If you read up on juniper.net you'll see that in addition to the one
gigabit port PIC there is now a card with four SFP ports but only a
gigabit available via the backplane slot. This oversubscription of the
slot is good when you have several little switches you wish to drive and
don't nee
If I remember correctly from M5/M10, they uses FEB (built-into-Chassis
FPC version), and each FEB (row) has restriction up to 3.6Gbps rate.
So total aggregated bandwidth can not go over this limit.
If you install 4GE (4 of 1-port GigE PIC) in same FEB row, you can use
0.9Gbps in average per P
Strange. My rep always took pride in the fact that M- and T- series
devices have no overcommit at all.. Maybe things changed, we use no
quad-gig.
Many of Junipers cards for the M7/M10 are oversubscribed- just look at
their pdf's on the subject:
http://www.juniper.net/products/modules/100044.p
Folks,
It's time for the Infrastructure Security Survey again, figured
I'd include all of nanog@ in the query for respondents this
time around (per request[s]).
If you're willing to complete the survey please go here to
receive a token (which will be mailed to you with a URL
for response input)
On May 14, 2007, at 12:40 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If anyone wants to send me suggestions for content for a best
practices
document, I'm willing to put something together.
Oh, yes. Because BCPs are so very good at solving problems.
I wanna go live in your happy u
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: I don't know much about Juniper but I'm about to learn
: with a new job.
If your experience is like mine, you'll fall in love with the M-series and
absolutely despise the E-series (Unisphere)
: If I'm going to take full routes from a couple of upstreams
: and
> >> While NANOG is a nice stopgap for getting to the right people, it
seems
> >> to me that we should, collectively, come up with a better system
for
> >> doing this. If only the RIR databases were verified so that all
> contacts
> >> listed were reading, willing and able to act on abuse issues..
Keith,
I believe he meant he would like to purchase transit from Cogent.
-Randy
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> keith
> Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 2:53 PM
> To: Kevin Billings
> Cc: nanog@merit.edu
> Subject: Re: Cogent Peering
>
Do you not know what your traffic ratios are with Cogent? You can easily
get this information using Sflow or Netflow.
Keith O'Neill
Pando Networks
Kevin Billings wrote:
Can someone tell me if there are any tools on the net we can use to
evaluate Cogent as a possible Tier 1 peer. We are loo
Can someone tell me if there are any tools on the net we can use to
evaluate Cogent as a possible Tier 1 peer. We are looking at adding a 1
or 2 Gig connection to them, but after reading some of the posting I am
not sure this would be a wise move.
Kevin Billings
Sr Network Engineer
Spirit Telecom
Jo Rhett wrote:
[..]
>> While NANOG is a nice stopgap for getting to the right people, it seems
>> to me that we should, collectively, come up with a better system for
>> doing this. If only the RIR databases were verified so that all contacts
>> listed were reading, willing and able to act on abu
Irrelevant of the BT specifics...
Jo Rhett wrote:
We're considering null-routing all BT netblocks. I'm wondering
how many
others have already come to the same conclusion?
On May 14, 2007, at 3:30 AM, James Blessing wrote:
No something I would recommend to anyone that has any commercial
On May 14, 2007, at 2:43 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I do hope that when the UK police get tired of waiting, that they
shut
down everything in BT's data centre and take it all as evidence. BT
deserves at least that, and frankly a whole lot more.
I've already replied
We are in the colo business. We start at half-cabinet and go upwards
so it tends to be businesses with real sysadmins. That helps, since
it means hundreds of businesses and not millions of users.
But yes, our main concern is quickly isolating Windows/Linux systems
which have been compro
On Mon, 14 May 2007, Gadi Evron wrote:
Just a joke, Sean.
What would you consider from your experience, the best way to make these
third parties take responsibility?
First, you need to identify the ODM making the software used in the CPE.
--
Warning: Be careful signing up for UltraDNS service
> I don't know much about Juniper but I'm about to learn with a new job.
> If I'm going to take full routes from a couple of upstreams and have a
> couple of peers will the M10i (768M max) be enough or is the M20 (2048M
> max) a better choice. Layout here is such that I'd expect to use a
> s
Jo Rhett wrote:
>
> We've long been aware that BT *never* deals with spammers or DoS attacks
> that originate from their network, but a new issue has come to light.
> BT has a number of users who are apparently testing out stolen credit
> card numbers from their network against stores of all fla
> M7i is a very, very attractive lab/spare box, but this company wants
> carrier class - dual engine M10i are the minimum.
An M10i will handle a full routing table just fine. Note that as with
other hardware based forwarding boxes memory on the RE is just one of
several resources you need to
> I do hope that when the UK police get tired of waiting, that they shut
> down everything in BT's data centre and take it all as evidence. BT
> deserves at least that, and frankly a whole lot more.
I've already replied privately to Jo offering my help to escalate this
internally at BT to the ri
On Sun, 13 May 2007, Sean Donelan wrote:
> On Sun, 13 May 2007, Gadi Evron wrote:
> > "Passing the buck! Buck passer!" (see below - skip to Dilbert link)
>
> I guess you missed my attempts 3 or 4 years ago at trying to establish
> some standards for CPE concerning security. I've been at this pa
20 matches
Mail list logo
