- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: IGPs in use
by Tony Li 13 Oct '98

13 Oct '98

amb(a)gxn.net (Alex Bligh) writes: > > 1) If you put your backbone connected interfaces (loopbacks > > serials, etc.. in your IGP [isis, ospf, whatever]) > > 2) Have a full iBGP mesh doing next-hop-self of the loopback > > interface > > 3) Redistribute statics and connected into your iBGP routing table > > (with route-map, or appropriate filters as necessary that vary by vendor) > > No argument with the principles here but why do you need to redistribute > connected interfaces into your IGP *and* into iBGP? Overkill, surely? In fact, you not only don't need to do so, you want to avoid doing so. This simply pollutes BGP and you'll need to remove it later at the domain border where you're aggregating anyhow. Tony

1 0

Re: IGPs in use
by Megatron 13 Oct '98

13 Oct '98

Ben, I stand corrected sorry for the mistype. you are right about using bgp as Exterior Gateway Protocol but I have used IBGP internaly on my network in the past. You should be able to segment your network into different AS's and do more fun stuff. -Mohamed On Mon, 12 Oct 1998, Ben Black wrote: > I would say BGP is an exterior gateway protocol and using iBGP as an IGP is > unwise. Much like posting to nanog when you have no clue. > > > Ben > > On Mon, Oct 12, 1998 at 04:14:10PM -0400, Megatron wrote: > > > > I would say the most interior Routing Protocol that is out there is BGP. > > It gives a better control of route announcements. > > > > -Megatron > > > > > > On Mon, 12 Oct 1998, Andre' Zehl wrote: > > > > > > > > Is there an overview on what the dominantly used interior routing protocols are percentagewise in large AS backbones (IBGP, OSPF, IGRP, EIGRP, IS-IS, any?). I don't want to start religous wars on what's the best protocol, I'm rather interested if there is an overview available on the facts of protocols used. Is there an "objective" (vendor-independent) feature-based overview on the compared advantages/disadvantages (especially regarding redistribution) of the various protocols that goes with those numbers? > > > > > > Andre' > > > > > > zehl(a)berkom.de > > > >

10 11

Re: *sigh* NT/netbios over IP over frame
by Eric Germann 13 Oct '98

13 Oct '98

email me your questions. I've done this many times before. Eric ekgermann(a)cctec.com ---Raymond Wong wrote: > > > > I swore I'd never do anything like this, but I've been tasked with > establishing NT network connectivity between 2 private networks > over frame relay. I got a pair of 2501s running 11.3, and I've got IP > routing right (all the sparcs are happy). I've got NT/etc machines, running > with NetBIOS bound over the TCP stack. None of the PC people knows > IP well enough to say what they need. Does anyone who has done this > care to provide any hints? a URL to a faq would be fine, though a search > seemed to turn up lots of assumptions that wins is required, which > sounds odd to me. > > I've enabled IP forward udp, and tried setting ip helper to the broadcast > address on the other side... should this work? am I missing an obvious > reason it won't, or better, an obvious way to make it work? I'm not about > to go around and change 400 PCs for this, so a router config would really > be preferable. > > private email replies preferred, of course. > > Ray Wong > > > > _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

1 0

Re: *sigh* NT/netbios over IP over frame
by Roeland M.J. Meyer 13 Oct '98

13 Oct '98

At 12:23 AM 10/13/98 -0700, Raymond Wong wrote: > > >I swore I'd never do anything like this, but I've been tasked with >establishing NT network connectivity between 2 private networks >over frame relay. I got a pair of 2501s running 11.3, and I've got IP >routing right (all the sparcs are happy). I've got NT/etc machines, running >with NetBIOS bound over the TCP stack. None of the PC people knows >IP well enough to say what they need. Does anyone who has done this >care to provide any hints? a URL to a faq would be fine, though a search >seemed to turn up lots of assumptions that wins is required, which >sounds odd to me. > >I've enabled IP forward udp, and tried setting ip helper to the broadcast >address on the other side... should this work? am I missing an obvious >reason it won't, or better, an obvious way to make it work? I'm not about >to go around and change 400 PCs for this, so a router config would really >be preferable. First off, the guys that *really* know this stuff are on the Samba list. Mickeysoft is clueless when it comes to this stuff. The first question is, if there is a Primary Domain Controller involved anywhere? The next question is, what are you plannning for your gateway machines? WINS *may* be required, but a Samba Server can fulfill that function quite well. You'll also need to set up LMHOSTS files. Your main problem is that SMB protocols do not route easily. In fact, any version less than WinNT will not route out of its own sub-net. If any PCs, are running Win95 then you'll need a pair of hosts to route the SMB protocols for them. This could be a WinNTserver, but I prefer a Linux host running Samba suite (you won't have to re-boot on each config change and you can run it headless-remote). Datacom Warehouse may have a box thatll help you, but I'd look into a "blue cube". ___________________________________________________ Roeland M.J. Meyer, ISOC (InterNIC RM993) e-mail: <mailto:rmeyer@mhsc.com>rmeyer(a)mhsc.com Internet phone: hawk.mhsc.com Personal web pages: <http://www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer>www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer Company web-site: <http://www.mhsc.com/>www.mhsc.com/ ___________________________________________ I bet the human brain is a kludge. -- Marvin Minsky

2 1

IGPs in use
by Andre' Zehl 13 Oct '98

13 Oct '98

Is there an overview on what the dominantly used interior routing protocols are percentagewise in large AS backbones (IBGP, OSPF, IGRP, EIGRP, IS-IS, any?). I don't want to start religous wars on what's the best protocol, I'm rather interested if there is an overview available on the facts of protocols used. Is there an "objective" (vendor-independent) feature-based overview on the compared advantages/disadvantages (especially regarding redistribution) of the various protocols that goes with those numbers? Andre' zehl(a)berkom.de

2 1

International Murphy's Day [was: Discussion point: Telco quality?]
by cache22 13 Oct '98

13 Oct '98

> Subject: Re: Discussion point: Telco quality? > Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1998 23:02:02 -0700 > From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer(a)mhsc.com> > To: David Lesher <wb8foz(a)nrk.com> > CC: nanog(a)merit.edu (nanog list) > References: <199810110142.SAA17274(a)condor.lvrmr.mhsc.com> > > At 10:24 PM 10/10/98 -0400, David Lesher wrote: > >Unnamed Administration sources reported that Roeland M.J. Meyer said: > >> >Are there things that can happen to both which will really ruin your day? > >> Yes. > >> <snip> > >But such will never happen, so we can all rest easy....right? > > Cascaded failures will do it. aka Murphy having a party. > ----------------------------------------------- Big Party! International Murphy's Observance Day! January 1, 2000 Everyone's Invited -- Location to be Announced! ----------------------------------------------- or will it be International Murphy's Observance Year? recent y2k news: worldcom is far behind schedule: http://june.wcom.net/about_worldcom/year_2000_compliance/timeline.shtml congressional testimony from bellatlantic on what should (and isn't) being done: http://home.swbell.net/adheath/castellano.htm little progress from bellsouth: http://www.garynorth.com/y2k/detail_.cfm/2560 amazing performance from sbc! (sw bell & pacbell) http://www.garynorth.com/y2k/detail_.cfm/2506 the itu is sleepwalking: http://www.garynorth.com/y2k/detail_.cfm/2832 international communications (and banking) status: (hopeless) http://y2ktimebomb.com/Industry/Telecom/ihugo9840.htm

2 1

Re: IGPs in use
by Danny McPherson 13 Oct '98

13 Oct '98

Fortunately, they scale well enough to pay most of our salaries, in one way or another :-) I suppose though that network design, then vendor implementation issues introduce the bulk of the "preceived" scalability issues, not that they don't exist. -danny Randy Bush wrote: >> The use of ISIS shouldn't lead folks to believe that OSPF doesn't scale well >> though. > >neither scale well. > >randy

1 0

Re: IGPs in use
by Danny McPherson 13 Oct '98

13 Oct '98

Just as with ISIS .. and most anything else. In order to continue operating when it's "ceiling" is reached, network design and vendor implementation must be tailored (optimized) to accommodate shortcomings in the specific application. I've seen one of these "theoretical" ceilings w/ISIS at a previous employer (one of the "big 5"). I guess you could say "allowing the glass to break wasn't an option". -danny > Perhaps I'm forgetting something... Doesn't OSPF have a "glass > ceiling".. > > Kind of like the current mboned issue's ? > > Routes, * states, * interfaces | macs, * changes...... != scalable... > > Perhaps I am wrong..... Anyone care to clarify ? > > Or, should we limit our scope of the term "scalable"... > In which case, OSPF is dynamite.

1 0

Re: NANOG Home Page Broken?
by Henry Linneweh 12 Oct '98

12 Oct '98

Yeah it seems to be giving the forbidden to enter message, maybe they are upgrading the site or doing maintenance. Henry R. Linneweh Mark Tripod wrote: > Anyone tried to get to www.nanog.org > > or > > www.merit.edu > > or > > www.rsng.net > > -- > > *************************************************************************** > Mark Tripod - Senior Network Architect - Exodus Communications > http://www.exodus.net - (888) 2-EXODUS - support(a)exodus.net > ASN 3967 - NASDAQ (EXDS) - Direct: (408) 346-2389 -- ¢4i1å

2 1

Re: NANOG Home Page Broken?
by Susan R. Harris 12 Oct '98

12 Oct '98

We're having server problems - please stay tuned. On Mon, 12 Oct 1998, Mark Tripod wrote: > Anyone tried to get to www.nanog.org > > or > > www.merit.edu > > or > > www.rsng.net > > -- > > *************************************************************************** > Mark Tripod - Senior Network Architect - Exodus Communications > http://www.exodus.net - (888) 2-EXODUS - support(a)exodus.net > ASN 3967 - NASDAQ (EXDS) - Direct: (408) 346-2389 >

1 0