On 19 Aug 2009, at 16:12, Clue Store wrote:
I would like to run an IGP (currently OSPF) to our customers that
are multi-homed in a non-mpls environment. They are multi-homed with
small prefixes that are swipped from my ARIN allocations.
[...]
Customers do, err, interesting and creative
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 09:37:22AM +0200, Ivan Pepelnjak wrote:
Anybody have a handy route-map that will deny anything with a
as-path longer than say 15-20? ;-)
http://wiki.nil.com/Filter_excessively_prepended_BGP_paths
It will still be a while before we see unbroken 4byte AS behavior
Unless you want your customers to have very substantial control over
your internal network, don't use an SPF IGP like ospf or is-is.
with your customer ^
i know that's what you meant, but i thought it worth making it very
explicit.
practice safe
On 19/08/2009, at 6:58 AM, Ivan Pepelnjak wrote:
No. You cannot influence the inbound traffic apart from not
advertising some
of your prefixes to some of your neighbors or giving them hints with
BGP
communities or AS-path prepending. Whatever you do with BGP on your
routers
influences
Do not EVER run an SPF routing protocol with your customer. They can insert
anything they want into it (due to configuration mistake, malicious intent
or third-party hijacking) and your whole network (or at least the other
customers) will be affected.
Just to give you a few examples:
* They
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 12:58:01PM -0500, Clue Store wrote:
[snip]
would like to go with , but I have had some in the industry say this is not
as good as running an IGP with the customer.
Name and shame. TTBOMK, no-one who thought walking that road was a
Good Idea did so for long after
Clue Store said the following on 20/8/09 01:12 :
I know this has been discussed probably many times on this list, but I was
looking for some specifics about what others are doing in the following
situations.
Discussed on list, presented in tutorials, how much more advice is
actually required?
Thanks again for all of the replies on and off list. As I stated earlier, I
didn't not think IGP was the protocol of choice for running to customers,
i've just been to many different houses that do actually do this.
99% of all of our customer CPE is not managed by the customer, so that
leaves it
Darren,
It's the F5-BIG-LTM-6400, pair of them.
Thanks for your info. Got alot of good, helpful responses.
Best regards,
Scott Spencer
Data Center Asset Recovery/Remarketing Manager
Duane Whitlow Co. Inc.
Nationwide Toll Free: 800.977.7473. Direct: 972.865.1395 Fax: 972.931.3340
This couldn't be something as simple as a crossover cable, could it?
-Original Message-
From: Scott Spencer [mailto:sc...@dwc-computer.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 11:24 AM
To: 'Darren Bolding'; 'Christopher Greves'
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: F5/Cisco catalyst
That is what I was thinking when I first read your email. I would agree
with Darren.
CL
-Original Message-
From: Dylan Ebner [mailto:dylan.eb...@crlmed.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 10:36 AM
To: Scott Spencer; 'Darren Bolding'; 'Christopher Greves'
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject:
Am I alone in my view that BGP is _far_ more simple and
straight-forward than OSPF
this is a very telling statement in a number of ways.
that ospf has become exceedingly complex, and all that results thereof.
that both are known for their complexity.
randy
Gary T. Giesen wrote:
FWIW, we use BGP to our multihomed customers (even when we manage the
CPE), using a private AS. OSPF doesn't have the right toolset to
provide protection for inter-network route propogation, and the risk
of some customer's CPE screwing up you routing is just too high to
Clue Store wrote:
I couldn't agree more. Most of my staff are still under the impression in
Cisco land that the network 10.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 statement injects that
network into OSPF, when it simply turns on OSPF for the interfaces that are
in that network. I'm really glad to see Cisco that
14 matches
Mail list logo
