Net Access, AS 4969, is now announcing: mae-netaxs#sho ip bgp reg 6082 BGP table version is 8459301, local router ID is 207.106.124.6 Status codes: s suppressed, d damped, h history, * valid, > best, i - internal Origin codes: i - IGP, e - EGP, ? - incomplete Network Next Hop Metric LocPrf Weight Path *> 205.147.160.0/19 192.41.177.74 1 0 6082 ? *> 207.152.191.0 192.41.177.74 1 0 6082 ? *> 209.50.192.0/19 192.41.177.74 1 0 6082 ? mae-netaxs#sho ip access 68 Standard IP access list 68 permit 205.147.160.0, wildcard bits 0.0.31.255 permit 209.50.192.0, wildcard bits 0.0.31.255 permit 207.152.191.0, wildcard bits 0.0.0.255 permit 199.233.96.0, wildcard bits 0.0.0.255 deny any For ASN 6082 (MAI). This is a subset of routes to take care of some of their customers at another location. We're filtering their inbound routes and not announcing anyone's routes to them, FYI. Please don't filter _6082_. We're only announcing routes through distribute-lists, and MAI promises to be very careful with what they announce through 6082. MAI is still working with Bay at their data center to reach the point that they're comfortable re-advertising their routes directly. Ciscos have been offered to MAI, but MAI is still working with Bay. Avi
On Fri, 25 Apr 1997 17:55:03 -0400 (EDT), freedman@netaxs.com writes:
MAI is still working with Bay at their data center to reach the point that they're comfortable re-advertising their routes directly. Ciscos have been offered to MAI, but MAI is still working with Bay.
As well they should. Why is misconfiguration of a router a reason to change vendors? How about if we prove the existence of a bug before spreading rumors? There are some very large networks running on Bay routers, one of which I used to run. I've always found that proper configuration did wonders for making it work correctly. -Jon ----------------------------------------------------------------- * Jon Green * "Life's a dance * * jcgreen@netINS.net * you learn as you go" * * Finger for Geek Code/PGP * * * #include "std_disclaimer.h" * http://www.netins.net/showcase/jcgreen * -------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Fri, 25 Apr 1997 17:55:03 -0400 (EDT), freedman@netaxs.com writes:
MAI is still working with Bay at their data center to reach the point that they're comfortable re-advertising their routes directly. Ciscos have been offered to MAI, but MAI is still working with Bay.
As well they should. Why is misconfiguration of a router a reason to change vendors? How about if we prove the existence of a bug before spreading rumors? There are some very large networks running on Bay routers, one of which I used to run. I've always found that proper configuration did wonders for making it work correctly.
-Jon
The router they were running did not have an IGP configured. It's hard for me to imagine how a misconfiguration could cause what occurred, but I'm still waiting to hear what the outcome is/was. The router only had an eBGP session up to another BLN; even if one of them was reconfigured accidentally for BGP3, the AS-PATH truncation should not have occurred! MAI has been very stable across their MAE sessions - and has been using a BLN for their MAE router for many moons now. Of course misconfigurations can happen, but the MAI people are not without clue. Of course, my traditional point about Bay vs. Cisco is that it's easier to find people experienced with configuration gotchas for Ciscos because of the large crowd of Cisco-experienced individuals out there. Anyway, sorry I raised hackles. Avi
participants (2)
-
Avi Freedman -
Jon Green