Has anyone seen movement from HE on community support yet? I've heard
rumblings that they are looking to do something Q3/Q4 but my sales guy is
telling me that they will only support it if I go to a full 10Gb pipe.
Sounds more like an aggressive sales tactic, but was curious what others are
Randy Bush expunged (ra...@psg.com):
i try to complicate the internals of my network as little as possible,
after all, complexity == opex and i value my time, it is a non-renewable
resource.
I'm guessing you don't have the same financial constraints that others on this
list have.
When you
Jack Bates expunged (jba...@brightok.net):
I think creating a standard or at least a template might push more
people to adopt communities support and to use them.
I put this up there with trynig to define inter-provider QoS. You are never
going to get two business to agree to the same
Steve Meuse wrote:
I put this up there with trynig to define inter-provider QoS. You are never
going to get two business to agree to the same model.and after all,
community support is basically a business tool. I know from experience that
some providers deliberately constrain their
On Mon, Nov 02, 2009 at 02:13:38PM -0600, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
Rather than simply double the size and break it
up into 32:32, the designers reserved the top 16 bits for type and
subtype attributes, leaving you only 48 bits to work with. Clearly the
only suitable mapping for support of
On Fri, Nov 06, 2009 at 12:04:18AM +0100, Daniel Roesen wrote:
On Mon, Nov 02, 2009 at 02:13:38PM -0600, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
Rather than simply double the size and break it
up into 32:32, the designers reserved the top 16 bits for type and
subtype attributes, leaving you only 48
Joel Jaeggli wrote:
So this questions we have approached from time to time. Is there some
worth to be had in finding some consensus (assuming such a thing is
possible) on a subset of the features that people use communities for
that could be standardized? particularly in the context of source
Joe Maimon wrote:
I dont know if communities is really the best thing to keep overloading
this way. Whats wrong with dedicating a new attribute for automating
policy?
Well there's always flowspec, as an example...
i would rather earn it by designing things, not by cleaning up messes
made by kiddies needing to show off.
For those who try their best, given your comment, what in the fsck is
one to do?
[ i prefer to speak in the first person, not tell you what you should
do. ]
i try to use as few
On Mon, Nov 02, 2009 at 05:19:32AM -0500, Randy Bush wrote:
i try to use as few tricks, knobs, and clever things as possible and
still get my job done. i try to be extremely conscious of, and minimal,
when what i am doing effects or is visible to my neighbors and/or the
global net.
i try
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 11:56 AM, Richard A Steenbergen r...@e-gerbil.net
wrote:
But seriously now, the reason we have these squishy things taking up
space between our ears in the first place is so we can come up with new
ideas and better ways to solve our problems. Obviously you can take it
Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Mon, Nov 02, 2009 at 05:19:32AM -0500, Randy Bush wrote:
i try to use as few tricks, knobs, and clever things as possible and
still get my job done. i try to be extremely conscious of, and minimal,
when what i am doing effects or is visible to my neighbors
As Louis Mamakos pointed out back in 1992 or so, it's hard to conceal the
existence of said peering:
g2 is raising the cost of gaining info. you can not prevent it
absolutely.
randy
On Nov 2, 2009, at 6:46 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
But seriously now, the reason we have these squishy things taking up
space between our ears in the first place is so we can come up with
new
ideas and better ways to solve our problems.
and they need not be cute, clever, or complex. unless we
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 6:36 AM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
As Louis Mamakos pointed out back in 1992 or so, it's hard to conceal the
existence of said peering:
g2 is raising the cost of gaining info. you can not prevent it
absolutely.
No kidding--the traffic backlog on it this morning
So this questions we have approached from time to time. Is there some
worth to be had in finding some consensus (assuming such a thing is
possible) on a subset of the features that people use communities for
that could be standardized? particularly in the context of source based
remote triggered
Joel Jaeggli wrote:
A standardized set means it can be cooked into documentation, training,
and potentially even products.
Communities (except the standardized well known ones) are extremely
diverse. For those that support even more granular traffic engineering
by limiting which of their
Jack Bates wrote:
Joel Jaeggli wrote:
A standardized set means it can be cooked into documentation, training,
and potentially even products.
Communities (except the standardized well known ones) are extremely
diverse. For those that support even more granular traffic engineering
by
Joel Jaeggli wrote:
more accessible and therefore more likely to be used, I don't think
traffic engineering is something I particularly want to encourage to
excess but RTBH is a know that more people need access to quite frankly.
I think creating a standard or at least a template might push
On Mon, Nov 02, 2009 at 01:38:00PM -0600, Jack Bates wrote:
Communities (except the standardized well known ones) are extremely
diverse. For those that support even more granular traffic engineering
by limiting which of their peers your routes might be transiting, I
believe there are 2
[mailto:jba...@brightok.net]
Sent: November-02-09 4:03 PM
To: Joel Jaeggli
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Upstream BGP community support
Joel Jaeggli wrote:
more accessible and therefore more likely to be used, I don't think
traffic engineering is something I particularly want to encourage to
excess
The answer is fairly simple. Does your business benefit by having the
ability to modify routing strategy as you see fit?
hint: we live in a commons
On Sun, 2009-11-01 at 17:06 +0900, Randy Bush wrote:
The answer is fairly simple. Does your business benefit by having the
ability to modify routing strategy as you see fit?
hint: we live in a commons
Yes. I was about to ask Tony what if *their* business benefits by NOT
giving you the
Subject: Re: Upstream BGP community support
On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 8:25 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
while i can understand folk's wanting to signal upstream using
communities, and i know it's all the rage. one issue needs to be
raised.
BGP communities are all the rage? I don't think
On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 19:33:52 CDT, Dorian Kim said:
Fact is, regardless of whether you or I think it makes any sense or
not is that some peering agreements preclude disclosure of the locations
of peering, and in some extreme cases even the disclosure of the
existance of said peering.
As
Andy B. wrote:
Hi,
Quick question: Would you buy transit from someone who does not
support BGP communities?
Without reading any more of your post, or any of the replies:
- because leadership has a better bandwidth deal
- cuz even though shit in one hand is heavier than hope in the other,
On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 08:09:40PM -0500, Steve Bertrand wrote:
I am AS14270. BGP with me... its been two years... you've got to have an
engineer who can set up a session by now, no?
Sounds like someone needs to send you a copy of They Just Don't Want To
Peer With You. :)
--
Richard A
Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 08:09:40PM -0500, Steve Bertrand wrote:
I am AS14270. BGP with me... its been two years... you've got to have an
engineer who can set up a session by now, no?
Sounds like someone needs to send you a copy of They Just Don't Want To
Peer
Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 08:09:40PM -0500, Steve Bertrand wrote:
I am AS14270. BGP with me... its been two years... you've got to have an
engineer who can set up a session by now, no?
Sounds like someone needs to send you a copy of They Just Don't Want To
Peer
On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 9:43 PM, Steve Bertrand st...@ibctech.ca wrote:
Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 08:09:40PM -0500, Steve Bertrand wrote:
I am AS14270. BGP with me... its been two years... you've got to have an
engineer who can set up a session by now, no?
On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 6:09 PM, Steve Bertrand st...@ibctech.ca wrote:
...
I am AS14270. BGP with me...
I tried, but I couldn't find you in http://peeringdb.org/
its been two years... you've got to have an
engineer who can set up a session by now, no?
Steve
You might consider just taking
On Nov 1, 2009, at 5:11 AM, Karl Auer wrote:
On Sun, 2009-11-01 at 17:06 +0900, Randy Bush wrote:
The answer is fairly simple. Does your business benefit by having
the
ability to modify routing strategy as you see fit?
hint: we live in a commons
Yes. I was about to ask Tony what if
jim deleskie wrote:
Agree'd :)
On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 9:34 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
Here is the problem as I see it. Sure some % fo the people using BGP
are bright nuff to use some upstreams communities, but sadly many are
not. So this ends up breaking one or more networks,
Hi,
Quick question: Would you buy transit from someone who does not
support BGP communities?
Here is the story:
My company is pushing several GBit/s through various upstream
providers. We have reached the point where we rely on BGP communitiy
support, especially communities that can be sent to
On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 09:37:03PM +0100, Andy B. wrote:
While most decent upstream providers support this kind of traffic
engineering, one of them refuses to send and accept BGP communities. I
tried to contact my upstream several times through different channels
to get some background as to
On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 09:37:03PM +0100, Andy B. wrote:
Hi,
Quick question: Would you buy transit from someone who does not
support BGP communities?
No.
--
RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE
On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 7:00 PM, Andy B. globic...@gmail.com wrote:
In this day
and age a robust and functional set of communities should really be a
requirement for any network provider.
We're almost 2010. Hurricane Electric, please do something about it!
maybe bake them a cake?
-chris
On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 12:00:20AM +0100, Andy B. wrote:
I would not say that my upstream is an old stodgy network and
certainly will I not consider them as idiots, because they seem to
know what they are doing. I'd rather say they are pretty ignorant when
it comes to some advanced customer
On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 06:27:38PM -0500, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
1) Old stodgy tier 1's who have communities but don't want to share them
with the world, because of silly NDA concerns or the like. This covers a
I'm curious, since when did respecting bounds of contracts and agreements
one
Andy B. wrote:
I tried to contact my upstream several times through different channels
to get some background as to why they would not be able to provide us
this service, but all we get is tickets that get closed without an
answer. Management itself does not seem to bother either.
On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 06:35:31PM -0500, Dorian Kim wrote:
On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 06:27:38PM -0500, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
1) Old stodgy tier 1's who have communities but don't want to share them
with the world, because of silly NDA concerns or the like. This covers a
I'm curious,
while i can understand folk's wanting to signal upstream using
communities, and i know it's all the rage. one issue needs to be
raised.
bgp is a brilliant information hiding protocol. policy is horribly
opaque. complexity abounds. and it has unfun consequences, e.g. see
tim on wedgies etc.
Here is the problem as I see it. Sure some % fo the people using BGP
are bright nuff to use some upstreams communities, but sadly many are
not. So this ends up breaking one or more networks, who in turn twist
more dials causing other changes.. rinse, wash and repeat. But like
Randy said who am
On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 06:49:03PM -0500, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
I'm curious, since when did respecting bounds of contracts and agreements
one has signed become stodgy?
There is no excuse for not being able to tell people where you learned a
route from (continent, region, city,
Here is the problem as I see it. Sure some % fo the people using BGP
are bright nuff to use some upstreams communities, but sadly many are
not. So this ends up breaking one or more networks, who in turn twist
more dials causing other changes.. rinse, wash and repeat. But like
Randy said
Agree'd :)
On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 9:34 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
Here is the problem as I see it. Sure some % fo the people using BGP
are bright nuff to use some upstreams communities, but sadly many are
not. So this ends up breaking one or more networks, who in turn twist
more
On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 07:33:52PM -0500, Dorian Kim wrote:
This is a strawman argument. I never said that any of the above was
a bad thing, nor that transit providers shouldn't support them. They
should.
Only point I was addressing was your characterisation that networks
who do support
On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 08:03:12PM -0500, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
And I'll conclude my argument with this:
whois -h whois.radb.net | grep remarks:
Err insert AS3356 in there, sorry failure in proofreading. I'll leave
it there, but clearly this is being done by many other large networks
Being the architect/head-nerd-in-charge of a fairly new network.
Not reading ras's HOWTOs and others is suicide There's no
excuse... It really makes running your network easier.. If my customer
needs to prepend X to Y transit/peer/customer or not announce to them
at 3am, that means they
On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 2:13 AM, Tim Jackson jackson@gmail.com wrote:
Being the architect/head-nerd-in-charge of a fairly new network.
Not reading ras's HOWTOs and others is suicide There's no
excuse... It really makes running your network easier.. If my customer
needs to prepend X
-
From: Andy B. globic...@gmail.com
To: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Saturday, October 31, 2009 3:37 PM
Subject: Upstream BGP community support
Hi,
Quick question: Would you buy transit from someone who does not
support BGP communities?
Here is the story:
My company is pushing several GBit/s
On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 8:25 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
while i can understand folk's wanting to signal upstream using
communities, and i know it's all the rage. one issue needs to be
raised.
BGP communities are all the rage? I don't think this is new concept or
fad. Signaling
52 matches
Mail list logo
