those equipment were replaced.
This was done for commercial reasons, not to protect the Internet.
You know it, I know it, and I'm pretty sure the
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 8:20 PM, Chris Woodfield rek...@semihuman.com wrote:
Hence the “when programming the TCAM” part of my original statement :)
Hi Chris,
My point was that Randy's BGP RIB pruning knobs are missing for a
different reason than your router FIB pruning knobs. Neither the
: Re: So Philip Smith / Geoff Huston's CIDR report becomes worth a good
hard look today
half the routing table is deagg crap. filter it.
you mean your vendor won't give you the knobs to do it smartly ([j]tac tickets
open for five years)? wonder why.
randy
My point was that Randy's BGP RIB pruning knobs are missing for a
different reason than your router FIB pruning knobs. Neither the
science nor the technology exists to create Randy's BGP pruning knobs.
ahhh, you dug out the [j]tac tickets, or are you just conjecturbating?
if the former, ticket
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 4:57 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
My point was that Randy's BGP RIB pruning knobs are missing for a
different reason than your router FIB pruning knobs. Neither the
science nor the technology exists to create Randy's BGP pruning knobs.
ahhh, you dug out the
ahhh, you dug out the [j]tac tickets, or are you just conjecturbating?
Neither.
ROFL. so just ad hominem. smart.
plonk
randy
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 6:07 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
ahhh, you dug out the [j]tac tickets, or are you just conjecturbating?
Neither. I'm reporting the state of the science.
ROFL. so just ad hominem. smart.
That phrase ad hominem, I don't think it means what you think it means.
Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4GLTE sm
- Reply message -
From: William Herrin b...@herrin.us
To: Randy Bush ra...@psg.com
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group nanog@nanog.org
Subject: So Philip Smith / Geoff Huston's CIDR report becomes worth a good hard
look today
Date: Thu,
I think you mean what is best described here:
http://www.swinog.ch/meetings/swinog7/BGP_filtering-swinog.ppt
--Aris
Suresh Ramasubramanian mailto:ops.li...@gmail.com
Thursday, August 14, 2014 04:59
Swisscom or some other European SP has / used to have a limit where they
would not accept more
Subject: So Philip Smith / Geoff Huston's CIDR report becomes worth a good hard
look today Date: Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 09:40:55PM +0530 Quoting Suresh
Ramasubramanian (ops.li...@gmail.com):
512K routes, here we come. Lots of TCAM based routers suddenly become
really expensive doorstops.
We
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 1:40 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 08:08:04 +0300, Hank Nussbacher said:
We went with 768 - enough time to replace the routers with ASR9010s. It is
merely a stop-gap measure to give everyone time to replace their routers in
an orderly
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 8/13/2014 6:52 AM, Warren Kumari wrote:
Am I overly cynical, or does this all work out perfectly for some
vendors? I'm guessing that a certain vendor is going to see a huge
number of orders for new equipment, for an event that could have
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Apologies for replying to my own post, but... below:
On 8/13/2014 7:05 AM, Paul Ferguson wrote:
On 8/13/2014 6:52 AM, Warren Kumari wrote:
Am I overly cynical, or does this all work out perfectly for
some vendors? I'm guessing that a certain
On 8/13/14 8:55 AM, Paul Ferguson wrote:
Apologies for replying to my own post, but... below:
On 8/13/2014 7:05 AM, Paul Ferguson wrote:
p.s. I recall some IPv6 prefix growth routing projections by Vince
Fuller and Tony Li from several years ago which illustrated this,
but cannot find
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 8/13/2014 11:09 AM, joel jaeggli wrote:
On 8/13/14 8:55 AM, Paul Ferguson wrote:
Apologies for replying to my own post, but... below:
On 8/13/2014 7:05 AM, Paul Ferguson wrote:
p.s. I recall some IPv6 prefix growth routing projections
On Aug 13, 2014, at 6:52 AM, Warren Kumari war...@kumari.net wrote:
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 1:40 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 08:08:04 +0300, Hank Nussbacher said:
We went with 768 - enough time to replace the routers with ASR9010s. It is
merely a stop-gap
half the routing table is deagg crap. filter it.
you mean your vendor won't give you the knobs to do it smartly ([j]tac
tickets open for five years)? wonder why.
randy
Same reason no vendor has bothered to prune redundant RIB entries (i.e.
more-specific pointing to the same NH as a covering route) when programming the
TCAM...
-C
On Aug 13, 2014, at 1:42 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
half the routing table is deagg crap. filter it.
you mean your
On 14 Aug 2014, at 4:14 am, Paul Ferguson fergdawgs...@mykolab.com wrote:
On 8/13/14 8:55 AM, Paul Ferguson wrote:
Apologies for replying to my own post, but... below:
On 8/13/2014 7:05 AM, Paul Ferguson wrote:
p.s. I recall some IPv6 prefix growth routing projections by
Vince
On Aug 13, 2014, at 16:42 , Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
half the routing table is deagg crap. filter it.
We disagree.
Just because you don't like all more specifics doesn't mean they are useless.
Not everything is about minimizing FIB size. (And RIB size hasn't been relevant
for
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 6:47 PM, Chris Woodfield rek...@semihuman.com wrote:
On Aug 13, 2014, at 1:42 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
half the routing table is deagg crap. filter it.
you mean your vendor won't give you the knobs to do it smartly ([j]tac
tickets open for five years)?
Pruning FIB entries, on the other hand, can be done quite safely as
long as you're willing to accept the conversion of null route to
don't care. Some experiments were done on this in the IETF a couple
years back. Draft-zhang-fibaggregation maybe? Savings of 30% in
typical backbone nodes
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 07:53:45PM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
you mean your vendor won't give you the knobs to do it smartly ([j]tac
tickets open for five years)? wonder why.
Might be useful if you mentioned what you considered a smart way to
trim the fib. But then you couldn't
Swisscom or some other European SP has / used to have a limit where they
would not accept more specific routes than say a /22 from provider x, so if
you wanted to take a /24 and announce it you were SOL sending packets to
them from that /24 over provider y.
Still, for elderly and capacity limited
Once upon a time, Brett Frankenberger rbf+na...@panix.com said:
-- This isn't that hard to implement. Once you have a FIB and
primitives for manipulating it, it's not especially difficult to extend
them to also maintain a minimal-size-FIB.
I would say it is hard to implement, or at least
Composed on a virtual keyboard, please forgive typos.
On Aug 13, 2014, at 22:59, Suresh Ramasubramanian ops.li...@gmail.com wrote:
Swisscom or some other European SP has / used to have a limit where they
would not accept more specific routes than say a /22 from provider x, so if
you
Sprint used to proxy aggregate… I remember 128.0.0.0/3
the real question, imho, is if folks are going to look into their crystal balls
and roadmap where the default offered is a /32 (either v4 or v6)
and plan accordingly, or just slap another bandaid on the oozing wound...
/bill
PO Box
Sprint also had 192/2 in the RADB :)
manning bill wrote:
Sprint used to proxy aggregate… I remember 128.0.0.0/3
the real question, imho, is if folks are going to look into their
crystal balls and roadmap where the default offered is a /32 (either
v4 or v6)
and plan accordingly, or just
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 12:15:36AM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
Composed on a virtual keyboard, please forgive typos.
On Aug 13, 2014, at 22:59, Suresh Ramasubramanian ops.li...@gmail.com
wrote:
Swisscom or some other European SP has / used to have a limit where they
would not
On Tue, 12 Aug 2014, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
Many don't need to buy anything new. Just follow the instructions here:
http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/switches/catalyst-6500-series-switche$
We did this in the 1st week of June. Problem solved.
-Hank
512K routes, here we come.
On Tue, 12 Aug 2014, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/switches/catalyst-6500-series-switches/117712-problemsolution-cat6500-00.html
-Hank
On Tue, 12 Aug 2014, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
Many don't need to buy anything new. Just follow the instructions
On Aug 12, 2014, at 1:02 PM, Hank Nussbacher h...@efes.iucc.ac.il wrote:
Many don't need to buy anything new. Just follow the instructions here:
http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/switches/catalyst-6500-series-switche$
We did this in the 1st week of June. Problem solved.
s/Problem
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 2:42 PM, Hank Nussbacher h...@efes.iucc.ac.il wrote:
http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/switches/catalyst-6500-series-switches/117712-problemsolution-cat6500-00.html
I note that the recommended command in that article, mls cef
maximum-routes ip 1000, will throw
On 12/08/14 23:10, William Herrin wrote:
I note that the recommended command in that article, mls cef
maximum-routes ip 1000, will throw most of your IPv6 routes out of
the TCAM instead. Which if you have any IPv6 traffic of substance just
kills you in the other direction. Might want to try
On Tue, 12 Aug 2014, Matthew Petach wrote:
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 5:06 PM, McElearney, Kevin
kevin_mcelear...@cable.comcast.com wrote:
http://www.zdnet.com/internet-hiccups-today-youre-not-alone-heres-why-7
32566/
According to NANOG, and complaints tracker DownDetector, many Internet
From: Matthew Petach mpet...@netflight.com
Unless you guys are miraculously managing to terminate
Nx100G bundles into 6509s with Sup2 or sup3s, I would
be really, really surprised if this even made it on your
radar. Chalk it up to poorly-researched reporting.
And if you *are* handling Nx100G
At 18:10 12/08/2014 -0400, William Herrin wrote:
We went with 768 - enough time to replace the routers with ASR9010s. It is
merely a stop-gap measure to give everyone time to replace their routers in
an orderly fashion.
-Hank
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 2:42 PM, Hank Nussbacher
On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 08:08:04 +0300, Hank Nussbacher said:
We went with 768 - enough time to replace the routers with ASR9010s. It is
merely a stop-gap measure to give everyone time to replace their routers in
an orderly fashion.
The same people who, knowing the 6509 had this default config
45 matches
Mail list logo
