On 06/02/2012 02:42 AM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 08:03:50PM +0200, Daniel Suchy wrote:
By overwriting origin field, there's no warranty that someone improves
performance at all - it's just imagination. In extreme cases,
performance can be degraded when someone in
On 06/02/2012 02:53 AM, Joe Provo wrote:
Cost and performance were merely two reasons someone may wish to prevent
remote parties from using origin to influence outbound traffic from my
network.
As I mentioned already, it will influence that by another way. And this
costs *you* more money -
Last post on this topic for me. You seem to wish to argue
against the lessons of history and the reality of running
a network on the global Internet.
On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 09:27:36AM +0200, Daniel Suchy wrote:
On 06/02/2012 02:53 AM, Joe Provo wrote:
Cost and performance were merely two
On 06/02/2012 12:43 PM, Joe Provo wrote:
Last post on this topic for me. You seem to wish to argue
against the lessons of history and the reality of running
a network on the global Internet.
Based on observations from routeviews / RIPE RIS / other public sources,
overwriting BGP origin isn't
On 05/31/2012 07:06 PM, Saku Ytti wrote:
On (2012-05-31 08:46 -0700), David Barak wrote:
On what precisely do you base the idea that a mandatory transitive attribute
of a BGP prefix is a purely advisory flag which has no real meaning? I
encourage you to reconsider that opinion - it's
On (2012-06-01 10:19 +0200), Daniel Suchy wrote:
I think RFC 4271 (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4271) is very clear
here. Back to the standard, why condone it's violation? Yes, statement
It's extremely hard to find RFC which does not contain incorrect
information or practically undeployable
On Jun 1, 2012, at 4:28 AM, Saku Ytti wrote:
It's extremely hard to find RFC which does not contain incorrect
information or practically undeployable data.
Actual errors in RFC's (typos, incorrect references, etc.) -
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata.php
Differing views regarding RFC subject
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 10:19:16AM +0200, Daniel Suchy wrote:
On 05/31/2012 07:06 PM, Saku Ytti wrote:
On (2012-05-31 08:46 -0700), David Barak wrote:
On what precisely do you base the idea that a mandatory
transitive attribute of a BGP prefix is a purely advisory flag
which has no
On 06/01/2012 07:38 PM, Joe Provo wrote:
You clearly did not read the previous posts involving actual historical
evidence [and apparently ongoing] of remote networks attempting action
at a distance knowing that many overlook this part of the decision tree.
Preventing your company from
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 08:03:50PM +0200, Daniel Suchy wrote:
By overwriting origin field, there's no warranty that someone improves
performance at all - it's just imagination. In extreme cases,
performance can be degraded when someone in the middle plays with
origin field and doesn't
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 08:03:50PM +0200, Daniel Suchy wrote:
On 06/01/2012 07:38 PM, Joe Provo wrote:
You clearly did not read the previous posts involving actual historical
evidence [and apparently ongoing] of remote networks attempting action
at a distance knowing that many overlook
Hello,
we discovered, that at least Hurricane Electric (HE, AS 6939) does
rewrite BGP origin attribute unconditionally in all routes traversing
their network. This mandatory, but probably not widely known/used
attribute should not be changed by any speaker except originating router
(RFC 4271,
On 31/05/2012 11:23, Daniel Suchy wrote:
In my experience, there're not so many service providers
doing that.
Plenty of providers do it. IIWY, I would universally rewrite origin at
your ingress points to be the same; otherwise you'll find that providers
will merely use it as a means of
On May 31, 2012, at 7:26 AM, Nick Hilliard n...@foobar.org wrote:
There are many useful ways to build a
multi-exit discrimination policy. Using origin is not one of them, in my
opinion.
The problem is that origin is ranked one place higher than MED. So if you
don't rewrite it, you are
I disagree. Origin is tremendously useful as a multi-AS weighting
tool, and isn't the blunt hammer that AS_PATH is.
If you think of AS_PATH as a blunt hammer, how would you describe
localpref?
We use AS_PATH in many cases *precisely* because we don't consider it
to be a blunt hammer...
On May 31, 2012, at 8:03 AM, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
I disagree. Origin is tremendously useful as a multi-AS weighting
tool, and isn't the blunt hammer that AS_PATH is.
If you think of AS_PATH as a blunt hammer, how would you describe
localpref?
We use AS_PATH in many cases
On 31/05/2012 12:55, David Barak wrote:
I disagree. Origin is tremendously useful as a multi-AS weighting tool,
and isn't the blunt hammer that AS_PATH is. The place where I've gotten
the most benefit is large internal networks, where there may be multiple
MPLS clouds along with sites
I have seen providers instruct their upstreams to raise local-pref to
hijack traffic. More than a few ISP's rewrite origin though. Personally I
only consider it a slightly shady practice. I think the problem with BGP
(among other things) is that there is no blunt hammer. Now that routers
have
From: Nick Hilliard n...@foobar.org
If you don't rewrite your transit providers' origin, then you are telling
them that they can directly influence your exit discrimination policy on
the basis of a purely advisory flag which has no real meaning.
On what precisely do you base the idea that a
2012/5/31 David Barak thegame...@yahoo.com
From: Nick Hilliard n...@foobar.org
If you don't rewrite your transit providers' origin, then you are telling
them that they can directly influence your exit discrimination policy on
the basis of a purely advisory flag which has no real meaning.
On 31/05/2012 16:46, David Barak wrote:
On what precisely do you base the idea that a mandatory transitive
attribute of a BGP prefix is a purely advisory flag which has no real
meaning?
Let's say network A uses cisco kit and injects prefixes into their ibgp
tables using network statements.
On (2012-05-31 08:46 -0700), David Barak wrote:
On what precisely do you base the idea that a mandatory transitive attribute
of a BGP prefix is a purely advisory flag which has no real meaning? I
encourage you to reconsider that opinion - it's actually a useful attribute,
much the way
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:21:12PM -0400, Keegan Holley wrote:
The internet by definition is a network of network so no one entity
can keep traffic segregated to their network. Modifying someone else
routing advertisements without their consent is just as bad as
filtering them in my
In a message written on Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:22:16PM -0500, Richard A
Steenbergen wrote:
out of the protocol. I don't see anyone complaining when we rewrite
someone else's MEDs, sometimes as a trick to move traffic onto your
network (*), or even that big of a complaint when we remove
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Keegan Holley
keegan.hol...@sungard.comwrote:
The internet by definition is a network of network so no one entity can
keep traffic segregated to their network. Modifying someone else routing
advertisements without their consent is just as bad as filtering
2012/5/31 Richard A Steenbergen r...@e-gerbil.net
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:21:12PM -0400, Keegan Holley wrote:
The internet by definition is a network of network so no one entity
can keep traffic segregated to their network. Modifying someone else
routing advertisements without their
2012/5/31 Steve Meuse sme...@mara.org
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Keegan Holley keegan.hol...@sungard.com
wrote:
The internet by definition is a network of network so no one entity can
keep traffic segregated to their network. Modifying someone else routing
advertisements without
On 31/05/2012 21:04, Keegan Holley wrote:
If you consider not mucking with my advertisements and those of my
customers free love then I hope you don't work for one of my upstreams.
Likewise, if you consider not hijacking my traffic to drive up revenue as
cost. Anything to make a buck I
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:26:29PM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote:
On 31/05/2012 11:23, Daniel Suchy wrote:
In my experience, there're not so many service providers
doing that.
Plenty of providers do it. IIWY, I would universally rewrite origin at
your ingress points to be the same;
29 matches
Mail list logo
