On 26/05/17 15:24, Nick Cutting wrote:
> I got a couple of greedy replies from traseiver vendors, but nothing
> from the wise old network wizards.
ProLabs were very nice to me; greed isn't really the problem - these
things won't be getting made at any scale yet.
> The GLC-10G-T - which seems to
I brought this up in 2015 - and they were new to market then.
I got a couple of greedy replies from traseiver vendors, but nothing from the
wise old network wizards.
The GLC-10G-T - which seems to fool the switch into thinking it is SR , so yes
I agree with the naysayers it sounds like a bad
On 26 May 2017 at 14:44, wrote:
Hey,
> Regarding OSPF unless you are using virtual-links or sham-links, then all
> messages are bound to a directly connected subnet so you can safely
> implement the ttl check with 254 (one hop).
This is implementation specific
Hi
Don't use ttl check on iBGP sessions, it doesn't add any security.
Regarding OSPF unless you are using virtual-links or sham-links, then all
messages are bound to a directly connected subnet so you can safely
implement the ttl check with 254 (one hop).
Regarding securing PE-RR iBGP