On Thursday, July 17, 2014 12:24:45 PM Nick Hilliard wrote:
> there are other drawbacks too: the difference in
> convergence time between < 24k prefixes and a full dfz
> is usually going to be large although I haven't tested
> this on an me3600x yet.
Not having to install the routes into FIB (ev
Thanks everyone for insightful answers!
On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 6:09 AM, Mark Tinka wrote:
> On Monday, July 14, 2014 07:32:43 PM Jeff Tantsura wrote:
>
> > Mark,
> >
> > BGP to RIB filtering (in any vendor implementation) is
> > targeting RR which is not in the forwarding path, so
> > there¹s
On Monday, July 14, 2014 07:32:43 PM Jeff Tantsura wrote:
> Mark,
>
> BGP to RIB filtering (in any vendor implementation) is
> targeting RR which is not in the forwarding path, so
> there¹s no forwarding towards any destination filtered
> out from RIB.
> Using it selectively on a forwarding node
t; Date: Tuesday, July 8, 2014 at 1:56 PM
> To: "nanog@nanog.org"
> Subject: Re: Best practice for BGP session/ full routes for customer
>
>> On Monday, July 07, 2014 08:33:12 PM Anurag Bhatia wrote:
>>
>>> In this scenario what is best practice for giving full
&
blackholing.
Cheers,
Jeff
-Original Message-
From: Mark Tinka
Organization: SEACOM
Reply-To:
Date: Tuesday, July 8, 2014 at 1:56 PM
To: "nanog@nanog.org"
Subject: Re: Best practice for BGP session/ full routes for customer
>On Monday, July 07, 2014 08:33:12 PM Anurag
On Monday, July 07, 2014 08:46:05 PM Jason Lixfeld wrote:
> 3. If your network is MPLS enabled, you can do a routed
> pseudowire from a BGP speaking router with a full table
> to the access router (PE). Other tunnelling
> technologies can probably do the same thing; GRE, L2TPv3
> and also a plai
On Monday, July 07, 2014 08:46:05 PM Jason Lixfeld wrote:
> 1. You already know that multihop is very ugly. If it's
> for a one-off, it's probably fine. But building a
> product around multi-hop wouldn't be my first choice.
We prefer Layer 2 bundling technologies like 802.1AX, POS
bundles or
On Monday, July 07, 2014 08:33:12 PM Anurag Bhatia wrote:
> In this scenario what is best practice for giving full
> table to downstream?
In our case, we have three types of edge routers; Juniper
MX480 + Cisco ASR1006, and the Cisco ME3600X.
For the MX480 and ASR1006 have no problems supportin
1. You already know that multihop is very ugly. If it's for a one-off, it's
probably fine. But building a product around multi-hop wouldn't be my first
choice.
2. Most of the router/switch vendors that can support a full table are pretty
expensive, per port. Your best bet here might be to
Hello everyone!
I have quick question on how you provide full BGP table to downstream
customers?
Most of large networks have few border routers ("Internet gateways") which
get full table feed and then they have "Access routers" on which customers
are terminated. Now I don't think it makes sense
10 matches
Mail list logo