Is anyone familiar with this company
(http://www.globalinternetworking.com) and had any experience with them?
They recently merged with Switch and Data (an Equinix-like company) out
of Florida.
Any intelligence would be helpful. Thanks.
--
Bob Collie
Education Networks of America
p:
Let me clarify now that I've done a bit more homework...they have not
merged with Switch and Data from my investigations of Switch and Data,
they just appear to be a business channel partner with Switch and Data.
-Original Message-
From: Bob Collie
Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 3:03
Well Sprints non-peering policy is second to none if that helps with CW a close
second. :)
Steve
On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Christopher K. Neitzert wrote:
List,
Neither Sprint nor Qwest are serious about earning my business and are not
providing me with their network peering details. I
I am trying to troubleshoot a latency issue for some of our
networks, and was wondering about thisKnowing that routing isnt
always symmetrical, is it possible for a traceroute to traverse a different
reverse path, than the path that it took to get there? or will it provide a trace of the
I am trying to troubleshoot a latency issue for some of our networks,
and was wondering about this.Knowing that routing isn't always
symmetrical, is it possible for a traceroute to traverse a different
reverse path, than the path that it took to get there?
Traceroute sends UDP datagrams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
According to definition, is should take the same path, but are there any
other cases that I should be aware of?
According to the definition, it is going to show you the path the packets
took from you to the destination, not from the destination back.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
According to definition, is should take the same path, but are there any
other cases that I should be aware of?
According to the definition, it is going to show you the path the packets
took from you to the destination, not from the destination
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 10:58:03AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
According to definition, is should take the same path, but are there any
other cases that I should be aware of?
According to the definition, it is going to show you the
$author = Darrell Carley ;
I am trying to troubleshoot a latency issue for some of our networks,
and was wondering about this.Knowing that routing isn't always
symmetrical, is it possible for a traceroute to traverse a different
reverse path, than the path that it took to get there? .or
There used to be an old flag you could set on an
ICMP_ECHO request to record the path the echo reply takes back (ping -R or -r?),
but apparently its not used much anymore. Probably just as well.. it could only
hold ~8 hops..
Andy
- Original Message -
From:
Darrell Carley
a traceroute shows the outbound route. it's possible for the the probe
packets to follow one path and the returning icmp packets to take another
path. a looking glass in the AS your tracing to is a good way to see what
the return path is...
The returning ICMP packets may take many different
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 07:45:39AM -0700, Stephen Stuart wrote:
Traceroute sends UDP datagrams and receives ICMP datagrams in order to
show you what it shows you. It is possible for the ICMP datagrams to
return via a different path than the UDP datagrams took outbound (it
is also
at Thursday, October 17, 2002 3:58 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] was seen to say:
Unless you did - g,
Not correct. -g specifies loose source routing on the way *there*,
not back.
No, you can get both if you ping *yourself* with the actual destination
as -g. this gives you both legs
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 08:43:01AM -0700, k claffy wrote:
remark it is also possible for the (forward or reverse)
path to change in the middle of the measurement,
such that traceroute output would lead you
to believe a path that never existed anywhere
on the Internet (i.e., one that is not
According to definition, is should take the same path, but are there any
other cases that I should be aware of?
According to the definition, it is going to show you the path the packets
took from you to the destination, not from the destination back.
Unless you
On Tue, 15 Oct 2002, Joshua Smith wrote:
they could probably make some good money if they also charged for 'leaky'
networks - however, i think the sentiment amongst their customers would
not be favorable (you charge for misconfigurations? some nerve you have)
it is probably one of those
On Thu, 17 Oct 2002 09:47:12 PDT, Ratul Mahajan said:
ps: since i don't run networks myself, all of this may be something that is
obviously asinine. would be great if someone was to point out if that is
the case, and why.
Remember - in most cases, the management of a company *may* have
How feasible would these ideas be?
1) Signaling unwanted traffic.
You would set community which would just inform that you are receiving
unwanted traffic. This way responsible AS# with statistical netflow
could easily automaticly search for these networks and report to NOC if
both there is
Hello all.
I was recently handed a piece of a network that used VRF to implement
vlans. I'm by no means a vrf expert, but the config looks right to me.
The problem I'm having is that traffic destined for IP addresses within
the VRF Vlan from interfaces not within the VRF vlan (they don't have
Revised for clarity (I blame the 100.6 fever)
The problem I'm having is that traffic destined for IP addresses within
the VRF Vlan from interfaces not within the VRF vlan (they don't have ip
vrf forwarding statements in their interface configurations) which of
course breaks the whole concept
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 10:31:12AM -0400, Darrell Carley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I am trying to troubleshoot a latency issue for some of our networks,
and was wondering about this.Knowing that routing isn't always
symmetrical, is it possible for a traceroute to traverse a different
reverse
On Thu, 17 Oct 2002, k claffy wrote:
remark it is also possible for the (forward or reverse)
path to change in the middle of the measurement,
such that traceroute output would lead you
to believe a path that never existed anywhere
on the Internet (i.e., one that is not manifested
in the
22 matches
Mail list logo
