Mark Radabaugh wrote:
I'm looking for new core routers for a small ISP and having a hard time
finding something appropriate and reasonably priced. We don't have
huge traffic levels (1Gb) and are mostly running Ethernet interfaces to
upstreams rather than legacy interfaces (when did OC3
I would second Ivan's comment.
Unless you are a major transit operator (which beats the small ISP
requirement), you don't really need a full view, and can do we a limited
view with a default route.
Arie
On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 10:27 AM, Ivan Pepelnjak i...@ioshints.info wrote:
Let me be the
Could someone from cogent please contact me offlist? status.cogentco.com
shows no problems but we're seeing prolonged and high packet losses from
multiple locations.
Jamon Camisso wrote:
Could someone from cogent please contact me offlist?
status.cogentco.com shows no problems but we're seeing prolonged and
high packet losses from multiple locations.
We are also experiencing similar issues. Our site had scheduled
maintenance last night and we were
On 10 jul 2009, at 19:03, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
IPv6 is going to explode the routing table in the next 5 years.
More like, ipv4 is going explode the routing table in the next 5
years?
IPv6 is now at something like 1.2 - 1.4 prefixes per AS. So it will
take a LONG time before we reach 100k
Hi,
We have same issues in Dallas.
- Konstantin
So are we in the DFW area.
Ric.
Softlayer.
www.softlayer.com
Jamon Camisso wrote:
Could someone from cogent please contact me offlist?
status.cogentco.com shows no problems but we're seeing prolonged and
high packet losses from multiple locations.
We are also experiencing similar
On Jul 11, 4:58 pm, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.net wrote:
On Jul 11, 2009, at 5:37 PM, Brielle Bruns wrote:
P.S. Anyone looking to find a good DNSBL, I would recommend Al
Iverson's web page, http://www.dnsbl.com/. Hrmmm, AHBL is not
listed there. Al's pretty clueful about such things
Dan White wrote:
Jamon Camisso wrote:
Could someone from cogent please contact me offlist?
status.cogentco.com shows no problems but we're seeing prolonged and
high packet losses from multiple locations.
We are also experiencing similar issues. Our site had scheduled
maintenance last
Prices of terrestrial SDH/SONET cards are very low for transport providers.
For customers I believe there is a greater divergenc between the Ethernet and
SONET/SDH costs.
A strong hunch based on what clients tell me Cisco charges for SONET/SDH
interfaces.
I doubt a lot of people would
On 2009-07-12-06:09:12, Arie Vayner arievay...@gmail.com wrote:
Unless you are a major transit operator (which beats the small ISP
requirement), you don't really need a full view, and can do we a
limited view with a default route.
Disagree. Protection against big-provider depeerings,
People bitch and whine about free services more than when they actually
pay for something. Sad.
That's the nature of people who want something for nothing. When you charge,
even a little bit, you select the bottom part of the gene pool out of your
client base.
On Sun, 12 Jul 2009, Arie Vayner wrote:
I would second Ivan's comment.
Unless you are a major transit operator (which beats the small ISP
requirement), you don't really need a full view, and can do we a limited
view with a default route.
Until something breaks or the next big depeering
Ivan Pepelnjak wrote:
Let me be the devil's advocate: why would you need full Internet routing?
Taking reasonably sized neighborhoods of your upstreams (AS paths up to X AS
numbers) plus a default to your best upstream might do the trick.
Ivan
We currently do exactly that - dropping
14 matches
Mail list logo
