BGP Peers as basis of available routes
Hi! We're currently evaluating web hosting providers in the APAC region and one of the criteria that we are currently considering is the availability of routes going to the web hosting provider. In this regard, I would like to ask for your idea regarding this. Is it safe to conclude that the web hosting provider's available routes would would depend on the peers who are advertising their AS / network? (i.e if web hosting provider claims that they are peering with telco a, b, c but as seen from a third party looking glass, only C is seen advertising the web hosting provider network that would mean web hosting provider is effectively utilizing c as their upstream??) Thanks. -- -nathan
Re: BGP Peers as basis of available routes
Hi! Dont mix up peering and transit connections! That you dont see that route on a lookingglass doesnt mean much. Only Could tell you they dont transit there. Its all depending what you definiëren with available routes. If i peer with all ISP's in a specific area and your looking glass isnt licated there does that mean its bad? You need to know much more. If your customers are local there its even prefered. Its never that black/white ...its depending on your needs! Thanks, Raymond Dijkxhoorn, Prolocation Op 19 okt. 2011 om 08:46 heeft Nathanael C. Cariaga nccari...@stluke.com.ph het volgende geschreven: Hi! We're currently evaluating web hosting providers in the APAC region and one of the criteria that we are currently considering is the availability of routes going to the web hosting provider. In this regard, I would like to ask for your idea regarding this. Is it safe to conclude that the web hosting provider's available routes would would depend on the peers who are advertising their AS / network? (i.e if web hosting provider claims that they are peering with telco a, b, c but as seen from a third party looking glass, only C is seen advertising the web hosting provider network that would mean web hosting provider is effectively utilizing c as their upstream??) Thanks. -- -nathan
Re: BGP Peers as basis of available routes
Hi. Thanks for the prompt response. Actually our requirement is to find a webhosting provider whose routes are widely advertised locally and regionally. This is why I thought of using bgp as a basis studying the availability of routes of the hosting provider. -nathan On 10/19/2011 3:00 PM, Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote: Hi! Dont mix up peering and transit connections! That you dont see that route on a lookingglass doesnt mean much. Only Could tell you they dont transit there. Its all depending what you definiëren with available routes. If i peer with all ISP's in a specific area and your looking glass isnt licated there does that mean its bad? You need to know much more. If your customers are local there its even prefered. Its never that black/white ...its depending on your needs! Thanks, Raymond Dijkxhoorn, Prolocation Op 19 okt. 2011 om 08:46 heeft Nathanael C. Cariaganccari...@stluke.com.ph het volgende geschreven: Hi! We're currently evaluating web hosting providers in the APAC region and one of the criteria that we are currently considering is the availability of routes going to the web hosting provider. In this regard, I would like to ask for your idea regarding this. Is it safe to conclude that the web hosting provider's available routes would would depend on the peers who are advertising their AS / network? (i.e if web hosting provider claims that they are peering with telco a, b, c but as seen from a third party looking glass, only C is seen advertising the web hosting provider network that would mean web hosting provider is effectively utilizing c as their upstream??) Thanks. -- -nathan
Re: BGP Peers as basis of available routes
Hi! You wont see those local peerings unless all those providers have looking glasses. So thats not gonna work out in this case. You will only see who they transit with... Thanks, Raymond Dijkxhoorn, Prolocation Op 19 okt. 2011 om 09:21 heeft Nathanael C. Cariaga nccari...@stluke.com.ph het volgende geschreven: Hi. Thanks for the prompt response. Actually our requirement is to find a webhosting provider whose routes are widely advertised locally and regionally. This is why I thought of using bgp as a basis studying the availability of routes of the hosting provider. -nathan On 10/19/2011 3:00 PM, Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote: Hi! Dont mix up peering and transit connections! That you dont see that route on a lookingglass doesnt mean much. Only Could tell you they dont transit there. Its all depending what you definiëren with available routes. If i peer with all ISP's in a specific area and your looking glass isnt licated there does that mean its bad? You need to know much more. If your customers are local there its even prefered. Its never that black/white ...its depending on your needs! Thanks, Raymond Dijkxhoorn, Prolocation Op 19 okt. 2011 om 08:46 heeft Nathanael C. Cariaganccari...@stluke.com.ph het volgende geschreven: Hi! We're currently evaluating web hosting providers in the APAC region and one of the criteria that we are currently considering is the availability of routes going to the web hosting provider. In this regard, I would like to ask for your idea regarding this. Is it safe to conclude that the web hosting provider's available routes would would depend on the peers who are advertising their AS / network? (i.e if web hosting provider claims that they are peering with telco a, b, c but as seen from a third party looking glass, only C is seen advertising the web hosting provider network that would mean web hosting provider is effectively utilizing c as their upstream??) Thanks. -- -nathan
Re: BGP Peers as basis of available routes
Ok. Thanks for the information :) So that would mean that to answer my question, I would need to determine the web hosting provider who has the most number of peers and most number of transit providers? -nathan On 10/19/2011 3:20 PM, Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote: Hi! You wont see those local peerings unless all those providers have looking glasses. So thats not gonna work out in this case. You will only see who they transit with... Thanks, Raymond Dijkxhoorn, Prolocation Op 19 okt. 2011 om 09:21 heeft Nathanael C. Cariaganccari...@stluke.com.ph het volgende geschreven: Hi. Thanks for the prompt response. Actually our requirement is to find a webhosting provider whose routes are widely advertised locally and regionally. This is why I thought of using bgp as a basis studying the availability of routes of the hosting provider. -nathan On 10/19/2011 3:00 PM, Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote: Hi! Dont mix up peering and transit connections! That you dont see that route on a lookingglass doesnt mean much. Only Could tell you they dont transit there. Its all depending what you definiëren with available routes. If i peer with all ISP's in a specific area and your looking glass isnt licated there does that mean its bad? You need to know much more. If your customers are local there its even prefered. Its never that black/white ...its depending on your needs! Thanks, Raymond Dijkxhoorn, Prolocation Op 19 okt. 2011 om 08:46 heeft Nathanael C. Cariaganccari...@stluke.com.ph het volgende geschreven: Hi! We're currently evaluating web hosting providers in the APAC region and one of the criteria that we are currently considering is the availability of routes going to the web hosting provider. In this regard, I would like to ask for your idea regarding this. Is it safe to conclude that the web hosting provider's available routes would would depend on the peers who are advertising their AS / network? (i.e if web hosting provider claims that they are peering with telco a, b, c but as seen from a third party looking glass, only C is seen advertising the web hosting provider network that would mean web hosting provider is effectively utilizing c as their upstream??) Thanks. -- -nathan
Re: BGP Peers as basis of available routes
Hi! Ok. Thanks for the information :) So that would mean that to answer my question, I would need to determine the web hosting provider who has the most number of peers and most number of transit providers? You wont see those local peerings unless all those providers have looking glasses. So thats not gonna work out in this case. You will only see who they transit with... I cant answer that, only you can. If that hosting provider has many peers but your customers are not behind them its of no use. But generally a hosting provider with many local peers, either public or private -might have- ok connections ;) For example if they private peer with 10 mbps and the other one has 10 gbps public peering... There isnt a real answer to your question. Its based on your own buisiness needs and decisions on those. Bye, Raymond.
Re: BGP Peers as basis of available routes
On Wednesday, October 19, 2011 09:35:04 AM Nathanael C. Cariaga wrote: Ok. Thanks for the information :) So that would mean that to answer my question, I would need to determine the web hosting provider who has the most number of peers and most number of transit providers? what i found usefull is to check the autnum objects in whois, as many document their peerings and transits there. robtex has also some of this info, in a webinterface... also helpful was peeringdb - you can lookup indvidual ASs without logging in like this http://asasnumber.peeringdb.com/ it may give you an indication as to which exchanges your (potential) provider is present at - though not all providers have a / maintain their peeringdb record. HTH kind regards Thilo -nathan On 10/19/2011 3:20 PM, Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote: Hi! You wont see those local peerings unless all those providers have looking glasses. So thats not gonna work out in this case. You will only see who they transit with... Thanks, Raymond Dijkxhoorn, Prolocation Op 19 okt. 2011 om 09:21 heeft Nathanael C. Cariaganccari...@stluke.com.ph het volgende geschreven: Hi. Thanks for the prompt response. Actually our requirement is to find a webhosting provider whose routes are widely advertised locally and regionally. This is why I thought of using bgp as a basis studying the availability of routes of the hosting provider. -nathan On 10/19/2011 3:00 PM, Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote: Hi! Dont mix up peering and transit connections! That you dont see that route on a lookingglass doesnt mean much. Only Could tell you they dont transit there. Its all depending what you definiëren with available routes. If i peer with all ISP's in a specific area and your looking glass isnt licated there does that mean its bad? You need to know much more. If your customers are local there its even prefered. Its never that black/white ...its depending on your needs! Thanks, Raymond Dijkxhoorn, Prolocation Op 19 okt. 2011 om 08:46 heeft Nathanael C. Cariaganccari...@stluke.com.ph het volgende geschreven: Hi! We're currently evaluating web hosting providers in the APAC region and one of the criteria that we are currently considering is the availability of routes going to the web hosting provider. In this regard, I would like to ask for your idea regarding this. Is it safe to conclude that the web hosting provider's available routes would would depend on the peers who are advertising their AS / network? (i.e if web hosting provider claims that they are peering with telco a, b, c but as seen from a third party looking glass, only C is seen advertising the web hosting provider network that would mean web hosting provider is effectively utilizing c as their upstream??) Thanks. -- -nathan
Re: Weekly Routing Table Report
Hi Leo, Leo Vegoda said the following on 18/10/11 00:31 : 128.0.87.0/2430977 JSC Yugra-Telecom This one seems to be an error. 128.0.80/21 appears to have been allocated on 5 October, nine days before the report was generated. The report is as good as what is in the RIR allocation databases, as I grab those from the RIR public listings about 2 hours before the report is run. So if it was allocated, it wasn't listed in the file that I pick up. I'll investigate why. The report is not 100% accurate. Some of the resources listed do appear to be used without being registered but not all of them. It is as accurate as the data I have access to. ;-) But I'd be delighted to hear suggestions for improvements. philip --
Outsourcing DDOS
We are considering using Prolexic to 'defend' our Internet-facing network from DDOS attacks. Anyone have any known issues or word of warnings before we proceed? Chris Cunningham Network Engineering Secure Connectivity 704-427-3557 (Desk) 704-701-6924 (Cell) samuel.cunning...@wellsfargo.commailto:samuel.cunning...@wellsfargo.com [X] This e-mail, including any attached files, may contain confidential and privileged information for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, use, distribution, or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive information for the intended recipient), please contact the sender by reply e-mail and delete all copies of this message.
Re: BGP Peers as basis of available routes
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 2:46 AM, Nathanael C. Cariaga nccari...@stluke.com.ph wrote: In this regard, I would like to ask for your idea regarding this. Is it safe to conclude that the web hosting provider's available routes would would depend on the peers who are advertising their AS / network? (i.e if web hosting provider claims that they are peering with telco a, b, c but as seen from a third party looking glass, only C is seen advertising the web hosting provider network that would mean web hosting provider is effectively utilizing c as their upstream??) Hi Nathan, BGP is a distance-vector protocol. In other words, when BGP is advertised on a link from one AS to another, only the best distance to a particular route is offered. If A and B both advertise the web hosting provider's (WHP's) route to D and A's distance is better then D won't advertise B's WHP route to A but it will advertise A's WHP route to B. Thus a looking glass at B will see both routes in the BGP RIB, but a looking glass at A will only see A's route. With more AS's between A and B than just D, it's possible (even likely) that neither A nor B will see the others' route during normal operation. Should WHP's connection to A drop, D will find that B's distance is now better and B's route to WHP will be newly advertised to A. A, then having no other connection to WHP, will accept the route via D to B, and pass it onward. When we talk about the BGP table converging after a change, this is the process we're talking about. Even if A and B are directly connected, if WHP sets its initial distance via B worse than via A, B will decide that A has a better distance to WHP and won't advertise its own version of the route to anyone else at all. And that's before you consider local prefs, communities and other mechanisms for fine-tuning route propagation. And, even if A, B and C have multiple routes in the BGP RIB, generally only one of those routes will be selected for the packet forwarding FIB. So, a traceroute from B to WHP may travel via A even though B is directly connected to WHP. Long story short, if WHP is connected to A, B and C then A, B and C should each see their own direct route to WHP in the BGP RIB, but there's no guarantee that anybody else will see more than one of the three at any given time. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. .. Web: http://bill.herrin.us/ Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
Re: Outsourcing DDOS
On Oct 19, 2011, at 3:13 PM, samuel.cunning...@wellsfargo.com samuel.cunning...@wellsfargo.com wrote: We are considering using Prolexic to 'defend' our Internet-facing network from DDOS attacks. Anyone have any known issues or word of warnings before we proceed? They say that When an attack is detected, our protection services are implemented within minutes. Upon activation, a Prolexic customer routes in-bound traffic to the nearest Prolexic scrubbing center where proprietary-filtering techniques, advanced routing, and patent-pending hardware devices remove bot traffic close to the source. You may want to ask them how near is nearest before you proceed. If their sensor is too far from your systems, simply sending all that traffic to the scrubbing center could be overkill. The last phrase suggests they use sink holing, though. -- PacketDam: a cost-effective software solution against DDoS http://www.packetdam.com
Re: BGP Peers as basis of available routes
Ok. Thanks for the information :) So that would mean that to answer my question, I would need to determine the web hosting provider who has the most number of peers and most number of transit providers? if i was choosing a hosting provider, many other considerations would come before this randy
Re: BGP Peers as basis of available routes
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On Oct 18, 2011, at 11:46 PM, Nathanael C. Cariaga wrote: Is it safe to conclude that the web hosting provider's available routes would would depend on the peers who are advertising their AS / network? (i.e if web hosting provider claims that they are peering with telco a, b, c but as seen from a third party looking glass, only C is seen advertising the web hosting provider network that would mean web hosting provider is effectively utilizing c as their upstream??) Modulo a lot of nit-picking caveats, this would indicate that they are purchasing transit from C, while they may or may not be peering with A and B. If a customer of A or B is able to reach them in a single AS-hop, but A and B are not advertising a route to C to looking-glasses or their own peers or transit providers, then A and B are peers, but not transit providers, to the web host. I would need to determine the web hosting provider who has the most number of peers and most number of transit providers? A large number of transit providers has been shown, both theoretically and experimentally, to _decrease_ uptime, because of greater route-convergence times when there are more parallel paths to a destination. Your mileage may vary, but the optimum number is usually somewhere around three transit providers. The number of peers, though, and more to the point, the number of routes acquired through peering, is an excellent measure of how large and how long an ISP (in this case a web-hoster) has been in business. That shouldn't be your only measure of quality, however. It may be that reliability of power, competence of remote-hands, and flexibility to accommodate your needs are more important than how the packets get delivered. -Bill -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (Darwin) iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJOnwB7AAoJEG+kcEsoi3+H4hEQAKecuMs/sXjXMqpuGaZ/I4+W ZZze/q/pmQskfrJ8l2lWkiv+h0YUlcR9uBEJALmsAZMLwtZwlWPBWO7EgHBXbhFr rA++bM6cjyX8NHER2eAtjmp9ERL4pOV3CoIz6WlMJEfuETmF2equoyFN1yoRRJCm x87HeXBkK3vram37eZx90GYXOnnlqqYkTTwoU6BqGU1aFQ1WmCr6udZ8+PDU1f55 xpSsU4OdQv+KjIVsUvaAuBVOAozZ2PO7VP8Lx1FGMuR7yFziliK1GYmlF7CVB6Aw rvZJNPPXQHx74FBWqmGSQrq3slrE++6vUKUvylr4Rz3oV5B/JXFgzgFTVyTtD63B Fl8zkuSFLXgiot8wMVJXo0XHCHbt8kLelBdVooKULgiNxh9UznxcELiB0/M6bBF0 wos2sr56MxwHKneY+yek+CJ9lC5teh+e37r/Lup8PK3JBzYMCA81/uKaFxFTQLWA YNRzudJ3W1kOmwvtkBUPISX1hGBLgzrREmm+2DXQrC4lWSgKsH4p+lyHnx3TR0vv ZRsgUQ9ErBAKYd303bP8Z1KBlK7EkTKBr4FsK0lQcikDR3NArMXTCi4x6WSZkiqZ 9xixEa3rIuI7UwsgFIZibKHK15PunoCQSZQnEF8lKeqWbSsLbKQ3icVP7zBgOB8J ycKYwKtsWQc2ayyvpWs2 =zi6u -END PGP SIGNATURE-
4.2.2.2 acting up? or is it just me?
All: I am experiencing trouble with reaching 4.2.2.2 right now from my netblock. ASN 23077. Is it just me or are others experiencing the same thing? Thanks, Lorell
Re: 4.2.2.2 acting up? or is it just me?
same On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Lorell Hathcock lor...@hathcock.orgwrote: All: I am experiencing trouble with reaching 4.2.2.2 right now from my netblock. ASN 23077. Is it just me or are others experiencing the same thing? Thanks, Lorell -- -B
Re: 4.2.2.2 acting up? or is it just me?
I can hit it from home (comcast) and from my company's network. 2011/10/19 brian nikell nickell...@gmail.com same On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Lorell Hathcock lor...@hathcock.org wrote: All: I am experiencing trouble with reaching 4.2.2.2 right now from my netblock. ASN 23077. Is it just me or are others experiencing the same thing? Thanks, Lorell -- -B
Re: 4.2.2.2 acting up? or is it just me?
Packet loss from AS4323 On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 11:30 AM, Brandon Grant bran...@momentous.comwrote: I can also hit it from ASN 40409 and 26499. -Original Message- From: Keegan Holley [mailto:keegan.hol...@sungard.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 1:29 PM To: brian nikell Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: 4.2.2.2 acting up? or is it just me? I can hit it from home (comcast) and from my company's network. 2011/10/19 brian nikell nickell...@gmail.com same On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Lorell Hathcock lor...@hathcock.org wrote: All: I am experiencing trouble with reaching 4.2.2.2 right now from my netblock. ASN 23077. Is it just me or are others experiencing the same thing? Thanks, Lorell -- -B -- -B
Re: 4.2.2.2 acting up? or is it just me?
No packet loss but I'm seeing some fairly variable performance on the penultimate hop, reaching it both from Timewarner in Hawaii and HE's fremont location: ae-31-80.car1.SanJose1.Level3.net Last: 56.2 Average:74.6 Best: 56.1 Worst: 259.3 StDev: 47.4 Paul On 10/19/2011 07:15 AM, Lorell Hathcock wrote: All: I am experiencing trouble with reaching 4.2.2.2 right now from my netblock. ASN 23077. Is it just me or are others experiencing the same thing? Thanks, Lorell
Re: BGP Peers as basis of available routes
On Oct 19, 2011, at 3:00 AM, Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote: Dont mix up peering and transit connections! I've nearly given up on this. I've heard many a small provider say they are Peering with level3 when they mean we are buying transit from Level3. Many people equate having BGP up with them to mean something else. - Jared
Re: 4.2.2.2 acting up? or is it just me?
Outages mailing list narrowed it down to something Level3 in Dallas -- anycast IPs, etc. On 10/19/2011 1:45 PM, Paul wrote: No packet loss but I'm seeing some fairly variable performance on the penultimate hop, reaching it both from Timewarner in Hawaii and HE's fremont location: ae-31-80.car1.SanJose1.Level3.net Last: 56.2 Average:74.6 Best: 56.1 Worst: 259.3 StDev: 47.4 Paul On 10/19/2011 07:15 AM, Lorell Hathcock wrote: All: I am experiencing trouble with reaching 4.2.2.2 right now from my netblock. ASN 23077. Is it just me or are others experiencing the same thing? Thanks, Lorell
Re: BGP Peers as basis of available routes
On 10/19/2011 12:48 PM, Jared Mauch wrote: On Oct 19, 2011, at 3:00 AM, Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote: Dont mix up peering and transit connections! I've nearly given up on this. I've heard many a small provider say they are Peering with level3 when they mean we are buying transit from Level3. Many people equate having BGP up with them to mean something else. And yet I might pay for transit from Sprint, but decide to limit routes to just between us (which is peering, but technically I'm paying for transit). Terminology has always been a blast. Jack
Re: BGP Peers as basis of available routes
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 01:20:42PM -0500, Jack Bates wrote: On 10/19/2011 12:48 PM, Jared Mauch wrote: On Oct 19, 2011, at 3:00 AM, Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote: Dont mix up peering and transit connections! I've nearly given up on this. I've heard many a small provider say they are Peering with level3 when they mean we are buying transit from Level3. Many people equate having BGP up with them to mean something else. And yet I might pay for transit from Sprint, but decide to limit routes to just between us (which is peering, but technically I'm paying for transit). Terminology has always been a blast. Jack actually, its pretty clear. peer - exchange routes with a neighbor (BGP/OSPF/ISIS/EGP/Static). transit - your neighbor agrees to send your routes to -their- neighbors. peering you can control, transit is controlled by a third party. so Jack, you could pay Sprint for transit (they propogte your routes elsewhere) and then insist on no-export for the routes you give them.. -IF- Sprint honours your no-export, then your just peering, regardless of what you are paying for. /bill
Re: Outsourcing DDOS
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 9:13 AM, samuel.cunning...@wellsfargo.com wrote: We are considering using Prolexic to 'defend' our Internet-facing network from DDOS attacks. Anyone have any known issues or word of warnings before we proceed? you appear to be an ATT customer (and qwest) ATT has a dos-mitigation solution, it works well enough... why not just use theirs? it's guaranteed to be cheaper (in the case of an actual attack) as compared to prolexic (and closer to your actual website/presence... (since they have a scrubbing center in stl) -chris
Re: 4.2.2.2 acting up? or is it just me?
- Original Message - From: Lorell Hathcock lor...@hathcock.org I am experiencing trouble with reaching 4.2.2.2 right now from my netblock. ASN 23077. Is it just me or are others experiencing the same thing? Well, it's presently reachable from Tampa: HOST: elphaba.baylink.com Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev 1.|-- 192.168.0.10.0%101.4 1.4 1.3 1.6 0.1 2.|-- 208.38.174.194 0.0%102.2 2.0 1.7 2.5 0.3 3.|-- gi2-4.border4.esnet.com0.0%101.7 2.0 1.7 2.6 0.4 4.|-- ge-6-20.car4.Tampa1.Level 0.0%102.0 1.8 1.7 2.0 0.1 5.|-- ae-24-24.car2.Tampa1.Leve 0.0%10 28.5 45.0 1.9 120.9 46.7 6.|-- ae-2-7.bar2.Tampa1.Level3 0.0%101.9 2.0 1.9 2.5 0.2 7.|-- ae-12-12.ebr1.Dallas1.Lev 0.0%10 25.8 25.8 25.5 26.7 0.4 8.|-- ae-91-91.csw4.Dallas1.Lev 0.0%10 25.6 26.8 25.5 31.9 2.1 9.|-- ae-41-90.car1.Dallas1.Lev 0.0%10 25.9 88.8 25.7 225.9 79.9 10.|-- vnsc-bak.sys.gtei.net 0.0%10 26.1 26.1 25.6 27.2 0.6 But understand that all 6 of GTEI's anycast customer resolver nameservers are really intended for customers of whatever tha company is called these days, and they've been known to block ingress to various ones of them at random times, just to make sure we remember that. That said, they do have some of the coolest, most easily memorable IPv4 addresses on the net... Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274
Re: 4.2.2.2 acting up? or is it just me?
- Original Message - From: Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com But understand that all 6 of GTEI's anycast customer resolver nameservers are really intended for customers of whatever tha company is called these days, and they've been known to block ingress to various ones of them at random times, just to make sure we remember that. A source tells me that to the best of her knowledge, they do *not*, in fact, block ingress to those addresses from off-net, at least not purposefully. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274
Re: BGP Peers as basis of available routes
On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 15:21:27 +0800, Nathanael C. Cariaga said: Thanks for the prompt response. Actually our requirement is to find a webhosting provider whose routes are widely advertised locally and regionally. That's different from who the provider peers with. We (AS1312) don't peer with much of anybody, but I *hope* our routes are pretty widely advertised. Anybody *not* seeing routes for AS1312? (And yes, most of the routes end up going through one or another of MATP's PoP's). So what failure mode are you trying to protect against by finding a provider with a lot of routes? I suspect there's probably a better metric to deal with the actual concern... pgpBl1laDkRFB.pgp Description: PGP signature
