--- Petri Helenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Pay me to treat your prefixes more nicely? 1/2 :-)
>
Isn't that the difference between transit and peering?
Does anyone dampen people who are paying them?
=
David Barak
-fully RFC 1925 compliant-
Bill Woodcock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What about the ccTLD prefixes? There are a lot more of them. And the
> gTLDs? And exchange points? And Microsoft Update servers? Where do you
> stop?
If you simply don't dampen (hooray for adequate CPUs), then you are
not only honoring the "golde
Bill Woodcock wrote:
On Fri, 3 Sep 2004, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> the logic seems rather irrefutable:
> - as a rule, shorter prefixes are more important and/or more stable
> than long ones
> - so we dampen long prefixes more aggressively
> - the root DNS servers tend to liv
On Fri, 3 Sep 2004, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> the logic seems rather irrefutable:
> - as a rule, shorter prefixes are more important and/or more stable
> than long ones
> - so we dampen long prefixes more aggressively
> - the root DNS servers tend to live in long pref
On Sat, 4 Sep 2004, Alex Bligh wrote:
> if in a heavily plural anycast domain prefix route changes are more
> common than "normal" routes (albeit without - dampening aside -
> affecting reachability), does this mean route dampening
> disproportionately harms such routes?
Thi
--On 02 September 2004 16:09 -0700 John Bender <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
This would not be as problematic if dampening could be applied to a path
rather than a prefix, since an alternate could then be selected. But
since this would require modifications to core aspects of BGP (and
additional m
On Fri, 3 Sep 2004, Rodney Joffe wrote:
> On Sep 3, 2004, at 10:46 AM, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
>
> >> Given Network A, which has "golden network" content behind it as described
> >> by the RIPE paper (root and tld data), if the network has some combination
> >> of events that result in all of t
Roland Perry wrote:
Did you mean "parts of RIPE-NCC"?
Sorry to be so pedantic, but this thread started off with a mild
diversion caused by confusion between RIPE and RIPE-NCC.
You're right - it is a little confusing. According to their joined
"about" pages, RIPE-NCC provides the administrative s
--On söndag 29 augusti 2004 17.42 -0700 Michel Py
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> Tracy Smith wrote:
>>> Specifically, to NAT or not to NAT?
>
> This is not much of an issue anymore. If you receive IP addresses from
> your ISP, not natting would be foolish.
No. Renumbering is easy and fun, n
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rodney Joffe
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
For those who care, based on responses and some analysis, it appears
that very few networks do follow the ripe-229 recommendations regarding
"golden networks", including, oddly enough, parts of RIPE itself.
Did you mean "par
10 matches
Mail list logo
