In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Daniel Karrenberg
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
RIPE NCC policies and procedures are *extremely* careful not to prescribe
any inter-domain routing practises and go out of their way to stress that
operators have the authority about that.
RIPE also makes general recommen
Some facts:
"RIPE" is an operator forum, comparable to NANOG, APRICOT, AFNOG,
(Strictly speaking RIPE pre-dates all of the others if one disregards
that NANOG started as the NSFnet regional network meetings. ;-)
"RIPE NCC" is a Regional Internet Registry, comparable to ARIN, APNIC, LACNIC,
--- Petri Helenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Pay me to treat your prefixes more nicely? 1/2 :-)
>
Isn't that the difference between transit and peering?
Does anyone dampen people who are paying them?
=
David Barak
-fully RFC 1925 compliant-
Bill Woodcock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What about the ccTLD prefixes? There are a lot more of them. And the
> gTLDs? And exchange points? And Microsoft Update servers? Where do you
> stop?
If you simply don't dampen (hooray for adequate CPUs), then you are
not only honoring the "golde
Bill Woodcock wrote:
On Fri, 3 Sep 2004, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> the logic seems rather irrefutable:
> - as a rule, shorter prefixes are more important and/or more stable
> than long ones
> - so we dampen long prefixes more aggressively
> - the root DNS servers tend to liv
On Fri, 3 Sep 2004, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> the logic seems rather irrefutable:
> - as a rule, shorter prefixes are more important and/or more stable
> than long ones
> - so we dampen long prefixes more aggressively
> - the root DNS servers tend to live in long pref
On Sat, 4 Sep 2004, Alex Bligh wrote:
> if in a heavily plural anycast domain prefix route changes are more
> common than "normal" routes (albeit without - dampening aside -
> affecting reachability), does this mean route dampening
> disproportionately harms such routes?
Thi
--On 02 September 2004 16:09 -0700 John Bender <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
This would not be as problematic if dampening could be applied to a path
rather than a prefix, since an alternate could then be selected. But
since this would require modifications to core aspects of BGP (and
additional m
On Fri, 3 Sep 2004, Rodney Joffe wrote:
> On Sep 3, 2004, at 10:46 AM, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
>
> >> Given Network A, which has "golden network" content behind it as described
> >> by the RIPE paper (root and tld data), if the network has some combination
> >> of events that result in all of t
Roland Perry wrote:
Did you mean "parts of RIPE-NCC"?
Sorry to be so pedantic, but this thread started off with a mild
diversion caused by confusion between RIPE and RIPE-NCC.
You're right - it is a little confusing. According to their joined
"about" pages, RIPE-NCC provides the administrative s
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rodney Joffe
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
For those who care, based on responses and some analysis, it appears
that very few networks do follow the ripe-229 recommendations regarding
"golden networks", including, oddly enough, parts of RIPE itself.
Did you mean "par
Hi Steve,
Steve Gibbard wrote:
On Thu, 2 Sep 2004, Rodney Joffe wrote:
So, it seems to me that there are three questions here:
What is critical infrastructure? DNS for which domains? What about other
services? Google? Hotmail or Yahoo? The answer to this presumably
varies considerably from pl
On Thu, 2 Sep 2004, Rodney Joffe wrote:
> You are absolutely right in suggesting that .foo has to get its act
> together. You may even tell your users that. But you'll be telling
> every single one of them, because every single one of them is going to
> attempt to resolve .foo domain names during
On Sep 3, 2004, at 10:46 AM, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
Given Network A, which has "golden network" content behind it as
described by
the RIPE paper (root and tld data), if the network has some
combination of
events that result in all of their announcements to you being
dampened by you,
your user
On Thu, 2 Sep 2004, Rodney Joffe wrote:
> On Sep 2, 2004, at 2:58 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>
> >> If you don't implement ripe-229, why not?
> >
> > because the golden address space stuff is stupid
> >
>
> OK. I'll bite...
>
> Given Network A, which has "golden network" content behind it as descri
On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 10:03:26AM +1200, Randy Bush wrote:
> > I don't fundamentally have a problem with any of it. 4 flaps before you
> > start dampening in a time window is a lot of flapping.
>
> you may want to look at
>
> http://rip.psg.com/~randy/030226.apnic-flap.pdf
I've been w
On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 00:15:42 +0200
Iljitsch van Beijnum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But then again, dampening really doesn't buy you much as it only
> applies to routes that are flapping beyond the link to the next AS. So > if you have
> an instable link somewhere, you can't dampen that
> inst
>> because the golden address space stuff is stupid
> Given Network A, which has "golden network" content behind it as
> described by the RIPE paper
i don't care. if i had spare time on my hands, i would damp them
more quickly for stupidity and greed. again, golden network space
is a stupid id
Hi Randy,
On Sep 2, 2004, at 2:58 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
If you don't implement ripe-229, why not?
because the golden address space stuff is stupid
OK. I'll bite...
Given Network A, which has "golden network" content behind it as
described by the RIPE paper (root and tld data), if the network has
On 2-sep-04, at 23:58, Randy Bush wrote:
If you don't implement ripe-229, why not?
because the golden address space stuff is stupid
Maybe so, but the logic seems rather irrefutable:
- as a rule, shorter prefixes are more important and/or more stable
than long ones
- so we dampen long prefixes mor
> I don't fundamentally have a problem with any of it. 4 flaps before you
> start dampening in a time window is a lot of flapping.
you may want to look at
http://rip.psg.com/~randy/030226.apnic-flap.pdf
randy
> If you don't implement ripe-229, why not?
because the golden address space stuff is stupid
Is bgp dampening really necessary anymore? Obviously we should
dampen people that flap a high number of times in an hour, but the vast
majority of the internet operates in a state where dampening causes more
pain than benifit, imho.
I agree with your line of reasoning. However, if you fo
On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 08:44:34AM -0700, Rodney Joffe wrote:
> See: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/routeflap-damping.html
> and
> http://www.qorbit.net/documents/golden-networks (thanks, Steve!)
>
> If you do, what parameters do you use, or do you not dampen the "golden
> networks" at all?
>
>
Bill,
I agree with your general line of reasoning, but would likely characterize
RIPE as an RIR *and* operator forum... formulating and reviewing
recommendations on operational matters make some sense as a result.
As to the particular set of prefixes, there's a great question as to wh
On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 04:06:12AM +1200, Bill Manning wrote:
>
> well
>
> RIPE is the RIR for Europe. RIPE-229 is, from my viewpoint, arbitrary
> and capricious.
> the root servers are -ONE- set of interesting servers. what about the
> web sites that point
> to these "important" docume
well
RIPE is the RIR for Europe. RIPE-229 is, from my viewpoint, arbitrary
and capricious.
the root servers are -ONE- set of interesting servers. what about the
web sites that point
to these "important" documents? or the time servers, or my NOC &
monitoring machines?
The idea of an Inte
Hello folks,
This is actually NANOG applicable, despite referring to RIPE... ;-)
How many of you who manage BGP speaking networks implement the RIPE
"best practices" regarding dampening parameters for so-called "golden
networks"?
See: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/routeflap-damping.html
and
ht
28 matches
Mail list logo
