On (2002-10-18 00:15 -0400), John Fraizer wrote:
> > 2) 'TTL' community.
> >
> > -just think about the amount of route-maps :>
>
> Whoa. Decrementing a single community integer value while leaving others
> unchanged would seem to be a bit tricky. This would require much more
> work on the par
On (2002-10-18 04:13 -0400), John Fraizer wrote:
> You receive a prefix with the communities :1 :2 :3 and
> TTL-COMM:2. You need to decrement the TTL-COMM value while leaving the
> other 3 communities unchanged.
Yes this would need change in IOS/JunOS but it wouldn't actually be
har
Hello,
does someone know what happened to http://www.lucent.com ?
Yesterday everything was fine, but now it seams like they
are wiped out of the internet. No DNS resolution (unknown host ?!).
Daniel
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: MD5
Hello Daniel,
Friday, October 18, 2002, 5:56:27 AM, you wrote:
DMK> does someone know what happened to http://www.lucent.com ?
DMK> Yesterday everything was fine, but now it seams like they
DMK> are wiped out of the internet. No DNS resolution (unkno
This report has been generated at Fri Oct 18 21:45:11 2002 AEST.
The report analyses the BGP Routing Table of an AS4637 (Reach) router
and generates a report on aggregation potential within the table.
Check http://www.cidr-report.org/as4637 for a current version of this report.
Recent Table Hist
Yes, they are back.
Strange, even through looking glasses all over the world
they were not reachable for at least an hour ?!
D.
On Fri, 18 Oct 2002, Gibson, Mark wrote:
>i can see them
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Daniel Marquez-Klaka [mailto:dmk@;marquez.de]
>Sent: 18 October 2002 10
701 has a blackhole community, 701:, basically it sets the next-hop
to something blackholed on their edge so the DOS attack gets dropped as
soon as it hits them. I have made use of this to kill at least one DDOS
event. A global blackhole community may be difficult to achieve, but
getting the m
Interesting -- I was actually having a conversation about this very same
thing with a friend of mine a few days ago. The problem we had, was
that he had next-hop-self on all of his ibgp mesh routers. Does that
not make it difficult to put an ip next-hop in? Also, would that ip
next-hop be propa
On Fri, 18 Oct 2002, Daniel Marquez-Klaka wrote:
>
>
> Yes, they are back.
> Strange, even through looking glasses all over the world
> they were not reachable for at least an hour ?!
1) Lucent had a flag-day for maintenance on their webserver?
2) Lucent did some vaccuuming of the internet?
3)
>
> 701 has a blackhole community, 701:, basically it sets the next-hop
> to something blackholed on their edge so the DOS attack gets dropped as
> soon as it hits them. I have made use of this to kill at least one DDOS
> event. A global blackhole community may be difficult to achieve, but
>
>
> Interesting -- I was actually having a conversation about this very same
> thing with a friend of mine a few days ago. The problem we had, was
> that he had next-hop-self on all of his ibgp mesh routers. Does that
> not make it difficult to put an ip next-hop in? Also, would that ip
> next
Inline comments below...
--Chris
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
###
## UUNET Technologies, Inc. ##
## Manager ##
## Customer Router Security Engineering Team ##
## (W)703-886-3823
DM> Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 14:23:09 +0200 (CEST)
DM> From: Daniel Marquez-Klaka
DM> Strange, even through looking glasses all over the world
DM> they were not reachable for at least an hour ?!
If the routes are announced correctly and there are no routing
disasters, then it's probably inappropr
i wrote:
> > transit prices have been in free fall, and worldcom has not been
> > following them downward. however, after the cleansing ritual of
> > chapter 11, i think they will be in a fine position to reset their
> > per-megabit charges in ways that make them a compelling transit
> > provide
> note that $170/Mbit is actually below cost for any network smaller than
> sprint's or uunet's, once you figure in the people, the routes, the
> rent, and the depreciation, and then fuzz it based on economies of
> scale. however, the market hasn't bottomed yet, and most people still
> don't know
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/55/27690.html
What possible reason would the average small transit buyer have for
knowing the details of a carrier's peering arrangements - especially
carriers like Sprint and Qwest?
Both Sprint and Qwest are, most would agree, transit-free, "tier 1"
networks. They interconnect with all other similarly large n
someone wrote, in response to my piece this morning...
> Can you explain more about why you think transit prices will return to
> the $200-$300/mbps. I've been quoted $40/mbps on a 50mbps commit
> (95th%) ... which I think is pretty much as low as it's going to get.
> I can understand prices go
How do you compute CGS on a network that is 25% utilized? Is it
expenses/current utilization or expenses/maximum capacity?
I think a lot of the low-ball pricing that is in the market is the result of
networks selling off underutilized capacity at discounted pricing just to
get some additional ca
> How do you compute CGS on a network that is 25% utilized?
"bad"
> Is it expenses/current utilization or expenses/maximum capacity?
i want to be in a situation where i owe income taxes. so it's all
about costs vs. sales.
> I think a lot of the low-ball pricing that is in the market is the
>
In a message written on Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 04:56:13PM -0500, Mark Borchers wrote:
> OK, given the choice between tier 1 "A" and tier 1 "B",
> suppose you can show that interconnect bandwidth between
> the two is underprovisioned. Armed with that knowledge,
> which of the two do you choose as yo
On Fri, 18 Oct 2002, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> At the end of the day, no provider is even 50% of the internet (my
> assertion), which means more of your bits will leave your providers
> network then will stay on it.
I would agree with that "no provider is 50% of the internet" if you by
that mean no
Greetings Nanog,
My company is currently evaluating both Foundry (netiron line) and Juniper (m160 and t320) devices to use in a high speed l2/l3 core with l2 mpls. Core speeds will start at oc48 (ospf and fully meshed ibgp core, full internet routes, peering, customer routes, etc) but needs to scal
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 04:17:46PM -0700, jack ardent wrote:
>
> My company is currently evaluating both Foundry (netiron line) and
> Juniper (m160 and t320) devices to use in a high speed l2/l3 core with
> l2 mpls.
o/~ One of these things is not like the others,
One of these things just do
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 12:18:47PM -0500, dgold wrote:
>
> Both Sprint and Qwest are, most would agree, transit-free, "tier 1"
> networks. They interconnect with all other similarly large networks. How
> much more do you want? The size of their interconnections to 701? I'm not
> sure how that is
25 matches
Mail list logo
