Problem with peering between Gblx and WCG?
1 ge4-1-0-226-1000M.ar4.PHX1.gblx.net (67.17.64.89) 0 msec 0 msec 0 msec 2 so1-0-0-2488M.ar1.LAX2.gblx.net (67.17.67.169) 12 msec 8 msec 12 msec 3 lsanca3lcx1-pos13-2.wcg.net (64.200.142.193) 772 msec 796 msec 804 msec 4 anhmca1wcx2-pos5-0.wcg.net (64.200.140.69) [AS 7911] 804 msec 832 msec 852 msec 5 lsanca1wcx1-pos0-0-oc48.wcg.net (64.200.140.142) [AS 7911] 856 msec 988 msec 1000 msec Would anyone happen to be aware of problems between Global Crossing and WCG in CA? We're hearing reports of intermittent latency across this link over the past three days. Thanks, ~ Rob Reeves IP Network Engineer Arbinet 703-456-4172 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~
RE: Address Space & ASN Allocation Process
> Hi, > > Just trying to get some clarity and direction regarding > obtaining address space/ASN for my client. > > Is there a minimum address space (?) an entity would need to > justify to go directly to RIR (ARIN in this case) as opposed > to the upstream provider? Is /20 the minimum allocation? Can > my client approach RIR and request for a /23? The minimum assignment from ARIN is actually a /22, which will only be given to multi-homed end-users who qualify (http://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#four3). Other than that, the smallest assignment is /20. > If my client do procure a /23 how do they make make sure that > this address space will be globally routable? Regardless of where their IP's come from, all they have to do is announce them to their upstream providers using BGP. > Multihome will also be part of their network implementation, > can they apply for an ASN number? Yes, they can apply for an ASN number as long as they can show ARIN that they are in the process of bringing up connectivity with more than one ISP. ARIN's web page is actually pretty easy to navigate for finding this and all the other information you will need. I would suggest checking it out. http://www.arin.net ~ Rob Reeves IP Network Engineer Arbinet 703-456-4172 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~
RE: LA power outage?
We've been told by our field tech in LA that One Wilshire had lost power for a bit, but it is now restored. I don't know the duration of the outage, but our equipment there is on DC and did not go down. -Rob -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ashe Canvar Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 5:08 PM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: LA power outage? My equiment at 1200 W. 7th Street is unreachable. Can anyone confirm if one wilshire is affected ? -ashe On 9/12/05, brett watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Sep 12, 2005, at 1:32 PM, Jared Mauch wrote: > > > > there's also a blurb on yahoo news of an outage > > http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050912/ap_on_re_us/la_power_outage > > AM radio news is reporting a "wrong cable cut" by the department of > water and power folks... they're saying "no ties to terrorism"... > > > -b
RE: OT - Vint Cerf joins Google
I'm guessing they just let Vint choose his own title. :-D -Rob -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Sobol Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 3:33 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OT - Vint Cerf joins Google Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote: > That kind of goes hand-in-hand with Vint's Galactic > Internet theme. Uhhh... why does a dotcom need an Internet evangelist? :-S -- Steve Sobol, Professional Geek 888-480-4638 PGP: 0xE3AE35ED Company website: http://JustThe.net/ Personal blog, resume, portfolio: http://SteveSobol.com/ E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Snail: 22674 Motnocab Road, Apple Valley, CA 92307
RE: clec vs ilec, how do you know who's lying?
Jason "Feren" Olsen: > So go to the website for the ILEC and find the conect information. As an example, SBC plasters > information for the different teams all over their pages. If you identify that you're with your employer > when you call in and summarize the problem, you'll get transferred to somebody who can answer your > question on the ILEC work orders. Hell, they'll probably leap at the chance to "help" you in order to > try and convince you to move away from the CLEC. This may or may not work the way you'd think. As far as the ILEC is/should be concerned, their customer is the CLEC since that's where the work order came from. If you contact the ILEC and just happen to get that person who doesn't care, you'd be in luck. Otherwise, they'll likely say that there's nothing they can do, and that you must escallate through the CLEC...which quite frankly is exactly what you should be doing. If it's taken this long for them to not bring up your service, you should be holding your account rep by his/her ears and screaming through a bull-horn, mercilessly. Push on the sales side and make them do the leg-work. Demand to speak with a manager, and if you don't start getting satisfactory answers within 24 hours, go to the manager's manager, and continue up to VP level if necessary. With enough pressure from the top, these folks will suck it up and get it done, despite any animosity between them. Best of luck! ~ Rob Reeves IP Network Engineer Arbinet-thexchange, Inc. 703-456-4172 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~
RE: Getting a BGP table in to a lab
Andre summed it up nicely for me here. I suppose quagga's stability is somewhat relative to the actual environment it's being used in. In our case, it was a live environment with nearly 20 full routing tables in constant flux (the usual table churn from various providers). We moved on to something else prior to the multithreading fixes being deployed, so I can't say how much better it is now. There were several occasions when we had to roll back from a version upgrade due to process-crashing bugs. That was also a bit bothersome. Overall, though, I think quagga could definitely be useful for a lab environment. In our testing lab, it was actually *too* stable. We had to come up with a way to create constant table updates from the lab peers in order to confirm the cause of a crash. :) -Rob Arnold Nipper wrote: > > On 21.04.2005 17:17 Reeves, Rob wrote >> >> Quagga is great for smaller implementations, but it doesn't scale >> very well. It eats up a lot of CPU, so once you hit a certain number >> of BGP peers, it may start intermittently flapping BGP sessions, or >> even just crash the bgpd process entirely. > > For what numbers? I've two quaggas, ~150 peers each, doing as-path and > *full* prefix filtering for each peer (Config is around 9MB). CPU is > idle 99.x% mostly ... Yea, but not 150 full feeds. With some full feeds flapping Quagga has a hard time. This is mostly due to poor scheduling of its poor internal multithred scheduler. Fortunatly the root cause has been identified and fixes are currently being discussed on the Quagga lists. Nontheless I prefer OpenBGPd because its internal design is made for many full feeds and it's parts run asynchonously from each other. The only missing thing there is full filtering capabilities which are under development currently. And of course that I pay the time for one of the OpenBGPd developers employed at my company. ;-) If you want to tip the jar too you are most welcome. -- Andre [Oppermann] [aka [EMAIL PROTECTED] ( http://www.networx.ch )
RE: Getting a BGP table in to a lab
Quagga is great for smaller implementations, but it doesn't scale very well. It eats up a lot of CPU, so once you hit a certain number of BGP peers, it may start intermittently flapping BGP sessions, or even just crash the bgpd process entirely. Although, I don't recall whether or not the newer versions support multi-threading for dual processors now... -Rob -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Frotzler, Florian Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 4:35 AM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: RE: Getting a BGP table in to a lab Hi, Zebra is outdated, the successor is called quagga (at least on debian) and is capable of providing most of the vendor C BGP features, though MD5 autentication is still experimental I think. We used to push a handful of BGP full feeds on our quagga router and it didn't stumble a bit. OSPF also works quite well, btw. Florian > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Scott Morris > Sent: Donnerstag, 21. April 2005 02:50 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Nathan Ward'; nanog@merit.edu > Subject: RE: Getting a BGP table in to a lab > > > Forget part of my reply here... I thought someone was > posting from the CCIE forum stuff I do. > > So disregard the lack-of-caffeine-induced, retarded command > about no router being able to support a full feed. :) > > My apologies > > Zebra is still a good idea though! > > Scott > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Scott Morris > Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 8:42 PM > To: 'Nathan Ward'; nanog@merit.edu > Subject: RE: Getting a BGP table in to a lab > > > None of the routers that are tested in the lab are capable of > supporting a full BGP feed > > If you just want to play with BGP stuff, you can use Zebra > (unix) or go to www.nantech.com and get their BGP4WIN program. > > That may help you a bit more. > > Scott > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Nathan Ward > Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 8:35 PM > To: nanog@merit.edu > Subject: Getting a BGP table in to a lab > > > I'm trying to come up with a way to get a full BGP routing > table in to my lab. > I'm not really fussed about keeping it up to date, so a > snapshot is fine. > At the moment, I'm thinking about spending a few hours > hacking together a BGP daemon in perl to peer with and record > a table from a production router, disconnect, and then start > peering with lab routers. > > Am I reinventing a wheel here? > > -- > Nathan Ward > > > >
RE: Service providers that NAT their whole network?
Back when I worked at RCN in 1999, they had begun putting cable modem customers behind NAT using 10/8 addresses. This occasionally drew complaints from customers who were expecting a public IP (probably wanted to host a server), but they weren't given much choice. Whether or not they're still NATing, I have no idea. I can see the benefits for residential services like cable modem or even dial-up when there will never be a need for multihoming. Practically unlimited IP pool, and I assume it's easier to control things like worm propogation (correct me if I'm wrong). However, I'm sure there's several compromises you'd have to make in order to operate this way. -Rob -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Philip Matthews Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 3:40 PM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Service providers that NAT their whole network? A number of IETF documents(*) state that there are some service providers that place a NAT box in front of their entire network, so all their customers get private addresses rather than public address. It is often stated that these are primarily cable-based providers. I am trying to get a handle on how common this practice is. No one that I have asked seems to know any provider that does this, and a search of a few FAQs plus about an hour of Googling hasn't turned up anything definite (but maybe I am using the wrong keywords ...). Can anyone give me some names of providers that do this? Can anyone point me at any documents that indicate how common this practice is? - Philip (*) Some IETF documents that mention this practice: - RFC 3489 - draft-ietf-sipping-nat-scenarios-00.txt (now expired, but available at http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/02jul/I-D/draft-ietf-sipping-nat-scenari os-00.txt
