> In practice, We've always advertised our space all the way down to /24's
^ really bad anti-social and disgusting
Hi Harry,
You sent your message direct to Curtis in addition to Nanog. Looks
like his mailer acted on the direct one, not the list-relayed message.
The message from Curtis' mailer implies that it's not a blanket
challenge. Maybe you just discovered a problem with your mail server
that he can help
This is what happens when old network folk don't learn about new convention or
new network / security folk read old books.
And it happens alot!
Although not as common as blanket blocking of ICMP .
--
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
"STARNES, CURTIS" wrote:
S
Trendy name for the new racetrack/event venue outside austin.
Does anyone know how one might get connectivity there? I figure there
must be a few folks here prepping the place for the upcoming formula
1.
The place seems to be a black hole to all the usual suspects.
tia,
chris
--
Sent from my m
(my apologies to those receiving a second copy of this. The first copy ran
into a mail filtering issue and didn't go out to most of the list)
At the Vancouver meeting in June, I presented a preliminary proposal for a
NANOG education initiative, which would put together a NANOG-created
educatio
Sent from my mobile device, so please excuse any horrible misspellings.
On Aug 29, 2012, at 18:30, james machado wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 1:55 PM, STARNES, CURTIS
> wrote:
>> Sorry for the top post...
>>
>> Not necessarily a Level 3 problem but;
>>
>> We are announcing our /19 network a
I have ended up excluding .0 and .255 from our DHCP pools in larger than /24
subents due to this exact issue in the past... It is a PITA. I wish people
would update filters.
John
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 1:55 PM, STARNES, CURTIS
wrote:
> Sorry for the top post...
>
> Not necessarily a Level 3 problem but;
>
> We are announcing our /19 network as one block via BGP through AT&T, not
> broken up into smaller announcements.
> Earlier in the year I started receiving complaints
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 4:55 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
>> That's very poor practice. Each announcements costs *other people* the
>> better part of $10k per year.
>
> That sounds ... really really big to me, Bill. Do you have a source
> for that cust-accounting number?
Hi Jay,
The "better part" of
On 12-08-29 04:55 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "William Herrin"
That's very poor practice. Each announcements costs *other people* the
better part of $10k per year.
That sounds ... really really big to me, Bill. Do you have a source
for that cust-accounting numbe
On 29-08-12 22:55, STARNES, CURTIS wrote:
> We are announcing our /19 network as one block via BGP through AT&T, not
> broken up into smaller announcements.
> Earlier in the year I started receiving complaints that some of our client
> systems were having problems connecting to different web site
Sorry for the top post...
Not necessarily a Level 3 problem but;
We are announcing our /19 network as one block via BGP through AT&T, not broken
up into smaller announcements.
Earlier in the year I started receiving complaints that some of our client
systems were having problems connecting to d
- Original Message -
> From: "William Herrin"
> That's very poor practice. Each announcements costs *other people* the
> better part of $10k per year.
That sounds ... really really big to me, Bill. Do you have a source
for that cust-accounting number?
Cheers,
-- jra '2 or 3 orders of m
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Nick Olsen wrote:
> In practice, We've always advertised our space all the way down to /24's
> but also the aggregate block (the /20 or the /21). Just so there was still
> reachability to our network in the event that someone made the foolish
> mistake of filtering
> If you have provided addressing from your aggregate to your customer and
> they have indicated that they are multi-homing, you need to preserve their
> prefix-length in your outbound advertisements, or the redundant provider
> carries the inbound traffic. Is this also frowned on? To me, this is
-Original Message-
From: Blake Dunlap [mailto:iki...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 4:00 PM
To: n...@flhsi.com
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Level 3 BGP Advertisements
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 2:56 PM, Nick Olsen wrote:
> I hear you guys, It's done that way for a bit of
My more specifics are advertise to customers only (not supposed to be
visible to peers), which was how I found that TWT had transitioned from
Level3 peer to customer...and I'm only going 1 bit more specific (not down
to the /24s) for TE purposes.
On Wed, 29 Aug 2012, Nick Olsen wrote:
Thanks
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 2:56 PM, Nick Olsen wrote:
> I hear you guys, It's done that way for a bit of traffic steering.
>
> If I could get away with just the aggregates I would, Trust me.
>
> Nick Olsen
> Network Operations (855) FLSPEED x106
>
>
> From:
I hear you guys, It's done that way for a bit of traffic steering.
If I could get away with just the aggregates I would, Trust me.
Nick Olsen
Network Operations (855) FLSPEED x106
From: "Berry Mobley"
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 3:45 PM
To: nanog@
No, that's not standard practice. I do this exact thing with Level 3 and have
been for many many many years. Whoever is telling you this must be green.
I would recommend adding the no-export community to your more specific routes
if you can so as to be a good steward of the ever growing Intern
Thanks for the input Jon.
I should note that is exactly what we are doing. The /24's are actually
tagged with the advertise to customers, prepend to peers community.
Nick Olsen
Network Operations (855) FLSPEED x106
From: "Jon Lewis"
Sent: Wednesday, Au
--- On Wed, 8/29/12, Nick Olsen wrote:
> From: Nick Olsen
> Subject: Level 3 BGP Advertisements
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Date: Wednesday, August 29, 2012, 12:28 PM
> Greetings all.
>
> In practice, We've always advertised our space all the way
> down to /24's
> but also the aggregate block (the
On Wed, 29 Aug 2012, Nick Olsen wrote:
Anyways, I've always thought that was standard practice. And its never been
a problem. Until we brought up peering with level 3..
No...I'd call that global table pollution. In general, there's no reason
you should announce your CIDRs and all their /24 s
[...]
Please, unless you really know why you need to do otherwise, just
originate your aggregates.
+1
On 29 Aug 2012, at 20:28, Nick Olsen wrote:
> In practice, We've always advertised our space all the way down to /24's
> but also the aggregate block (the /20 or the /21). Just so there was still
> reachability to our network in the event that someone made the foolish
> mistake of filtering l
Greetings all.
In practice, We've always advertised our space all the way down to /24's
but also the aggregate block (the /20 or the /21). Just so there was still
reachability to our network in the event that someone made the foolish
mistake of filtering lets say prefixes smaller /23...
Anyway
MPLS and VPLS on RouterOS works very well.
--
Eduardo Schoedler
Em 29/08/2012, às 12:39, "Edward J. Dore"
escreveu:
> MikroTik RouterOS is indeed based on Linux, however I believe they rolled
> their own MPLS stack.
>
> Last time I looked, the "mpls-linux" project over at SourceForge was
>
MikroTik RouterOS is indeed based on Linux, however I believe they rolled their
own MPLS stack.
Last time I looked, the "mpls-linux" project over at SourceForge was incomplete
and slow - I have no idea if this has changed at all recently however.
Edward Dore
Freethought Internet
- Origin
28 matches
Mail list logo
