May 2012 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Cisco Nexus 2k EPLD upgrades question.
by Sarpreet Basi 08 May '12

08 May '12

Hello All, Looking to deploying 3 x N2K-C2248TP-1GE (2ps 1fan) 4 x10GE slot and 48 x 10/100/1000, Rather than a 6509. I'm hesitant with those is the maintenance aspect. While ISSUs don't necessarily impact the 2248, EPLD upgrades would. Do you know how upgrades are implemented on the 2248s? Is it via the host N7K's own epld process? Any help on this would be much appreciated. -- Thank You, Sarpreet Basi Knowledge Computers Email: sar(a)knowledgecomputers.net Toll-free: 800.967.6609 x102 International: 250.748.0818 x102 Fax: 250.748.3388 Mobile: 250.709.0336 --------------------------- AOL IM: sarpreetb MSN: sarpreet(a)hotmail.com www.knowledgecomputers.net We Do Maintenance on All EOL Network Product.

1 0

L3VPN MPLS - Internal BGP between CE - PE
by Javor Kliachev 08 May '12

08 May '12

Dear Members, We are ISP which use the same autonomous system to hold External BGP sessions and for implementing L3VPN MPLS ( as internal BGP ) We have a internal office router that receives a "default route" via IBGP from our border router. I'll try to briefly explain the problem: This internal router named (CE) keeps IBGP session with PE router in VRF "def". CE ( GlobalTable ) - PE ( vrf "DEF" ) The aim is "default route" IBGP received from the the ISP provider to be redistributed to PE in all vrf "DEF" After establishing the session we observe that actualy that "default route" is propagating successful in whole vrf "DEF" but MPLS does not set label of this route and the traffic is blackholed. When using another protocol as OSPF and EIGRP everything is OK. We opened case in Cisco TAC and they explaned that IOS official is not support IBGP between PE and CE. Only EBGP. I would like to know if any of you had similar problem and if there is any workaround in Cisco platform. I see for example Juniper has special commands for resolving this problem. Thanks in advance! Best~ Javor Kliachev

2 4

Are there any gmail admins reading here?
by Georgi Chorbadzhiyski 08 May '12

08 May '12

Guys can somebody send me a contact with gmail admin that can fix this: > Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently: > > my@email > > Technical details of permanent failure: > Google tried to deliver your message, but it was rejected by the recipient > domain. We recommend contacting the other email provider for further information > about the cause of this error. The error that the other server returned was: 517 > 517 HELO mail-gy0-f174.google.com does not exist. (state 12). I receive a lot of email forwarded by gmail to my email and I'm having problems only when the emails are forwarded over the server that says he is mail-gy0-f174.google.com. This happens to about 20-40 emails each day. Over a thousand more are forwarded by gmail to me without any problems. host mail-gy0-f174.google.com 8.8.8.8 Using domain server: Name: 8.8.8.8 Address: 8.8.8.8#53 Aliases: Host mail-gy0-f174.google.com not found: 3(NXDOMAIN) I have written to postmaster(a)gmail.com over a week ago, but as expected the email send there just goes to /dev/null. -- Georgi Chorbadzhiyski http://georgi.unixsol.org/

4 4

What is a link-local address?? WAS: Re: JUNOS forwards IPv6 link-local packets
by Matthew Petach 08 May '12

08 May '12

(tl;dr -- IPv6 link-local definition is ambiguous and inconsistent across vendors) I'm curious about what people's perception of valid link-local addresses is; that is, what specifically makes a valid link-local address? The top portion of RFC 4291 lists the link-local prefix as: 2.4. Address Type Identification The type of an IPv6 address is identified by the high-order bits of the address, as follows: Address type Binary prefix IPv6 notation Section ------------ ------------- ------------- ------- Link-Local unicast 1111111010 FE80::/10 2.5.6 Global Unicast (everything else) (from http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4291#section-2.4 ) Thus, it would *seem* that an address such as fe80:1:1:1::2/64 when configured on an interface for its link-local address would be a valid link-local address, as it falls within fe80::/10 However, when we read section 2.5.6, we see a different definition: 2.5.6. Link-Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses Link-Local addresses are for use on a single link. Link-Local addresses have the following format: | 10 | | bits | 54 bits | 64 bits | +----------+-------------+---------------------+ |1111111010| 0 | interface ID | +----------+-------------+---------------------+ Link-Local addresses are designed to be used for addressing on a single link for purposes such as automatic address configuration, neighbor discovery, or when no routers are present. Routers must not forward any packets with Link-Local source or destination addresses to other links. (from http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4291#section-2.5.6 ) That section indicates that *only* addresses out of fe80:0:0:0::/64 are valid link local addresses; that is, where the upper 64 bits are precisely 1111111010000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 (1111111010 followed by 54 0 bits). Is section 2.5.6 wrong? Should it have been written more like section 2.5.7, that specified the address as a prefix, followed by 54 bits of subnet ID? Or did the authors really intend that most of fe80::/10 remain unused, and *only* a single /64 at the very start of fe80::/10 would be valid? I ask this because I'm running into situations where indeed it seems that some router vendors do literally only treat fe80::/64 as link-local, and *all other addresses out of fe80::/10 are treated as global unicast*. This has potential implications on the types of filtering people may be assuming their router vendors are doing; and, with respect to the parent thread, when you talk about routers forwarding link-local packets, it would probably be good to verify with your vendors whether they take the sentence "Routers must not forward any packets with Link-Local source or destination addresses to other links." to apply to all of fe80::/10, or only to the more restrictive fe80::/64 specified in section 2.5.6. I will note that empirical testing shows that even different product lines from the same vendor show different behaviours, as though some engineers read section 2.5.6 in detail, and others simply read section 2.4, and skipped the fine print. So...operators...what do *you* think the correct definition is? And which way would you prefer your router vendors to read RFC4291? Do you prefer the loose definition from section 2.4, or do you prefer the stricter definition from section 2.5.6? Given that the RFC is ambiguous, and has been for the past six years, I'd tend to think the IETF doesn't really have a strong position one way or the other, and is leaving it up to us as operators to vote with our money, and give guidance to router vendors as to which definition we'd like them to follow. Personally, I know my vote is to go with section 2.4, rather than leave all the rest of fe80::/10 in an unusable grey state, where some devices treat it as global unicast, and others treat it as link-local. If we all standardize on the reading in 2.5.6, we leave the entire rest of the /10 fallow, with only one /64 usable from it. Which way do *you* vote? Thanks! Matt

8 9

FW: Force10 E Series at the edge?
by Roberts, Brent 07 May '12

07 May '12

Is anyone running an E300 Series Chassis at the internet edge with multiple Full BGP feeds? 95th percent would be about 300 meg of traffic. BGP session count would be between 2 and 4 Peers. 6k internal Prefix count as it stands right now. Alternative are welcome. Thought about the ASR1006 but I need some local switching as well. Full requirements include Full internet Peering over GigE Links. Fully Redundant Power Redundant "Supervisor/Route Processor" Would prefer a Small Chassis unit. (under 10u) Would also prefer a single unit as opposed to a two smaller units. ________________________________ This email and any attached files may contain confidential and/or privileged material and is intended solely for the use of the person to whom it is addressed. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete it and all attachments from your computer. Progressive Solutions is not liable for any errors or omissions in the content or transmission of this email.

10 12

RE: Network diagram app that shows realtime link utilizatin
by Mike Devlin 07 May '12

07 May '12

Check out InterMapper (http://www.intermapper.com/) Its java based, but works real well

6 6

None
by Jhon Dave Bayawa 07 May '12

07 May '12

thankyou Jhon Dave Bayawa

1 0

AD
by Jhon Dave Bayawa 06 May '12

06 May '12

Jhon Dave Bayawa

1 0

mulcast assignments
by Philip Lavine 05 May '12

05 May '12

How do I get a registered multicast block?

10 14

Verizon 1xRTT/EVDO for OOB
by Christopher J. Pilkington 05 May '12

05 May '12

Is anyone using Verizon 1xRTT/EVDO ("3G") for OOB work? I'm trying to sort out how exactly to order a compatible service from them. Unfortunately I don't manage our Verizon Wireless relationship, so I need to be specific. Is there a service code or name they refer to this service as? Looking for low bandwidth, static IP. -cjp

3 2