RIP in Operation
Hi, I am sure that there would be very few people running RIP in their networks, but since the IETF RIP mailing list is dead, and also because its more of an operational question, the Nanog list felt most appropriate to me for the following post. Why would you, as an operator, recieve RIPv2 Request messages? The only reason that comes to my mind is when a remote RIPv2 router has just come up. That time its going to multicast this message on all its interfaces configured to run RIP. This is the *only* reason that comes to my mind. However, there is text in the RFC 2453 that states that RIP can use this message to request specific networks also. It also states that such a request can only be made by a diagonistic software and cannot be used for routing. My doubt is, how can a diagnostic software, use the services of RIP for doing that? I assume (please correct me if i am wrong) that the RIP requests are only then, used for requesting the entire routing tables, and nothing else. The 'diagnostics' story sounds too far fetched to me! Thanks, Abhishek V. P.S. I tried googling but nothing came up. -- Class of 2004 Institue Of Technology, BHU Varanasi - India
Re: RIP in Operation
On Thu, Sep 16, 2004 at 07:19:24PM +0530, Abhishek Verma wrote: Hi, I am sure that there would be very few people running RIP in their networks, but since the IETF RIP mailing list is dead, and also because its more of an operational question, the Nanog list felt most appropriate to me for the following post. i guess i'm among the very few then. Why would you, as an operator, recieve RIPv2 Request messages? The only reason that comes to my mind is when a remote RIPv2 router has just come up. That time its going to multicast this message on all its interfaces configured to run RIP. This is the *only* reason that comes to my mind. thats the normal way However, there is text in the RFC 2453 that states that RIP can use this message to request specific networks also. It also states that such a request can only be made by a diagonistic software and cannot be used for routing. My doubt is, how can a diagnostic software, use the services of RIP for doing that? kind of depends on the implementation of RIP you are using. I assume (please correct me if i am wrong) that the RIP requests are only then, used for requesting the entire routing tables, and nothing else. The 'diagnostics' story sounds too far fetched to me! ripv2 allows for requesting specific prefixes. not too far fetched. Thanks, Abhishek V. P.S. I tried googling but nothing came up. -- Class of 2004 Institue Of Technology, BHU Varanasi - India
Re: RIP in Operation
We were running RIP till some time back and very recently migrated to OSPF. The former was just too slow and stupid! I remember we once had started recieving a lot of RIP request messages for some strange prefixes. I dont know what caused that, but we did see those messages. But then, i remember it wasnt normal at all. We shouldnt have been recieving them. Some one fixed the problem at the other end, and the matter just ended there. Your mail just reminded of this. Tulip Hi, I am sure that there would be very few people running RIP in their networks, but since the IETF RIP mailing list is dead, and also because its more of an operational question, the Nanog list felt most appropriate to me for the following post. Why would you, as an operator, recieve RIPv2 Request messages? The only reason that comes to my mind is when a remote RIPv2 router has just come up. That time its going to multicast this message on all its interfaces configured to run RIP. This is the *only* reason that comes to my mind. However, there is text in the RFC 2453 that states that RIP can use this message to request specific networks also. It also states that such a request can only be made by a diagonistic software and cannot be used for routing. My doubt is, how can a diagnostic software, use the services of RIP for doing that? I assume (please correct me if i am wrong) that the RIP requests are only then, used for requesting the entire routing tables, and nothing else. The 'diagnostics' story sounds too far fetched to me! Thanks, Abhishek V. P.S. I tried googling but nothing came up. -- Class of 2004 Institue Of Technology, BHU Varanasi - India
Re: RIP in Operation
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004, Abhishek Verma wrote: I am sure that there would be very few people running RIP in their networks, Actually you'd be surprised.. its quite common as its very simple and used on a lot of low end routers in favor of more cpu/memory intensive ospf/isis. I know of a number of customers we have using RIP v1 and v2 Steve
Lucent/Ascend/Cascade B-STDX images
I've exhausted all my resources, and have not found a definitive method for upgrading a production switch from cp40 to cp50. Is it as simple as hot-swapping the standby, ignoring the capability mismatch, changing the active cp, then doing the same for the master cp? Also, curious if the images for these blades are interchangeable. Any input would be most appreciated. cheers, brian
Re: RIP in Operation
However, there is text in the RFC 2453 that states that RIP can use this message to request specific networks also. It also states that such a request can only be made by a diagonistic software and cannot be used for routing. My doubt is, how can a diagnostic software, use the services of RIP for doing that? This allows a remote node to obtain the routing table information from a remote router in a simple manner. I assume (please correct me if i am wrong) that the RIP requests are only then, used for requesting the entire routing tables, and nothing else. The 'diagnostics' story sounds too far fetched to me! Sorry, no. The thinking at the time was that this was a good way to debug routing problems. Of course, this was in the pre-traceroute days. Tony
Re: RIP in Operation
We use RIP extensively on the edges of our network to build a Layer3 routed overlay between 3550/3750 switches and our 6500-based core. At $2k/list for the EMI license PER SWITCH ($4k for 3750s), it just wasn't feasible for us to use EMI just for OSPF when all we were really announcing was a loopback and a /30 connected network. We route filter and tune the RIP times down quite a bit. Meets our needs on the edges. Robert University of Wisconsin Madison On Thu, 16 Sep 2004, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote: On Thu, 16 Sep 2004, Abhishek Verma wrote: I am sure that there would be very few people running RIP in their networks, Actually you'd be surprised.. its quite common as its very simple and used on a lot of low end routers in favor of more cpu/memory intensive ospf/isis. I know of a number of customers we have using RIP v1 and v2 Steve
Re: RIP in Operation
We use RIP extensively on the edges of our network to build a Layer3 routed overlay between 3550/3750 switches and our 6500-based core. At $2k/list for the EMI license PER SWITCH ($4k for 3750s), it just wasn't feasible for us to use EMI just for OSPF when all we were really announcing was a loopback and a /30 connected network. We route filter and tune the RIP times down quite a bit. Meets our needs on the edges. I assume you mean RIPv2, ie. classless. With that caveat, I can certainly see why RIP would be used. Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RIP in Operation
Oh certainly, RIPv2. I tend to just assume that RIP is generic and everyone means v2. - Robert On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We use RIP extensively on the edges of our network to build a Layer3 routed overlay between 3550/3750 switches and our 6500-based core. At $2k/list for the EMI license PER SWITCH ($4k for 3750s), it just wasn't feasible for us to use EMI just for OSPF when all we were really announcing was a loopback and a /30 connected network. We route filter and tune the RIP times down quite a bit. Meets our needs on the edges. I assume you mean RIPv2, ie. classless. With that caveat, I can certainly see why RIP would be used. Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RIP in Operation
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We route filter and tune the RIP times down quite a bit. Meets our needs on the edges. I assume you mean RIPv2, ie. classless. With that caveat, I can certainly see why RIP would be used. not necessarily, classful may still work for many applications altho vlsm is likely to be the sticking point rather than classful boundaries Steve
ARIN is allocating from 72.0.0.0/8
Hello- ARIN began allocating IP address space from 72.0.0.0/8 on Sept 10, 2004. We anticipate that we will be making allocations from 71.0.0.0/8 in the near future. These 2 IP address blocks were issued to ARIN by the IANA on Aug. 2, 2004. This is a reminder message that you may need to adjust any filters you have in place for these two blocks accordingly. For informational purposes, a list of ARIN's currently administered IP blocks can be found under CIDR Blocks at: http://www.arin.net/statistics/index.html Regards, Leslie Nobile Director, Registration Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
Multi-link Frame Relay OR Load Balancing
We are in the process of updating our internet connection to 8 t1's bound together. Due to price, our options have been narrowed to ATT and MCI. I have two questions: 1. Which technology is better for binding t1's: multi link frame relay (mci's) or load balancing (att's) 2. Which company has a better pop in Atlanta: mci or att? We are in the Chattanooga TN area and our current connection is 6 t1's through att but they will only bond 4 so they are split 4 and 2. Bryce Enevoldson Information Processing Southern Adventist University
Re: Multi-link Frame Relay OR Load Balancing
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004, Bryce Enevoldson wrote: We are in the process of updating our internet connection to 8 t1's bound together. Due to price, our options have been narrowed to ATT and MCI. I have two questions: 1. Which technology is better for binding t1's: multi link frame relay (mci's) or load balancing (att's) of course, as always... not mci's view on the world ;) depends on what you want... do you want more than a 1.5mbps flow to pass? or do you just want to get 9mb of bandwidth and you don't care about max flow size? The MFR stuff will allow your link to look like a 9mb path, not 6 1.5mb paths. The load balancing makes it look like 6 l.5mb paths. 2. Which company has a better pop in Atlanta: mci or att? i'll avoid this question since I'm not equiped to answer as anything but a marketting answer :) We are in the Chattanooga TN area and our current connection is 6 t1's through att but they will only bond 4 so they are split 4 and 2. Some folks have said in the last that over 6mb of bandwidth it might be better/cheaper/easier to just get a fractional/burstable DS3 to meet your needs. -Chris
Re: Multi-link Frame Relay OR Load Balancing
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004, Bryce Enevoldson wrote: We are in the process of updating our internet connection to 8 t1's bound together. Due to price, our options have been narrowed to ATT and MCI. I have two questions: 1. Which technology is better for binding t1's: multi link frame relay (mci's) or load balancing (att's) It depends on what you mean by better. Multilink is more CPU-intensive but is nicer to such things as voice that don't deal well with packets arriving out of order. Load balancing can be per packet or per destination (or flow). Per-packet allows for aggregation of the multiple paths for a large flow between two specific points but can give voice and similar services problems with reassembly. So better will depend on the nature of your traffic. At that speed I would highly recommend a DS-3 instead of either of the above. -- Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Administration - [EMAIL PROTECTED] WestNet: Connecting you to the planet. 805 884-6323 WB6RDV NetLojix Communications, Inc. - http://www.netlojix.com/
RE: Multi-link Frame Relay OR Load Balancing
If your using Cisco hardware make sure that the IOS versions used on both sides support 8 next-hops for load balancing. 12.3(9) on a 7206 only supported 6 in one situation, and thus the Juniper on one end forwarded over all 8 T1's where the 7206 only forwarded over 6. From my research at the time it appears that the number off next-hops supported varied by IOS ver. -C -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christopher L. Morrow Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2004 3:53 PM To: Bryce Enevoldson Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Multi-link Frame Relay OR Load Balancing On Thu, 16 Sep 2004, Bryce Enevoldson wrote: We are in the process of updating our internet connection to 8 t1's bound together. Due to price, our options have been narrowed to ATT and MCI. I have two questions: 1. Which technology is better for binding t1's: multi link frame relay (mci's) or load balancing (att's) of course, as always... not mci's view on the world ;) depends on what you want... do you want more than a 1.5mbps flow to pass? or do you just want to get 9mb of bandwidth and you don't care about max flow size? The MFR stuff will allow your link to look like a 9mb path, not 6 1.5mb paths. The load balancing makes it look like 6 l.5mb paths. 2. Which company has a better pop in Atlanta: mci or att? i'll avoid this question since I'm not equiped to answer as anything but a marketting answer :) We are in the Chattanooga TN area and our current connection is 6 t1's through att but they will only bond 4 so they are split 4 and 2. Some folks have said in the last that over 6mb of bandwidth it might be better/cheaper/easier to just get a fractional/burstable DS3 to meet your needs. -Chris
Re: Multi-link Frame Relay OR Load Balancing
At 05:52 PM 9/16/2004, Christopher L. Morrow wrote: On Thu, 16 Sep 2004, Bryce Enevoldson wrote: We are in the process of updating our internet connection to 8 t1's bound together. Due to price, our options have been narrowed to ATT and MCI. I have two questions: 1. Which technology is better for binding t1's: multi link frame relay (mci's) or load balancing (att's) of course, as always... not mci's view on the world ;) depends on what you want... do you want more than a 1.5mbps flow to pass? or do you just want to get 9mb of bandwidth and you don't care about max flow size? The MFR stuff will allow your link to look like a 9mb path, not 6 1.5mb paths. The load balancing makes it look like 6 l.5mb paths. 2. Which company has a better pop in Atlanta: mci or att? i'll avoid this question since I'm not equiped to answer as anything but a marketting answer :) We are in the Chattanooga TN area and our current connection is 6 t1's through att but they will only bond 4 so they are split 4 and 2. Some folks have said in the last that over 6mb of bandwidth it might be better/cheaper/easier to just get a fractional/burstable DS3 to meet your needs. One other consideration is the quality and reliability of the local loops. Does your local telco manage to keep T-1's running well? DS-3's? If you have multiple circuits, you may wind up being able to ride through equipment failures in the local loops (or not, depends a lot on how the loops are built). I'm not arguing one or the otehr is better for reliability, but it's something to ask before signing a contract.
Re: Multi-link Frame Relay OR Load Balancing
FWIW, I asked about MLFR on the cisco-nsp and one person responded indicating he worked for some time with Cisco on trying to get MLFR to work but never resolved out of order and dropped packet issues. What hardware are you considering using to do MLFR ? Please let me know how things go as MLFR would be a nice option on some parts of my network. James H. Edwards Routing and Security Administrator At the Santa Fe Office: Internet at Cyber Mesa [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.cybermesa.com/ContactCM (505) 795-7101
Re: Multi-link Frame Relay OR Load Balancing
In my experience the breakeven point for a Frame Relay DS3 is 6 DS1 circuits. DS3's tend to be more reliable than DS1's as the ILEC usually installs a MUX at your site instead of running to the nearest channel bank and running the T1's over copper with a few repeaters thrown in for good measure. Another nice thing about DS3's is that it is easy to scale bandwidth in the future by modifying the CIR on your link. Another feature is that since the link is faster the serialization delay is lower which will give you better latency and last but not least PA3+ for Cisco 7[2|5]xx routers are inexpensive and give you one call for service not a separate call for the CSU/DSU's and the serial line card you need to support a multilink solution. Scott C. McGrath On Thu, 16 Sep 2004, Bryce Enevoldson wrote: We are in the process of updating our internet connection to 8 t1's bound together. Due to price, our options have been narrowed to ATT and MCI. I have two questions: 1. Which technology is better for binding t1's: multi link frame relay (mci's) or load balancing (att's) 2. Which company has a better pop in Atlanta: mci or att? We are in the Chattanooga TN area and our current connection is 6 t1's through att but they will only bond 4 so they are split 4 and 2. Bryce Enevoldson Information Processing Southern Adventist University
RE: Multi-link Frame Relay OR Load Balancing
You may want to consider a DS3. In terms of access cost, the break even point is usually right around 8 DS1's. The only caveat is you will need a fiber connection to a LEC or CLEC to provide a connection. If you want to stay with the DS1 route, in addition to frame, you may want to consider ATM - IMA. That will bond everything into one nice 9mb connection, and will downspeed if a few DS1's go down. Keith -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2004 5:44 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Multi-link Frame Relay OR Load Balancing We are in the process of updating our internet connection to 8 t1's bound together. Due to price, our options have been narrowed to ATT and MCI. I have two questions: 1. Which technology is better for binding t1's: multi link frame relay (mci's) or load balancing (att's) 2. Which company has a better pop in Atlanta: mci or att? We are in the Chattanooga TN area and our current connection is 6 t1's through att but they will only bond 4 so they are split 4 and 2. Bryce Enevoldson Information Processing Southern Adventist University
Re: Multi-link Frame Relay OR Load Balancing
Scott McGrath wrote: In my experience the breakeven point for a Frame Relay DS3 is 6 DS1 circuits. DS3's tend to be more reliable than DS1's as the ILEC usually installs a MUX at your site instead of running to the nearest channel bank and running the T1's over copper with a few repeaters thrown in for good measure. I'll second that. Our ILEC extended our existing SONET node (for the PBX in another building) to our machine room (couldn't push DS3 over copper that far). Now, if they'd just terminate the old T1s at the new node and not push them over local copper from there to the machine room, we would be sitting pretty. Another nice thing about DS3's is that it is easy to scale bandwidth in the future by modifying the CIR on your link. Another feature is that since the link is faster the serialization delay is lower which will give you better latency and last but not least PA3+ for Cisco 7[2|5]xx routers are inexpensive and give you one call for service not a separate call for the CSU/DSU's and the serial line card you need to support a multilink solution. Ditto. We have one in a 7204 with a CIR of 30Mb. Handles it quite nicely, replaced 5 T1s on load-sharing per-packet link. Jeff
