HHHmmmmm.....
I'm currently multihomed between UUNet and AT&T. Now, I'm actually
advertising
UUNet's address space to AT&T, but looking through the BGP feed from UUNet,
I can pick out a ton of address space that you claim to originate, but isn't
actually
yours. I actually, almost had the reverse config if AT&T's DS3 and OC-x
pricing
hadn't been so high, and I was told that it wouldn't be a problem.
I'll just pick out one, and let you do the rest of your homework.
How do you explain 12.96.91.0.... which is actually AT&T, but you claim
to originate.... While I know this used to be UUNet's policy, times have
obviously changed.
""Sena, Elver"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Brian,
>
> It seems that you know something that no one in my engineering group
knows.
> I do work for UUNet as an Engineer not an SE and my group has been told
that
>
> 1) We do not advertise IPs unless they are owned by the customer.
> 2) If we advertise them (IPs not own by the customer), it will only
> be in our WAN portion of the web. We will NOT advertise it to our
> peers.
>
> As I said, you must know something I don't know and I DON'T mean to
question
> what you just said. I will definitely research it within the company.
>
> Thanks for the info.
>
> Elver
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 9:30 AM
> To: Sena, Elver
> Cc: Jason T. Carnevale; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Verizon BGP
>
>
> On Tue, 10 Oct 2000, Sena, Elver wrote:
>
> > Brian,
> >
> > At UUNet we DO NOT advertise other ISPs IPs. We will advertise the
> > customer's IPs if they own them (acquired from Arin, as mentioned by
> Jason).
> > By the way, Jason's explanation looks accurate.
>
> Elver,
>
> I hate to tell this to an actual employee of the company, but "that not
> true.". I know of at least 20 or so ISP's with UUnet transit, and
> non-portable address space from many other providers like Sprint, CW, etc,
> and you all announce it. I personally have been a UUnet transit customer
> since 1995, we have multiple T1's and a DS3 with you all, and you all
> announce even /24's we have from other provider. For example, head over
> to nitrous.digex.net (or the looking glass of your choice) and pop in
> "207.138.69.0". You will see that about a half of dozen NSP's, including
> UUnet, are letting us announce this block thru them, yet it is
> non-portable space from Global Crossing.
>
> This is standard UUnet practice by the way, I am not some special case, I
> am going to take a guess and assume you probably just work for Worldcom
> and are not a UUnet SE.
>
> Brian
>
>
>
> >
> > Elver
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Brian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 12:15 AM
> > To: Jason T. Carnevale
> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: Verizon BGP
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Jason T. Carnevale wrote:
> >
> > > The problem is not that Verizon can not advertise another providers IP
> > > space it is that Venison by policy DOES NOT route other provider's IP
> > > space. What is trying to be accomplished here is that Jin Tam is
> > > trying to dual home his site, which is normal. Verizon requires that a
> > > customer get their own IP space from Arin to do this. Verizon is well
> > > aware of the longest match rule, but to route one ISPs address space
> > > to multiple ISPs, (even if it is a more specific route) is asking for
> > > global routing problems, which is why Verizon and other providers do
> > > not allow this. You will also find that large ISPs do not except BGP
> >
> > not true, just about any major backbone provider will do this for you.
> >
> > > routes more specific than /21. I would refer to Internet Routing
> >
> > some large ISP's yes. Most large NSP's no. Who am I talking
> > about? Well, lets say you have a /24 from a provider, and want it
> > announced from your new provider.........who will do this for you? At
> > least: UUnet, Qwest, Global Crossing, ATT, Sprint, Cable and
> > Wireless.....
> >
> > A large ISP shouldn't care, if the case is legit.........I mean, if a
> > customer comes to you, and needs his /24 dual homed for redundancy, help
> > him out. If you don't someone else will. Now I am not saying lets all
> > get together and dump on the global table, but its not fair that
companies
> > like UUnet for example, blatently leak MASSIVE routes into the global
> > table, routes that don't need to be there at all, routes that accomplish
> > nothing (specifics of a larger UUnet aggregate to a single homed UUnet
> > customer). I mean, you have to make a buck too. If UUnet cleaned up
its
> > routes alone, it would reduce the GLOBAL table by about 1/2%. A single
> > company........reducing the memory consumption of every global router in
> > the world, by doing nothing more than cleaning up its routes......that
> > would equate to actual dollars saved.........
> >
> > Sorry for the rant. Bottom line, if an NSP won't announce your /24, go
> > somewhere else that will.........there are plenty of options.......and
my
> > god, most of them are better options than verizon.
> >
> >
> > > Architectures for more information on setting up a dual homed BGP
> > > session with your ISP. I also must state that people that respond to
> > > these types of posts should not assume all the facts are presented by
> > > the poster and with that in mind should not assume that the parties
> > > involved are high school idiots. Just my 2 cents.
> >
> > well.........I just don't think the point is valid. If Verizon
announces
> > the more specific route.........what has happened? One entry has been
> > added to the table. If the user gets there own space, and verizon
> > announces, what has happened? One entry has been added to the
> > table.......Now I know, that more than likely a user dual homing is
going
> > to have a half dozen or more specifics, which could be replaced by a
> > single ARIN allocation. But does verizon take that into consideration?
I
> > mean, its possible your other provider did actually give you a /21 for
> > example.........and that your space is contigious, and that by going to
> > ARIN you save the world nothing.
> >
> > Also, what do you mean exactly that to route ones ISP space to another
ISP
> > can cause global routing problems? I mean, so long as its done properly
> > you should be ok, this is a design consideration of BGP.
> >
> > Once again, sorry for the long rant.
> >
> > Brian
> >
> >
> > >
> > > -Jason
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Jin Tam wrote:
> > >
> > > > Does anyone here peer with Verizon or work for the NOC. These guys
are
> > >
> > > > telling me that I can't advertise an address block that doesn't
belong
> > to
> > >
> > > > them. So, what the hell is the point of a BGP session if I can't
> > advertise
> > >
> > > > the same address through 2 or more providers. Also, I pointed my
> > advertised
> > >
> > > > address at Null0 so that there would be a route in the table. They
are
> > >
> > > > telling me that all the traffic will be dropped at the router. I had
> to
> > >
> > > well it would, except that:
> > >
> > > 1. you are no doubt pointing an aggregate to null0, and the actual
> routes
> > >
> > > which have meaning are more specific.
> > >
> > > 2. you are using a high administrative distance on that route
> > >
> > > > explain to their networking team about the longest match rule. Are
> these
> > >
> > > > guys hiring high school grads for the NOC team?
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > **NOTE: New CCNA/CCDA List has been formed. For more information go
to
> > >
> > > > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/Associates.html
> > >
> > > > _________________________________
> > >
> > > > UPDATED Posting Guidelines:
http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html
> > >
> > > > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com
> > >
> > > > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > -----------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Brian Feeny, CCNP, CCDP [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > > Network Administrator
> > >
> > > ShreveNet Inc. (ASN 11881)
> > >
> > > **NOTE: New CCNA/CCDA List has been formed. For more information go to
> > >
> > > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/Associates.html
> > >
> > > _________________________________
> > >
> > > UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html
> > >
> > > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com
> > >
> > > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------
> > Brian Feeny, CCNP, CCDP [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Network Administrator
> > ShreveNet Inc. (ASN 11881)
> >
> > **NOTE: New CCNA/CCDA List has been formed. For more information go to
> > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/Associates.html
> > _________________________________
> > UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html
> > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com
> > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
>
> -----------------------------------------------
> Brian Feeny, CCNP, CCDP [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Network Administrator
> ShreveNet Inc. (ASN 11881)
>
> **NOTE: New CCNA/CCDA List has been formed. For more information go to
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/Associates.html
> _________________________________
> UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html
> FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com
> Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
**NOTE: New CCNA/CCDA List has been formed. For more information go to
http://www.groupstudy.com/list/Associates.html
_________________________________
UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
