Re: Gigabit Linux Routers
Thanks to the list again. There's lots more options than I'd considered. I think it's likely that I'll stick with what I know, which is Linux not FreeBSD and Quagga. The lack of a need to learn new stuff is the my main motivation behind this because I'm unlikely to break things as frequently. One final quick question on the NICs if I can. Following Mike's suggestion about specific Intel chipsets (82575 or 82576) it looks like it's much easier to source the chipsets mentioned by David (82571EB). If these NICs are embedded on the motherboard is it going to be of disadvantage in terms of performance ? I take the point of the interrupts being the key, kindly thrown into the mix by Eugeniu. A nice man called John mailed me off list and mentioned this off-the-shelf build. On that note does anyone have any experience of Lannerinc's appliances mentioned above by Ingo or John's suggested RouterBoard: the 1000 series seems good, just short on ram on the basic spec. At sub £500 notes, it's cheaper than buying a basic server and it's designed to do the job you need. http://www.routerboard.com/prices.html;. Both appliances seem to perform well in the throughput tests. Now to look at very affordable layer 2, Gigabit 3com switches with good pps. Chris
Re: Gigabit Linux Routers
Chris wrote: Now to look at very affordable layer 2, Gigabit 3com switches with good pps. You should take a look at HP. They have very good gigabit switches and also offer lifetime guarantee on them. HP actually has a CLI to configure the switch, not the crap 3Com has.
Re: Gigabit Linux Routers
This might be of some use, it's a document written by one of the AMS-IX engineers, it's a little aged (almost 2 years old) so there should be some improvement in the numbers, but it might give you some insight in the bottlenecks when pushing a Linux server to it's max (10Gigabit in this case) http://noc.easycolocate.nl/10-GE_Routing_on_Linux.pdf David Coulson wrote: The boxes (3650s) came with Broadcom BCM5708 on-board, but I push most of my traffic over these: 1c:00.1 Ethernet controller: Intel Corporation 82571EB Gigabit Ethernet Controller (rev 06) Subsystem: Intel Corporation PRO/1000 PT Dual Port Server Adapter Flags: bus master, fast devsel, latency 0, IRQ 58 Memory at c7ea (32-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=128K] Memory at c7e8 (32-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=128K] I/O ports at 6020 [size=32] Capabilities: [c8] Power Management version 2 Capabilities: [d0] Message Signalled Interrupts: 64bit+ Queue=0/0 Enable+ Capabilities: [e0] Express Endpoint IRQ 0 Capabilities: [100] Advanced Error Reporting There are four Intel ports in the boxes, so traffic may or may not stay on the same PCI-X card depending how things are flowing. Chris wrote: David: May I ask which NICs you use in the IBM boxes ? I see the Intels recommended by Mike have dual ports on one board (the docs say Two complete Gigabit Ethernet connections in a single device • Lower latency due to one electrical load on the bus). -- Met vriendelijke groet, Jeroen Wunnink, EasyHosting B.V. Systeembeheerder systeembeh...@easyhosting.nl telefoon:+31 (035) 6285455 Postbus 48 fax: +31 (035) 6838242 3755 ZG Eemnes http://www.easyhosting.nl http://www.easycolocate.nl
Re: Gigabit Linux Routers
Dear Chris, One final quick question on the NICs if I can. Following Mike's suggestion about specific Intel chipsets (82575 or 82576) it looks like it's much easier to source the chipsets mentioned by David (82571EB). If these NICs are embedded on the motherboard is it going to be of disadvantage in terms of performance ? I take the point of the interrupts being the key, kindly thrown into the mix by Eugeniu. For a new system you should go with pci-e cards. A nice man called John mailed me off list and mentioned this off-the-shelf build. On that note does anyone have any experience of Lannerinc's appliances mentioned above by Ingo I have posted thos off-list, for the list: http://www.lannerinc.com/DM/FW-7550_DM.pdf pros: cheap, cf-disk support, low power (~50W) cons: only 1GB Ram (enough for 1million routes), pci-connected intel 82541GI, 32bit, 33MHZ acpi max-temp is set to low in bios and needs an acpi-aml file to be loaded http://www.axiomtek.de/uploads/na-820.pdf pros: 7x pci-e www.endian.com use them. http://www.endian.com/en/products/hardware/macro-x2/ OS: Freebsd: pros: very stable, quagge runs very well, fastforwarding support, simple traffic shaping, interrupt less polling supported cons: only 1 route for each network, vrrp failover is not easy to implement with quagga and ospf, no multipath routing Linux: pros: more than 1 route for each network possible, interrupt less polling should be supported? fastforwarding ? cons: no multipath routing Cpu's: Single-core-cpus performs better at freebsd than multi-core ones At freebsd-net mailinglist there is a very long thread about freebsd-routers. Kind regards, Ingo Flaschberger
Re: Gigabit Linux Routers
Ingo Flaschberger wrote: OS: Freebsd: pros: very stable, quagge runs very well, fastforwarding support, simple traffic shaping, interrupt less polling supported cons: only 1 route for each network, vrrp failover is not easy to implement with quagga and ospf, no multipath routing Linux: pros: more than 1 route for each network possible, interrupt less polling should be supported? fastforwarding ? cons: no multipath routing Are you sure ? Because there is an option in the kernel, under advanced routing setup to enable multipath routing. And also, with iproute2, you can add multiple gateways with different/equal weights for a specific prefix
Re: Gigabit Linux Routers
On Dec 18, 2008, at 4:13 AM, Jeroen Wunnink wrote: This might be of some use, it's a document written by one of the AMS- IX engineers, it's a little aged (almost 2 years old) so there should be some improvement in the numbers, but it might give you some insight in the bottlenecks when pushing a Linux server to it's max (10Gigabit in this case) http://noc.easycolocate.nl/10-GE_Routing_on_Linux.pdf Note that this test did not involve full BGP. Given the problems that used to occur on some name brand routers when BGP took up too much CPU, I would be careful extrapolating these results if you are planning on running full BGP. As the paper itself says, In a real-world situation the device might be running BGP, with a full routing table. This will surely affect the performance of the device. Regards Marshall David Coulson wrote: The boxes (3650s) came with Broadcom BCM5708 on-board, but I push most of my traffic over these: 1c:00.1 Ethernet controller: Intel Corporation 82571EB Gigabit Ethernet Controller (rev 06) Subsystem: Intel Corporation PRO/1000 PT Dual Port Server Adapter Flags: bus master, fast devsel, latency 0, IRQ 58 Memory at c7ea (32-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=128K] Memory at c7e8 (32-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=128K] I/O ports at 6020 [size=32] Capabilities: [c8] Power Management version 2 Capabilities: [d0] Message Signalled Interrupts: 64bit+ Queue=0/0 Enable+ Capabilities: [e0] Express Endpoint IRQ 0 Capabilities: [100] Advanced Error Reporting There are four Intel ports in the boxes, so traffic may or may not stay on the same PCI-X card depending how things are flowing. Chris wrote: David: May I ask which NICs you use in the IBM boxes ? I see the Intels recommended by Mike have dual ports on one board (the docs say Two complete Gigabit Ethernet connections in a single device • Lower latency due to one electrical load on the bus). -- Met vriendelijke groet, Jeroen Wunnink, EasyHosting B.V. Systeembeheerder systeembeh...@easyhosting.nl telefoon:+31 (035) 6285455 Postbus 48 fax: +31 (035) 6838242 3755 ZG Eemnes http://www.easyhosting.nl http://www.easycolocate.nl
Re: Gigabit Linux Routers
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ingo Flaschberger wrote: cons: only 1 route for each network, vrrp failover is not easy to implement with quagga and ospf, no multipath routing Anyone cares about VRRPD when you have Heartbeat? Linux: pros: more than 1 route for each network possible, interrupt less polling should be supported? fastforwarding ? cons: no multipath routing In what way is multipath routing not supported? Iproute2 and contrack has done this for ages. Equal metric round robin is also possible and works very well, only problem is it's not capacity sensitive. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFJSjpg0FZZWLfHKjURAi5vAJ9KM3lS2vzG/ssh0UqkSijul1q8DACcDxAZ GijQNdu+5YYdNuO1LBtkCNA= =VmHM -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Gigabit Linux Routers
* Alex Thurlow: Depending on your WAN interface, there's actually a decent amount of stuff out there. The cheaper alternative to me has actually always been to get some old cisco hardware with the proper interfaces and use it for media conversion. I have a 6500 with Sup1As in it. It can't take BGP feeds with the amount of memory it has, but with the right cards, it will give my router Ethernet and push a few million pps with no problem. But you have to ask your peer to enable eBGP multihop, right? Or are there some TTL tricks you can play? -- Florian Weimerfwei...@bfk.de BFK edv-consulting GmbH http://www.bfk.de/ Kriegsstraße 100 tel: +49-721-96201-1 D-76133 Karlsruhe fax: +49-721-96201-99
Re: Gigabit Linux Routers
Eugeniu Patrascu wrote: Chris wrote: Now to look at very affordable layer 2, Gigabit 3com switches with good pps. You should take a look at HP. They have very good gigabit switches and also offer lifetime guarantee on them. HP actually has a CLI to configure the switch, not the crap 3Com has. Let me provide a strong second to HP. They are rock solid, easy to configure, easy to monitor remotely, and worth every penny. -- I like mathematics because it is not human and has nothing particular to do with this planet or with the whole accidental universe - because, like Spinoza's God, it won't love us in return. (Bertrand Russell)
Re: Gigabit Linux Routers
Ingo Flaschberger wrote: Multipath, yes, but flow-based, not per packet. There exists a patch for 2.4 kernel, but not for 2.6 Or tinker with iptables. And last I checked, even with multiple 'nexthop' entries, it still wasn't smart enough to drop a route if you lose an interface.
Re: Gigabit Linux Routers
One final query for this thread if I may. Our hardware provider has come back with this as an 'easy to source build' in case we want two or three identical boxes: Supermicro X7SBI-LN2 motherboard with 2 x Intel 82573V/L gigabit PCI-Express NICs Does anyone have experience of these NICs before I commit ? Or any other comments ? I'll start trawling their specs too. Thanks again to all that responded, Chris
Re: Gigabit Linux Routers
On Dec 18, 2008, at 4:00 AM, Eugeniu Patrascu wrote: Chris wrote: Now to look at very affordable layer 2, Gigabit 3com switches with good pps. You should take a look at HP. They have very good gigabit switches and also offer lifetime guarantee on them. HP actually has a CLI to configure the switch, not the crap 3Com has. Not to defend 3Com or anything, but all of their enterprise stuff (for quite a few years now) has an extremely similar CLI to IOS. Came out very shortly after they got involved with Huawei. If you're already familiar with 3com enterprise gear, check out the 4200G series for cheap L2 gig switching. -- Adam
Re: Gigabit Linux Routers
Not to defend 3Com or anything, but all of their enterprise stuff (for quite a few years now) has an extremely similar CLI to IOS. Came out very shortly after they got involved with Huawei. If you're already familiar with 3com enterprise gear, check out the 4200G series for cheap L2 gig switching. 3Com's CLI is just different enough from Cisco's so they won't get sued. show interface = display interface write mem = save no ip address = undo ip address etc. All in all we've been fairly happy with the higher end gear (5500EI, 5500GEI).
Arbor vs Narus comparison?
Recently I've been searching for something that is comparable to Arbor to see what else is out there. Someone suggested Narus. Anyone out there have an opinion regarding the 2 applications and their differences? Or another application that is worth noting? I am currently using Arbor Peakflow for Netflow analysis against my peering/transit traffic and their Security suite to identify DoS, etc at the edge. Feel free to contact off-list. Thanks
RCN dns contact
Hi, If there's somebody from RCN on this list who I can talk to about their DNS (specifically about records that are too large for UDP and fall back to TCP), please contact me. Thanks, -Jan pgpwbzESDAjBY.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Gigabit Linux Routers
I have posted thos off-list, for the list: http://www.lannerinc.com/DM/FW-7550_DM.pdf pros: cheap, cf-disk support, low power (~50W) cf-disk support is pretty easy to add to lots of things. With the advent of 4GB compact flash modules and CF-to-IDE adapters, it is not too hard to avoid rotating media... OS: Freebsd: pros: very stable, quagge runs very well, fastforwarding support, quagga OSPF needs a patch on FreeBSD 7, else it will decimate your OSPF environment. simple traffic shaping, interrupt less polling supported Several different traffic shaping strategies are available, and I think all of them go far beyond simple. cons: only 1 route for each network, vrrp failover is not easy to implement with quagga and ospf, no multipath routing carp seems easy to implement, even with quagga and ospf. At least, it's set up on a lab setup here and everything appears to work as expected. ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again. - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.
Re: Gigabit Linux Routers
Dear Joe, Several different traffic shaping strategies are available, and I think all of them go far beyond simple. ipfw 100 add pipe 1 all from 192.168.0.0/24 to any xmit vlan1 ipfw pipe 1 config bw 95Mbit/s queue 200Kbytes thats simple. cons: only 1 route for each network, vrrp failover is not easy to implement with quagga and ospf, no multipath routing carp seems easy to implement, even with quagga and ospf. At least, it's set up on a lab setup here and everything appears to work as expected. example setup: A(ospf)---B \/ \ / \/ \ / \/ lan1 A and B share 1 virtual ip for lan1 (192.168.0.1/24). problems: *) only 1 ip-net supported (no aliases) *) carp is i bound, carp-dev line openbsd is in development (not shure if already stable) *) if carp switch over: t=0: A is master, has route 192.168.0.1/24 B has route 192.168.0.1/24 via ospf t=1: A goes down, route disappear (need linkstate in ospf) t=2: B carp takes over 192.168.0.1/24 B can not add 192.168.0.1/24 route as it is still known via ospf t=3: B gets update to remove route 192.168.0.1/24 via ospf t=4: 192.168.0.1/24 route has disappeared, failover broken. with ucarp, some special scripts and source code changed I was able to handle this situation, but not with carp and ospf (at least at freebsd 6.3) Kind regards, Ingo Flaschberger
RE: Gigabit Linux Routers
We spent a good amount of time looking into deploying a home-grown Linux-based CPE device over the summer. Generally, Linux is not the issue with performance. You want to focus on your hardware. We've seen the best performance with Intel MT series PCI-X server NICs. When we were testing the PCI-e cards were still underperforming, but they may have improved recently. The Intel cards have significantly better driver support in Linux so you will prob. want to stay away from anything without an Intel chipset. We also went with a low-end server-grade box from Dell (PowerEdge 840 w/ Dual core Xeon 3040 1.86 GHz, 1066 MHz FSB) which proved to be more than adequate. We used a tower for the text box to cut costs, but you would probably want something rack-mountable. With our setup we were able to sustain about 970 Mbps. Ultimately, we stopped because Quagga lacked any multicast support (we need PIM-SM). We recently looked at XORP as a possibility, and it works... but lacks the level of logging and control you would expect for a production environment. Vyatta recently announced a shift from XORP to Quagga so Quagga may see some new functionality. We also found IP Infusion which is being advertised as a complete solution, but when we tried to talk to them about getting a demo they seemed hesitant to work with us on anything beyond what Quagga already does (I'm guessing that they don't really have anything and it's all advertising). If all you're looking for is basic routing though, it might be worthwhile just getting a Vyatta appliance. Ray -Original Message- From: Chris [mailto:ch...@ghostbusters.co.uk] Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 9:03 AM To: nanog list Subject: Gigabit Linux Routers Hi All, Sorry if this is a repeat topic. I've done a fair bit of trawling but can't find anything concrete to base decisions on. I'm hoping someone can offer some advice on suitable hardware and kernel tweaks for using Linux as a router running bgpd via Quagga. We do this at the moment and our box manages under the 100Mbps level very effectively. Over the next year however we expect to push about 250Mbps outbound traffic with very little inbound (50Mbps simultaneously) and I'm seeing differing suggestions of what to do in order to move up to the 1Gbps level. It seems even a dual core box with expensive NICs and some kernel tweaks will accomplish this but we can't afford to get the hardware purchases wrong. We'd be looking to buy one live and one standby box within the next month or so. They will only run Quagga primarily with 'tc' for shaping. We're in the UK if it makes any difference. Any help massively appreciated, ideally from those doing the same in production environments. Thanks, Chris
Re: Gigabit Linux Routers
Imagestream does nice work as well. Soucy, Ray wrote: If all you're looking for is basic routing though, it might be worthwhile just getting a Vyatta appliance. begin:vcard fn:Bruce Robertson n:Robertson;Bruce org:Great Basin Internet Services, Inc adr:;;241 Ridge St Ste 450;Reno;NV;89501-2013;US email;internet:br...@greatbasin.net title:Founder, Chief Technology Officer tel;work:+1.775.348.7299 tel;fax:+1.775.348.9412 x-mozilla-html:TRUE url:http://www.greatbasin.net version:2.1 end:vcard
What is the most standard subnet length on internet
Hi everyone, I'm going to rebuild IP allocation policy of my company and I am looking for some standard reference for my policy. I have already studied some standard like RFC1518, RIPE181, RFC2050 and I got it is very important to maintain hierachy structure. However, what I am really wondering is what is the most standard subnet length that always can be guaranteed through Internet. less than /24 bit ? I could not find any documents about that, which subnet length is most proper value and pursue internet standard policy ? Could anyone give me some information guides ? Best wishes, Chiyoung = Chi-Young Joung SAMSUNG NETWORKS Inc. Email: lion...@samsung.com Tel +82 70 7015 0623, Mobile +82 17 520 9193 Fax +82 70 7016 0031 =
Re: What is the most standard subnet length on internet
On 08.12.19 11:40, 정치영 wrote: what is the most standard subnet length that always can be guaranteed through Internet. less than /24 bit ? nothing can always be guaranteed in life or the internet. but /24s do seem to be fairly widely used. so they probably work for the folk announcing them. randy
Re: What is the most standard subnet length on internet
Chiyong, Check out: http://bgp.potaroo.net/bgprpts/rva-index.html Since you are on nanog, you probably get the CIDR-REPORT every Friday but if not, go surf around at http://www.cidr-report.org Cheers, Mike On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 6:40 PM, 정치영 lion...@samsung.com wrote: Hi everyone, I'm going to rebuild IP allocation policy of my company and I am looking for some standard reference for my policy. I have already studied some standard like RFC1518, RIPE181, RFC2050 and I got it is very important to maintain hierachy structure. However, what I am really wondering is what is the most standard subnet length that always can be guaranteed through Internet. less than /24 bit ? I could not find any documents about that, which subnet length is most proper value and pursue internet standard policy ? Could anyone give me some information guides ? Best wishes, Chiyoung = Chi-Young Joung SAMSUNG NETWORKS Inc. Email: lion...@samsung.com Tel +82 70 7015 0623, Mobile +82 17 520 9193 Fax +82 70 7016 0031 =
Re: What is the most standard subnet length on internet
On Dec 18, 2008, at 9:40 PM, 정치영 wrote: Hi everyone, I'm going to rebuild IP allocation policy of my company and I am looking for some standard reference for my policy. I have already studied some standard like RFC1518, RIPE181, RFC2050 and I got it is very important to maintain hierachy structure. However, what I am really wondering is what is the most standard subnet length that always can be guaranteed through Internet. less than /24 bit ? Depends on how you count it - /24 is definitely the most numerous from where I sit. You might find this interesting : http://www.multicasttech.com/status/cidr.html Regards Marshall I could not find any documents about that, which subnet length is most proper value and pursue internet standard policy ? Could anyone give me some information guides ? Best wishes, Chiyoung = Chi-Young Joung SAMSUNG NETWORKS Inc. Email: lion...@samsung.com Tel +82 70 7015 0623, Mobile +82 17 520 9193 Fax +82 70 7016 0031 =
Re: What is the most standard subnet length on internet
Chi Young, let me clarify one thing here .. Do you mean IP allocation as in subnet allocation, swipping in apnic or through a rwhois server etc? Or do you mean what is the minimum subnet size I can announce on the internet and have other providers not drop it on the floor? srs On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 8:10 AM, 정치영 lion...@samsung.com wrote: Hi everyone, I'm going to rebuild IP allocation policy of my company and I am looking for some standard reference for my policy. I have already studied some standard like RFC1518, RIPE181, RFC2050 and I got it is very important to maintain hierachy structure. However, what I am really wondering is what is the most standard subnet length that always can be guaranteed through Internet. less than /24 bit ? I could not find any documents about that, which subnet length is most proper value and pursue internet standard policy ?
Re: Re: What is the most standard subnet length on internet
Suresh, Yes, I guess my concern is close to the second meaning. It seems so simple. Currently annoucement of /24 seems to be okey, most upstream providers accept this. However I wonder if there is any ground rule based on any standard or official recommandation. If there is some standardized rule about prefix length to be annouced, I will make my bgp IP allocation policy of each data center of my company, and I will be able to more fairly and squarely speak to my customer like this You have to change your server's IP address if you want move your server to other place chiyoung = Chi-Young Joung SAMSUNG NETWORKS Inc. Email: lion...@samsung.com Tel +82 70 7015 0623, Mobile +82 17 520 9193 Fax +82 70 7016 0031 = --- Original Message --- Sender : Suresh Ramasubramanianops.li...@gmail.com Date : 2008-12-19 12:37 (GMT+09:00) Title : Re: What is the most standard subnet length on internet Chi Young, let me clarify one thing here .. Do you mean IP allocation as in subnet allocation, swipping in apnic or through a rwhois server etc? Or do you mean what is the minimum subnet size I can announce on the internet and have other providers not drop it on the floor? srs On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 8:10 AM, 정치영 lion...@samsung.com wrote: Hi everyone, I'm going to rebuild IP allocation policy of my company and I am looking for some standard reference for my policy. I have already studied some standard like RFC1518, RIPE181, RFC2050 and I got it is very important to maintain hierachy structure. However, what I am really wondering is what is the most standard subnet length that always can be guaranteed through Internet. less than /24 bit ? I could not find any documents about that, which subnet length is most proper value and pursue internet standard policy ?
Fwd: Re: Re: What is the most standard subnet length on internet
You have to change your server's IP address if you want move your server to other place - It is very natural case, but some customer could think of it will be okey to move if they have C class. but I have different idea. because the border router of that center is annoucing more greater IP block, and if customer move to other center with C class, then I have to newly announce that C class at the border router of other center. and then it is the time my hierachy structure is broken. To prevent this situation, I'm trying to find some standard material every person would understand and accept. = Chi-Young Joung SAMSUNG NETWORKS Inc. Email: lion...@samsung.com Tel +82 70 7015 0623, Mobile +82 17 520 9193 Fax +82 70 7016 0031 = --- Original Message --- Sender : 정치영lion...@samsung.com 과장/기술1팀/삼성네트웍스 Date : 2008-12-19 13:43 (GMT+09:00) Title : Re: Re: What is the most standard subnet length on internet Suresh, Yes, I guess my concern is close to the second meaning. It seems so simple. Currently annoucement of /24 seems to be okey, most upstream providers accept this. However I wonder if there is any ground rule based on any standard or official recommandation. If there is some standardized rule about prefix length to be annouced, I will make my bgp IP allocation policy of each data center of my company, and I will be able to more fairly and squarely speak to my customer like this You have to change your server's IP address if you want move your server to other place chiyoung = Chi-Young Joung SAMSUNG NETWORKS Inc. Email: lion...@samsung.com Tel +82 70 7015 0623, Mobile +82 17 520 9193 Fax +82 70 7016 0031 = --- Original Message --- Sender : Suresh Ramasubramanianops.li...@gmail.com Date : 2008-12-19 12:37 (GMT+09:00) Title : Re: What is the most standard subnet length on internet Chi Young, let me clarify one thing here .. Do you mean IP allocation as in subnet allocation, swipping in apnic or through a rwhois server etc? Or do you mean what is the minimum subnet size I can announce on the internet and have other providers not drop it on the floor? srs On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 8:10 AM, 정치영 lion...@samsung.com wrote: Hi everyone, I'm going to rebuild IP allocation policy of my company and I am looking for some standard reference for my policy. I have already studied some standard like RFC1518, RIPE181, RFC2050 and I got it is very important to maintain hierachy structure. However, what I am really wondering is what is the most standard subnet length that always can be guaranteed through Internet. less than /24 bit ? I could not find any documents about that, which subnet length is most proper value and pursue internet standard policy ?
RE: Re: What is the most standard subnet length on internet
In general, announce what you are allocated from the RIR. The minimum allocation from you will see is a /24. A couple examples: http://www.arin.net/reference/ip_blocks.html#ipv4 https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-ncc-managed-address-space.html If you are allocated a /22, announce the /22. Do not announce anything longer unless you have a requirement to (such as a different origin AS). If you are further allocating a subset of that to a downstream, then a /24 out of that is acceptable as the origin will be different. -Original Message- From: 정치영 [mailto:lion...@samsung.com] Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 20:44 To: Suresh Ramasubramanian Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Re: What is the most standard subnet length on internet Suresh, Yes, I guess my concern is close to the second meaning. It seems so simple. Currently annoucement of /24 seems to be okey, most upstream providers accept this. However I wonder if there is any ground rule based on any standard or official recommandation. If there is some standardized rule about prefix length to be annouced, I will make my bgp IP allocation policy of each data center of my company, and I will be able to more fairly and squarely speak to my customer like this You have to change your server's IP address if you want move your server to other place chiyoung = Chi-Young Joung SAMSUNG NETWORKS Inc. Email: lion...@samsung.com Tel +82 70 7015 0623, Mobile +82 17 520 9193 Fax +82 70 7016 0031 = --- Original Message --- Sender : Suresh Ramasubramanianops.li...@gmail.com Date : 2008-12-19 12:37 (GMT+09:00) Title : Re: What is the most standard subnet length on internet Chi Young, let me clarify one thing here .. Do you mean IP allocation as in subnet allocation, swipping in apnic or through a rwhois server etc? Or do you mean what is the minimum subnet size I can announce on the internet and have other providers not drop it on the floor? srs On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 8:10 AM, 정치영 lion...@samsung.com wrote: Hi everyone, I'm going to rebuild IP allocation policy of my company and I am looking for some standard reference for my policy. I have already studied some standard like RFC1518, RIPE181, RFC2050 and I got it is very important to maintain hierachy structure. However, what I am really wondering is what is the most standard subnet length that always can be guaranteed through Internet. less than /24 bit ? I could not find any documents about that, which subnet length is most proper value and pursue internet standard policy ?
Re: Re: What is the most standard subnet length on internet
Even if a longer prefix like a /24 is announced, chances of people accepting it is slim. Especially, as you say, if the RIR allocation is something larger than /24 And I have a feeling acceptance /24 route announcements of anything other than legacy classful space, infrastructure space like the root servers is going to be patchy at best. 2008/12/19 Darryl Dunkin ddun...@netos.net: If you are allocated a /22, announce the /22. Do not announce anything longer unless you have a requirement to (such as a different origin AS). If you are further allocating a subset of that to a downstream, then a /24 out of that is acceptable as the origin will be different.
Re: What is the most standard subnet length on internet
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 02:40:47AM +, l l9l wrote: However, what I am really wondering is what is the most standard subnet length that always can be guaranteed through Internet. less than /24 bit ? while one can get away w/ /24s (if that is all one has) for many places, I suspect that there will be increasing pressure to drop more specific /24s as folks routing tables grow. your question, ...length that can be guaranteed through the Internet. argues for fairly short netmasks, e.g. a /16 is likley to be accepted by most folks while very short masks, e.g. /8 or smaller are likly to be seen with some level of consideration since so very few prefixes of that size are likely to be origin-sourced (often proxy aggregates from transit parties)... as others have pointed out - this acceptable value is fluid, changing over time and variable between ISPs. Creating a static policy is likely to be flawed. --bill (crawling out from under his rock, blinking in the bright lights)
