[85990] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: /24 multihoming issue
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John van Oppen)
Thu Oct 20 04:54:10 2005
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 01:53:43 -0700
From: "John van Oppen" <john@vanoppen.com>
Cc: <nanog@merit.edu>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
A few questions that might help narrow down the problem you were seeing:
How exactly did you test the fail over? =20
How much time did you wait for things to stabilize before deciding the =
fail-over did not work and turning the second connection back on?
How is your outbound routing setup? Default routes or full tables? If =
defaults, it would be helpful to see any static routes that might be =
present.
Assuming that 19094 is still announcing the aggregate, the problem of =
filtering should be a non-issue (assuming they don't filter the 701 path =
from their upstreams). In any case, things seem to look ok from an =
outside perspective to most everyone who has commented.
John :)
-----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Elmar K. Bins [mailto:elmi@4ever.de]=20
Gesendet: Thursday, October 20, 2005 1:43 AM
An: Kyaw Khine
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Betreff: Re: /24 multihoming issue
joekhine@yahoo.com (Kyaw Khine) wrote:
> I opened ticket with both 701 and 19094 when we did
> failover 2 weeks ago. Both 701 and 19094 insist that
> they just take the route and send it out to the rest
> of the world.
I do see the prefix via both 701 and 19094 (heavily prepended)
here in Frankfurt, Germany:
5539 3549 701 33105
12312 3257 7911 19094 33105 33105 33105 33105
5669 286 209 701 33105, (received & used)
8220 2914 701 33105
(and some dupes)
Neither one seems to filter wildly; I would believe that you
hit aggregate-based (what's an allocation in ARIN terms?)
ingress filters somewhere.
Elmar.
--
"Begehe nur nicht den Fehler, Meinung durch Sachverstand zu =
substituieren."
(PLemken, =
<bu6o7e$e6v0p$2@ID-31.news.uni-berlin.de>)
--------------------------------------------------------------[ =
ELMI-RIPE ]---
