Re: Bird vs Quagga revisited
> Personally I would like to see more work on all three opensource > implementations, i.e. BIRD, OpenBGPd and Quagga. http://opensourcerouting.org/ to the rescue? -- Christian Esteve Rothenberg, Ph.D. Converged Networks Business Unit CPqD - Center for Research and Development in Telecommunications Tel. (+55 19) 3705 4479 / Cel. (+55 19) 8193-7087 On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 4:43 PM, Arnold Nipper wrote: > On 22.08.2012 11:22, John Souter wrote: >> On 22/08/12 06:19, Hank Nussbacher wrote: >>> ...Any feedback appreciated. >> >> I can't speak too highly of BIRD. Our use case is probably not >> completely typical, but our multilateral peering route servers have been >> hugely improved by switching to BIRD. Our two primary route servers, >> one for each LINX London LAN, use BIRD; the two secondaries use an >> enhanced version of Quagga. >> >> The BIRD route server scales better, gives much higher performance, is >> much more robust, and is much easier to restart - especially when there >> are lots of connected sessions. The development team are fantastic: >> very active and responsive, and especially responsive to the needs of >> the IXP community. >> >> Switching hats to Euro-IX, BIRD is now the most used route server >> amongst IXPs, as can be seen from our latest annual report: >> https://www.euro-ix.net/documents/1024-Euro-IX-IXP-Report-pdf?download=yes >> > > +1 ... I guess we at DE-CIX perhaps run the largest routeserver setups > with full as-path and prefix-list filtering. BIRD really was some > magnitudes of perfomance improvement compared to Quagga. > > In the meantime some of us (LINX, INEX, DE-CIX) also supported > development of Quagga as a routeserver. Biggest issue currently is to > get this code into mainline Quagga to make it suitabke for further > development and improvement. > > Personally I would like to see more work on all three opensource > implementations, i.e. BIRD, OpenBGPd and Quagga. > > > > Arnold > -- > Arnold Nipper CTO/COO e-mail: arnold.nip...@de-cix.net > DE-CIX Management GmbH mobile: +49 152 5371 7690 > Lichtstr. 43i, 50825 Koeln phone: +49 69 1730 902 22 > Geschaeftsfuehrer Harald A. Summa fax:+49 69 4056 2716 > Registergericht AG Koeln HRB 51135 http://www.de-cix.net > -- Christian
Re: Middlebox Report and Thank You!
Thank you Justine! your research recalled me to a recent middlebox-related publication: "An Untold Story of Middleboxes in Cellular Networks" by Zhaoguang Wang, Zhiyun Qian, Qiang Xu, Zhuoqing Morley Mao, and Ming Zhang, Proceedings of SIGCOMM 2011. (http://conferences.sigcomm.org/sigcomm/2011/papers/sigcomm/p374.pdf) In the news: MIT Technology Review http://www.technologyreview.com/communications/38435/?a=f Slashdot http://mobile.slashdot.org/story/11/08/26/159225/Mobile-Carriers-Impose-Handicaps-On-Smartphones cnet news http://news.cnet.com/8301-30686_3-20107040-266/carriers-may-be-handicapping-cell-phone-networks/ Keep on your good work! Cheers, Christian -- Christian Esteve Rothenberg, Ph.D. Converged Networks Division (DRC) Tel.:+55 19-3705-4479 / Cel.: +55 19-8193-7087 est...@cpqd.com.br www.cpqd.com.br On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 23:01, Justine Sherry wrote: > > Hello NANOG! > > I emailed you a few months ago asking for help understanding typical > middlebox deployments in enterprise networks. 57 of you responded - thank > you so much! > > Several of you asked if I'd share the data post-study; I've put together a > brief report on our findings here: > http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/Pubs/TechRpts/2012/EECS-2012-24.pdf > If you have any questions, comments, or feedback, please don't hesitate to > contact me. > > Thanks again for your help and support for our research! > > Best, > Justine -- Christian
Re: Misconceptions, was: IPv6 RA vs DHCPv6 - The chosen one?
> Multihoming with multiple addresses works at transport/application layer over existing IPv4 and IPv6. May be there is some light with Multipath TCP: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/75/slides/mptcp-0.pdf http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/mptcp/charter/ If you can live without UDP and other issues discussed in this bizarre discussion... -Christian -- Christian Esteve Rothenberg, Ph.D. Converged Networks Division (DRC) Tel.:+55 19-3705-4479 / Cel.: +55 19-8193-7087 est...@cpqd.com.br www.cpqd.com.br
Re: OpenFlow
There is another related item planned for NANOG50: http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog50/abstracts.php?pt=MTYzNSZuYW5vZzUw&nm=nanog50 - An Open-Source Interoperable MPLS LSR Scott Whyte, Google Presentation Date: October 4, 2010, 12:30 PM - 1:00 PM Room: Ellington Abstract: We demonstrate a low-cost MPLS LSR capable of forwarding 4x1GE in hardware. It utilizes an open-source implementation of LDP in Quagga, open-source modifications to the Linux kernel to support MPLS, an open-source implementation of an OpenFlow controller modified to support MPLS, and a NetFPGA card as the open platform to program the hardware for MPLS forwarding. - -Christian On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 18:30, Jeroen Massar wrote: > On 2010-09-24 23:25, Matlock, Kenneth L wrote: >> Wow, resorting to using a spoofed email address to propagate your spam, >> and forget to remove your .sig >> >> Some people just don't take a hint, do they? I know which software >> package I WON'T be recommending to anyone (in fact, quite the opposite!) > > And also, there is a nice agenda item at NANOG50; > > http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog50/abstracts.php?pt=MTY2OSZuYW5vZzUw&nm=nanog50 > > 8<- > Track: Open Flow > Nick McKeown, Stanford University; Matt Davy, Indiana University > Presentation Date: October 4, 2010, 4:30 PM - 6:00 PM > > Abstract: > OpenFlow: An Update > [..] > OpenFlow Trials and Deployments > ->8 > > Thus as it is a NANOG-ish topic, I wonder why somebody needs to hide. > > Greets, > Jeroen > > -- Christian
