On Sat, Apr 06, 2002, Adrian Chadd wrote:
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> Just (mostly) out of personal curiousity - is anyone here running any
> PtP links using 31 bit prefixes rather than the /30's we're all happy
> with?
>
> If you go "huh?" take a look at rfc3021 - "Using 31-Bit Prefixes on
> IPv4 Poin
Uh, let's see - you submask k_public to route, hmm... either you have 32 bit
encription or you have IP1024... IP1024 - THAT would solve address space
limits, but imagine the BGP prefix updates...
Bruce Williams
"Two is not equal to three, even for large values of two"
> -Original Message
On Sat, 13 Apr 2002, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>
> Thus spake "Patrick Thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > I am looking for any and all research (and perhaps your
> > comments), references, etc. regarding replacements for the
> > TCP/IP protocol that do not require centralized authority
> > structures (
> Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 18:37:42 -0500
> From: Stephen Sprunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Please explain how you think any protocol could support
> non-trivial numbers of users without some arbiter to prevent
> address collisions.
>
> There are several alternatives to TCP being researched, but
> the
Thus spake "Patrick Thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I am looking for any and all research (and perhaps your
> comments), references, etc. regarding replacements for the
> TCP/IP protocol that do not require centralized authority
> structures (central authority to assign network numbers).
Please ex
David,
The traffic levels that we exchange with Sprint have been really stable
for the last couples months all over the country.
No routing/traffic issues that we noticed today.
Thanks,
German
On Sat, 13 Apr 2002, David M. Ramsey wrote:
>
> Did anyone else out there have routing and/or BGP is
Did anyone else out there have routing and/or BGP issues with AS1239
this afternoon (Saturday 13-April, ~11:30 EST - ~15:00 EST) ??
Sprint is one of our upstreams, and for about 3 hours today some remote
users were unable to reach us via our Sprint connection. We heard
complaints from Road Runn
On Fri, Apr 12, 2002 at 04:53:38PM +0100, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
> Genuity - first class provider, I would recommend them
>
> What transit provider doesnt use prefixes? Do you think they're mad
> enough to accept anything you send them?
>
> And yes, they update the filter within minutes of you
>
> For Cisco IOS just add this under the "router bgp" section
>
Here is the way that you use to do the same in JunOS.
http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/software/junos51/swconfig51-routing/html/bgp-summary33.html
They introduced a cool feature (idle-timeout).
"If you include the idle-timeout
> I am looking for any and all research (and perhaps your comments),
> references, etc. regarding replacements for the TCP/IP protocol that do
> not require centralized authority structures (central authority to assign
> network numbers).
> Any links, comments, etc., appreciated.
Well,
I don't
## On 2002-04-12 17:27 -0700 Mark Kent typed:
MK>
MK> To address Sean's point about mistakes turning one /16 into a zillion
MK> entries, is there any way to allow only some specified maximum number
MK> of routes from a bgp neighbor? I know that I'ld be happy if my
MK> upstreams gave me a buffe
On Fri, Apr 12, 2002 at 05:23:04PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
>
> One common need for advertising small routes within large blocks
> is dealing with dos attacks. If you have, say, 4 100Mbps circuits, and
> 1.2.3.4 is being DOSed, you can advertise nothing but 1.2.3.4/32 on one
> of the c
> Gotta go with the old head scratch on that one...
>
> Imagine the packet zipping down a wire. It hits a router. It slows
> down. Why? Because (until very recently) wire-speed != processing
> speed != backplane speed... This is called 'blocking'. The packet
> has to wait somewhere while the pr
13 matches
Mail list logo
