This report has been generated at Fri Dec 20 21:48:05 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
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Opposite problem -- he wants to delay routing updates if the link is full.
EIGRP by default won't use more than 25/50% (I forget) of link bw, for
instance, but I'm not aware of any intentional features in other IGPs to do
this.
Both OSPF and ISIS in Cisco's have pacing,
Finally, I found it. If you diddle the K values for EIGRP, you can make
it consider reliability, load, and delay statistics when populating a
route to the route table. The default behavior is bandwidth and delay.
---Quote---http://www.cisco.com/warp/customer/103/eigrp1.html
EIGRP uses these
On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 09:21:39AM -0600, Ejay Hire wrote:
Finally, I found it. If you diddle the K values for EIGRP, you can make
it consider reliability, load, and delay statistics when populating a
route to the route table. The default behavior is bandwidth and delay.
Yeah, but
[This just jumped into the operational arena. Are you prepared
with the router port for John Poindexter's vacuum? What changes
will you need to make? What will they cost? Who will pay?]
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/20/technology/20MONI.html?pagewanted=printposition=top
December 20, 2002
On Fri, 20 Dec 2002, David Lesher wrote:
[This just jumped into the operational arena. Are you prepared
with the router port for John Poindexter's vacuum? What changes
will you need to make? What will they cost? Who will pay?]
I read this in the paper this morning. The article is a summary
The -real- challenge is to create a system -capable- of monitoring
the entire internet Today there isn't enough horsepower to
accomplish such a thing, except by exception to the rule,
rather than the rule.
In analogy: We can adjust the flows of the Hoover
(remember him ?) Damn, we cannot
Hi,
Today the network18.0.0.0/8 disappeared from
the Internet, it is now reachable.
I went to different looking glass (MAE East, LINX,
GRnet) and 18.0.0.0/8 was not in their routing table.
Is it related to a major problem?
Regards,
Christophe
On Friday, Dec 20, 2002, at 13:02 Canada/Eastern, jcvaraillon wrote:
4Today the network 18.0.0.0/8 disappeared from the Internet, it is now
reachable.
I went to different looking glass (MAE East, LINX, GRnet) and
18.0.0.0/8 was not in their routing table.
Is it related to a major
On 12/20/2002 at 13:11:56 -0500, Joe Abley said:
On Friday, Dec 20, 2002, at 13:02 Canada/Eastern, jcvaraillon wrote:
4Today the network 18.0.0.0/8 disappeared from the Internet, it is now
reachable.
I went to different looking glass (MAE East, LINX, GRnet) and
18.0.0.0/8 was
Title: RE: 18.0.0.0/8
Care to elaborate?
-Original Message-
From: Joe Abley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, December 20, 2002 1:12 PM
To: jcvaraillon
Cc: nanog list
Subject: Re: 18.0.0.0/8
On Friday, Dec 20, 2002, at 13:02 Canada/Eastern, jcvaraillon wrote:
4Today
A large utility outage followed by failures in secondary systems caused power
problems in MIT's POP. My understanding is service has been restored.
Matt
From: jcvaraillon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 20:02:40 +0200
Errors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi,
Today the
On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 11:12:43AM -0500, David Lesher wrote:
[This just jumped into the operational arena. Are you prepared
with the router port for John Poindexter's vacuum? What changes
will you need to make? What will they cost? Who will pay?]
Freud, your slip is showing ?
:P
Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
Richard Irving [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In analogy: We can adjust the flows of the Hoover
(remember him ?) Damn, we cannot however stop to count
damn is an expletive, dam is a noun. :)
http://nic.mit.edu/3down/
Last Update: Friday, December 20, 2002 12:31 PM EST
This morning the UPS system in W92-130 failed to protect the equipment
after a CELCO power event. This room houses a number of critical services,
and our primary connection to the outside Internet.
The system is
On Friday, Dec 20, 2002, at 13:11 Canada/Eastern, Joe Abley wrote:
On Friday, Dec 20, 2002, at 13:02 Canada/Eastern, jcvaraillon wrote:
4Today the network 18.0.0.0/8 disappeared from the Internet, it is
now reachable.
I went to different looking glass (MAE East, LINX, GRnet) and
Wayne E. Bouchard wrote:
On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 11:12:43AM -0500, David Lesher wrote:
But it is good for a laugh.
Or a cry.
:) :* :(
FWIW, One American Government Legislative body,
all full of itself, had all but passed an act
requiring the value of PI to be legislated to 3,
On Fri, 20 Dec 2002 11:31:39 MST, Wayne E. Bouchard said:
On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 11:12:43AM -0500, David Lesher wrote:
[This just jumped into the operational arena. Are you prepared
with the router port for John Poindexter's vacuum? What changes
will you need to make? What will they
On Fri, 20 Dec 2002, David Lesher wrote:
:[This just jumped into the operational arena. Are you prepared
:with the router port for John Poindexter's vacuum? What changes
:will you need to make? What will they cost? Who will pay?]
There is a really easy way to accomplish this, and it has been
On Fri, 20 Dec 2002, Ted Hardie wrote:
:exchange point routing tables seems to assume that the exchange
:point operator is operating at Layer 3. The most popular exchanges at
:the moment (PAIX, LINX, EQIX) seem to be layer 2 (GigE) or layer 1
:(fiber strung from cage to cage, you run what you
Cough!
On Fri, 20 Dec 2002, batz wrote:
On Fri, 20 Dec 2002, David Lesher wrote:
:[This just jumped into the operational arena. Are you prepared
:with the router port for John Poindexter's vacuum? What changes
:will you need to make? What will they cost? Who will pay?]
There is a
I have restrained from saying this so far but... I told you so.
When I attended the Oakland NANOG in October 2001, I had just
returned from Washington DC. The trip originally was for my
brother's wedding but I extended it for some personal lobbying on
the so-called USA PATRIOT bill as it
Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
Cough!
Sure, or they could ask carriers to tap lines for them silently... in fact
they can do that today with a court order.
Nope. USA Patriot Act, No Court Order Needed.
:(
Civil Liberties for Tax Refunds, Takers ? :P
A COO I know is actually
Methinks they'll try the Russian SORM model. Since this country is hell
bent on establishing a police-state, this seems logical. Why not use the
one thats been developed?
http://www.libertarium.ru/eng/sorm/
:[This just jumped into the operational arena. Are you prepared
:with the router
Further, if L3/Cogent are settlement-free and both parties are interested in
growing the size of their peering connections, wouldn't it make better sense
for Cogent all-around? If AOL is not interested in settlement-free peering
with them, then AOL can pay to get to them.
I seem to remember
Old rules, modern peering decisions arent made with such common sense ideas in
mind but based on power play and a desire for everyone to be your customer!
Connectivity, resilience, even commercial saving all seem to be increasingly
moved to be on a back burner for many peering managers!
I have
On Fri, 20 Dec 2002, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
:Cough!
Heh. Bless you. ;)
:This is incorrect, this isn't implemented, its not implementable, current
:routing gear doesn't gre tunnel a) fast enough, b) at all HOWEVER,
:juniper will allow you to copy packets on an interface in 5.5 or
Hi,
over the last week I have been seeing more and more resolvers (all
that I know about are BIND but I'm not drawing conclusions yet) send
my nameservers more and more *identical* queries, a *lot* of them.
Just to keep it short: take a look at
http://www.dataloss.nl/dnsoffenders/ and
If I were Level3, I'd give them (cogent) a bigger peering pipe, and take the
money from the larger, more stable company AOL... Might not be common
peering sense, but damn good business sense
Further, if L3/Cogent are settlement-free and both parties are interested
in growing the size of
A White House spokesperson has already denied the report in the New York
Times. Of course, the US Government is a big place.
On Fri, 20 Dec 2002, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
Sure, or they could ask carriers to tap lines for them silently... in fact
they can do that today with a court order.
On Fri, 20 Dec 2002, batz wrote:
On Fri, 20 Dec 2002, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
:Cough!
Heh. Bless you. ;)
its this damned changing weather :)
:This is incorrect, this isn't implemented, its not implementable, current
:routing gear doesn't gre tunnel a) fast enough, b) at all
31 matches
Mail list logo
