Do providers really do this? Would they install multiple BGP Paths
with different AS Paths (but same length) in their FIB, and yet
advertise only one?
Is the the right thing to do?
What you see in BGP is not necessarily what you get for actual routing.
This isn't the only situation where
This situation subverts BGP's basic loop prevention mechanism. If the
/20 is ever deaggragated into more specifics, a forwarding loop may
result.
If you want to put rounds in the chamber before pointing the muzzle at
your temple, you're free to do so. However, some of us would prefer to
chuck goolsbee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyway, if somebody could enlighten me to definitive proof, or stated
policy by Goo... er search engines, that confirms this search engine
result optimization by blatant abuse of IP addresses I'd appreciate it. I
for one believe it is bunk dreamt up by
As a hoster with many customers on large shared VLANs perhaps I can add a
bit...
Richard A Steenbergen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Simple: Subnets are hard, customers are stupid, and ARIN is not exactly a
hosters best friend.
When a hosting customer asks for 5 IPs today and 25 IPs tomorrow, it
Gunther Stammwitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have customers who are complaining about packet loss and they are
providing me with MTRs and pathpings (that's some sort of traceroute that
pings every hop it sees several times - comes with windows xp) that show
the
loss starting at my routers and
From: Martin Hannigan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
As well, pvlans are prone to fail if not a forethought of architecture
instead of
an after effect. Trying to put legacy networks into a pvlan architecture
is like
putting square pegs in round holes.
My experience has been pvlans cause more trouble than
Daniel Golding [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ConEd Communications was recently acquired by RCN. I'm not sure if the
transaction has formally closed. I suspect there are serious transition
issues occurring. Financial Stability, Employee Churn, and Ownership
are, unfortunately, tough things to factor
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
that was my thought... and yes, it could get ugly for tcp services. Why
would you knowningly induce this complication?
When you want single flows to go faster than a single member link? (not that
I am saying this is a good idea)
Actually,
Can you expand a bit on how it dealt with the Level3 meltdown last
month?
In general, it doesn't do anything (much) for this sort of thing. It does
have a blackhole detection feature, but keep in mind how this thing works.
You set a prefix length (which must be equal or more specific than
We're looking at possibly purchasing a Internap FCP500,
everything I hear about these boxes is good. We are simultaneously
I have no experience with OER, but I have had a FCP5000 for a while now. We
have numerous transit links, all of which have significantly more burst
capacity than we
This can also be done with stateless hash-based load balancing, which
produces exactly the results discussed below (single TCP sessions remain on
the same server, while repeated UDP queries go to different servers). A
single address is advertised by the DNS servers via OSPF. Each POP has
I can not go into details, but suffice it to say DNS was just a symptom of
other events, not the problem itself. DNS TTL on the global load balancing
system was at 5 seconds and DNS load never rose above trivial.
- Original Message -
From: Sean Donelan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL
On Mon, 4 Nov 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The only equipment I'm heard here which has serious issues related to
feature availability is the 12000 (which was never a particularly good
aggregation device to begin with). RPF works fine on 7200, 7500, and
6500, from my experience. I've not used
13 matches
Mail list logo
