NANOG Digest, Vol 37, Issue 121

Savyasachi Choudhary savyasachi.choudhary at gmail.com
Thu Apr 21 01:35:54 CDT 2011


I have a doubt in ISIS.
While redistributing routes from other protocols, how the metric is decided?
OSPF has deccribed this in RFC 2328 Section 16.4 :

                '4) Let X be the cost specified by the preferred routing
table

            entry for the ASBR/forwarding address, and Y the cost
            specified in the LSA.  X is in terms of the link state
            metric, and Y is a type 1 or 2 external metric.

        (5) Look up the routing table entry for the destination N.  If
            no entry exists for N, install the AS external path to N,
            with next hop equal to the list of next hops to the
            forwarding address, and advertising router equal to ASBR.
            If the external metric type is 1, then the path-type is set
            to type 1 external and the cost is equal to X+Y.  If the
            external metric type is 2, the path-type is set to type 2
            external, the link state component of the route's cost is X,

and the type 2 cost is Y.'

What is the behavior in ISIS?

Regards,
Savyasachi
7676077879


On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 6:01 AM, <nanog-request at nanog.org> wrote:

> Send NANOG mailing list submissions to
>        nanog at nanog.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>        https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>        nanog-request at nanog.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>        nanog-owner at nanog.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of NANOG digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>   1. Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer... (Jack Bates)
>   2. Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer... (Mark Andrews)
>   3. Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer... (Jack Bates)
>   4. Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer... (Mark Andrews)
>   5. Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer... (Joel Jaeggli)
>   6. Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer... (Owen DeLong)
>   7. Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer... (Mark Andrews)
>   8. Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer... (Matthew Kaufman)
>   9. Re: IPv6 - a noobs prespective (Joel Jaeggli)
>  10. Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer... (Jack Bates)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2011 18:00:19 -0600
> From: Jack Bates <jbates at brightok.net>
> Subject: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...
> To: George Bonser <gbonser at seven.com>
> Cc: nanog at nanog.org
> Message-ID: <4D532A93.50504 at brightok.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> On 2/9/2011 5:47 PM, George Bonser wrote:
> > I have yet to see a broadband provider that configures a network so that
> > individual nodes in the home network get global IPs.
> Bridge only CPE's given off this node.
>
>     1043 IP addresses handed out
>     1024 Unique interfaces
>
> Looks like customers aren't always big on more than 1 IP. :)
>
>
> Jack
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 11:00:45 +1100
> From: Mark Andrews <marka at isc.org>
> Subject: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...
> To: david raistrick <drais at icantclick.org>
> Cc: nanog at nanog.org
> Message-ID: <20110210000045.EA41D9DCA79 at drugs.dv.isc.org>
>
>
> In message <alpine.BSF.2.00.1102091459200.15471 at murf.icantclick.org>,
> david rai
> strick writes:
> > On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Jens Link wrote:
> >
> > > Scott Helms <khelms at ispalliance.net> writes:
> > >
> > >> IPv6 for some ISPs will be extraordinarily painful because of legacy
> > >> layer 2 gear
> > >
> > > I don't feel sorry for them. We know that IPv6 is coming for how long?
> > > 15years? 10year? 5years? Well if you only read the mainstream media you
> >
> > And at what point during that time did they have any vendor gear they
> > could purchase that -would- support v6?   At -best- during the last 5
> > years, but I'd put money on that even today they can't purchase gear with
> > adequate v6 support.
>
> And who's fault is that?  The ISP's and the vendors.  The ISP's
> could have been requesting IPv6 support.  The ISP's could have been
> running trials and providing feedback to the vendors.  The vendors
> could have asked the ISP's to trail their IPv6 products.
>
> We have been saying for years "make sure you are ready".  That means
> buying and testing equipment.  Lots of those that tested went on to
> production years ago.
>
> As a vendor we like feedback on our products, good or bad.  It's
> hard to work in a vacuum.
>
> --
> Mark Andrews, ISC
> 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
> PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka at isc.org
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2011 18:01:46 -0600
> From: Jack Bates <jbates at brightok.net>
> Subject: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...
> To: "Robert E. Seastrom" <rs at seastrom.com>
> Cc: nanog at nanog.org
> Message-ID: <4D532AEA.2090505 at brightok.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> On 2/9/2011 5:56 PM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
> > Or 6rd and go native on their permanent prefix as the forklift upgrade
> > schedule allows.  Oh well, it's better than nothing or Crummier Grade
> NAT.
>
> ds-lite tends to be friendlier LSN from various tests, and is native v6.
>
>
> Jack
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 11:07:26 +1100
> From: Mark Andrews <marka at isc.org>
> Subject: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...
> To: "George Bonser" <gbonser at seven.com>
> Cc: nanog at nanog.org
> Message-ID: <20110210000726.3CABE9DCC09 at drugs.dv.isc.org>
>
>
> In message <
> 5A6D953473350C4B9995546AFE9939EE0BC1397D at RWC-EX1.corp.seven.com>, "
> George Bonser" writes:
> > > Cost's might be lower but service will be worse. NAT breaks a lot of
> > > applications file sharing will not work properly and running your own
> > > web server at home will not work properly. Well you always get what
> > you
> > > pay for and people will buy any crap if it is cheap enough.
> > >=20
> > > Jens
> >
> > While that is true, it is no worse than the situation right now.  In the
> > US, the vast majority of users are already behind a NAT (I would say
> > over 90% of them are) so they are already experiencing this breakage. =20
>
> But for the most part they can work around breakages with a single NAT.
> Double NAT prevents most of the work arounds working.
>
> Mark
> --
> Mark Andrews, ISC
> 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
> PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka at isc.org
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2011 16:08:10 -0800
> From: Joel Jaeggli <joelja at bogus.com>
> Subject: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...
> To: George Bonser <gbonser at seven.com>
> Cc: nanog at nanog.org
> Message-ID: <4D532C6A.20209 at bogus.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On 2/9/11 3:43 PM, George Bonser wrote:
> >> Almost none of the broadband providers in the US NAT their customers.
> >
> > Well, I suppose I have been unlucky then because every single one I have
> > had has NATed me.  I had a "real" IP when I had dialup, but I got NAT
> > when I went broadband.  I have a friend that has another service and she
> > is NATed too.  Boot up in her network and you get 192.168.1.x
>
> The the cpe... In all likelihood it has a public ip on the outside.
>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 16:10:46 -0800
> From: Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>
> Subject: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...
> To: david raistrick <drais at icantclick.org>
> Cc: nanog at nanog.org
> Message-ID: <582356A9-5ADC-4244-8BA0-EE1F2F3EF388 at delong.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
>
> On Feb 9, 2011, at 3:16 PM, david raistrick wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Owen DeLong wrote:
> >
> >>>> I don't feel sorry for them. We know that IPv6 is coming for how long?
> >>>> 15years? 10year? 5years? Well if you only read the mainstream media
> you
> >>>
> >>> And at what point during that time did they have any vendor gear they
> could purchase that -would- support v6?   At -best- during the last 5 years,
> but I'd put money on that even today they can't purchase gear with adequate
> v6 support.
> >>>
> >> This is largely the result of the fact that they did not demand it from
> their
> >> vendors during that time.
> >
> >
> > I was purchasing for and building small SP networks during that time.
> >
> > Requiring v6 of our vendors would have meant we just never got anything,
> so we'd have never provided service.   Come to think if it, maybe it -would-
> have been better for everyone involved (except those of us who just got
> paychecks and experience out of it) to just simply not do it - but we didn't
> know that at the time 15 years ago!
> >
> Requiring it delivered day one, sure. Putting in a requirement for "Will
> support" so that they are required to provide an upgrade path, OTOH, to me
> seemed like it was basic good business sense. It worked out pretty well for
> the organizations I was working for back then. We got upgradeable hardware
> and the vendors got awareness of the demand. Admittedly, I wasn't working in
> the last mile arena. However, pressuring vendors is possible without
> sacrificing immediate needs.
>
> >
> > Vendor C and J don't provide gear that fits into all network topologies
> (WISPs, MTU DSL, and smallish ADSL roll outs come to mind, certain during
> the time period in question.  Sure, they eventually bought products in those
> markets...but even still, I had sub 6 figure budgets to build with - I
> certainly had no leverage).
> >
> I don't think that networks with sub-6-figure buildouts are the ones we're
> too worried about right now.
> They can probably upgrade for sub-6-figure amounts.
>
> Owen
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 11:22:31 +1100
> From: Mark Andrews <marka at isc.org>
> Subject: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...
> To: Scott Helms <khelms at ispalliance.net>
> Cc: nanog at nanog.org
> Message-ID: <20110210002231.23F0E9DCFDD at drugs.dv.isc.org>
>
>
> In message <4D531B52.70404 at ispalliance.net>, Scott Helms writes:
> > On 2/9/2011 5:48 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > > On Feb 9, 2011, at 12:00 PM, david raistrick wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Jens Link wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Scott Helms<khelms at ispalliance.net>  writes:
> > >>>
> > >>>> IPv6 for some ISPs will be extraordinarily painful because of legacy
> > >>>> layer 2 gear
> > >>> I don't feel sorry for them. We know that IPv6 is coming for how
> long?
> > >>> 15years? 10year? 5years? Well if you only read the mainstream media
> you
> > >> And at what point during that time did they have any vendor gear they
> coul
> > d purchase that -would- support v6?   At -best- during the last 5 years,
> but
> > I'd put money on that even today they can't purchase gear with adequate
> v6 su
> > pport.
> > >>
> > > This is largely the result of the fact that they did not demand it from
> the
> > ir
> > > vendors during that time.
> > >
> > > Owen
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > Absolutely, just as the ISPs didn't see demand, and don't today, from
> > their users and thus the circle of blame is complete :)
>
> And some of their customers have been asking for IPv6 all along.
>
> I started asking my ISP at home in 2003.  I suspect if all the ISPs
> here were honest they would say that they have had a trickle of
> IPv6 requests for the last 8 years.
>
> Mark
>
> Date:    Mon, 16 Jun 2003 09:54:05 +1000
> To:      Mark_Andrews at isc.org
> From:    cablesupport at optusnet.com.au
> Subject: Re: [TT#6556559] HELPDESK Feedback Form - Mon Jun 16 09:52:50 2003
>
> Return-Path: nobody at pts.optusnet.com.au
> Delivery-Date: Mon Jun 16 10:00:00 2003
> Return-Path: <nobody at pts.optusnet.com.au>
> X-Original-To: marka at farside.isc.org
> Delivered-To: marka at farside.isc.org
> X-Loop:  pts
> Reply-To: cablesupport at optusnet.com.au
>
> Hello,
>
> Thank you for your email regarding the OptusNet Cable service.
>
> At the moment there are no plans for any IPv6 deployment, when this is due
> to happen we will notify all customers.
>
> Regards,
> Alex
> OptusNet Cable Technical Support
>
> --
> Mark Andrews, ISC
> 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
> PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka at isc.org
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2011 16:27:51 -0800
> From: Matthew Kaufman <matthew at matthew.at>
> Subject: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...
> To: Jack Bates <jbates at brightok.net>
> Cc: nanog at nanog.org
> Message-ID: <4D533107.5010202 at matthew.at>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> On 2/9/2011 4:00 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
> > On 2/9/2011 5:47 PM, George Bonser wrote:
> >> I have yet to see a broadband provider that configures a network so that
> >> individual nodes in the home network get global IPs.
> > Bridge only CPE's given off this node.
> >
> >     1043 IP addresses handed out
> >     1024 Unique interfaces
> >
> > Looks like customers aren't always big on more than 1 IP. :)
> >
> >
> > Jack
> >
> >
> And meanwhile Comcast has announced one /64-per-household service for
> IPv6... guess they didn't get the memo from Owen about how every class
> of home appliances will need its own subnet.
>
> Matthew Kaufman
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2011 16:29:54 -0800
> From: Joel Jaeggli <joelja at bogus.com>
> Subject: Re: IPv6 - a noobs prespective
> To: Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>
> Cc: nanog at nanog.org
> Message-ID: <4D533182.6020505 at bogus.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On 2/9/11 2:22 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > There have been IPv6 for dummies sessions at many past NANOGs.
> >
> > If NANOG is willing to provide time and space for them at future events,
> I will
> > be happy to conduct the tutorial sessions.
>
> program committee would no doubt love to hear from you.
>
>
> > Owen
> >
> > On Feb 9, 2011, at 10:30 AM, Mike Lyon wrote:
> >
> >> With the recent allocation of the last existing IPv4 /8s (which now kind
> of
> >> puts pressure on going v6), it would be wonderful if at the next couple
> of
> >> NANOGs if there could be an IPv6 for dummies session or two :)
> >>
> >> -Mike
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 10:22 AM, Jack Bates <jbates at brightok.net>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 2/9/2011 12:03 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> The thing that terrifies me about deploying IPv6 is that apps
> >>>> compatible with both are programmed to attempt IPv6 before IPv4. This
> >>>> means my first not-quite-correct IPv6 deployments are going to break
> >>>> my apps that are used to not having and therefore not trying IPv6. But
> >>>> that's not the worst part... as the folks my customers interact with
> >>>> over the next couple of years make their first not-quite-correct IPv6
> >>>> deployments, my access to them is going to break again. And again. And
> >>>> again. And I won't have the foggiest idea who's next until I get the
> >>>> call that such-and-such isn't working right.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> What scares me most is that every time I upgrade a router to support
> needed
> >>> hardware or some badly needed IPv6 feature, something else breaks.
> Sometimes
> >>> it's just the router crashes on a specific IPv6 command entered at CLI
> (C)
> >>> or as nasty as NSR constantly crashing the slave (J); the fixes
> generally
> >>> requiring me to upgrade again to the latest cutting edge releases which
> >>> everyone hates (where I'm sure I'll find MORE bugs).
> >>>
> >>> The worst is when you're the first to find the bug(which I'm not even
> sure
> >>> how it's possible given how simplistic my configs are, isis
> multitopology,
> >>> iBGP, NSR, a few acls and route-maps/policies), it takes 3-6 months or
> so to
> >>> track it down, and then it's put only in the next upcoming release (not
> out
> >>> yet) and backported to the last release.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Jack (hates all routers equally, doesn't matter who makes it)
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2011 18:30:46 -0600
> From: Jack Bates <jbates at brightok.net>
> Subject: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...
> To: matthew at matthew.at
> Cc: nanog at nanog.org
> Message-ID: <4D5331B6.60902 at brightok.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> On 2/9/2011 6:27 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
> >
> > And meanwhile Comcast has announced one /64-per-household service for
> > IPv6... guess they didn't get the memo from Owen about how every class
> > of home appliances will need its own subnet.
>
> I wonder if their RIR justification was for /64 to household or /48. :)
>
> Jack
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> NANOG mailing list
> NANOG at nanog.org
> https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
>
> End of NANOG Digest, Vol 37, Issue 121
> **************************************
>



More information about the NANOG mailing list