On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 10:22:16AM -0800, Shrdlu wrote:
Top posting only because there's no point in making anyone who's already
seen it look at again. Can we please remind people in a friendly way
that a disclaimer of this length doesn't belong on a mailing list?
I concur, but will add or
--- s...@labrats.us wrote:
Scott Weeks wrote:
Shrdlu wrote:
seen it look at again. Can we please remind people in a friendly way
that a disclaimer of this length doesn't belong on a mailing list?
--- s...@labrats.us wrote:
Some people do not have a choice about disclaimers. If I was
Having slightly lost track of what everybody is using for peering routers
these days, what is the consensus about the best alternative to Juniper M
series routers?
I'm asking as the prices to upgrade to 10Gbit capable Juniper units (ie.
an M120) seem prohibitively high so I'm looking to get a
On Nov 16, 2009, at 9:54 AM, Gary Mackenzie wrote:
Having slightly lost track of what everybody is using for peering routers
these days, what is the consensus about the best alternative to Juniper M
series routers?
have you looked at the MX series?
Dale
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 09:04, Dale W. Carder dwcar...@wisc.edu wrote:
On Nov 16, 2009, at 9:54 AM, Gary Mackenzie wrote:
Having slightly lost track of what everybody is using for peering routers
these days, what is the consensus about the best alternative to Juniper M
series routers?
have
Having slightly lost track of what everybody is using for peering routers
these days, what is the consensus about the best alternative to Juniper M
series routers?
Juniper MX series? Works great for us. Much nicer 10G prices than M120.
Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sth...@nethelp.no
I had looked briefly, does anybody here actually use them as peering
routers? I've seen a few implementations using them in the MPLS P and PE
router roles but never as border routers.
We use MX series as peering routers. They work very well.
Steinar Haug, AS 2116
, version of virus signature
database 4611 (20091116) __
The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
http://www.eset.com
offence. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender
immediately and delete the original message.
__ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 4611 (20091116) __
The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
http
Thanks everybody for the feedback. I'll likely be getting a few quotes for
MX series boxes I think, we're in the happy position of having a
completely e-net infrastructure so we're not limited by interface options.
Thanks again for recommendation, good to know other people are using them
Could some of you share your recommendations on the best tools for monitoring
per AS communications. I would like to track all source AS to Destination AS
traffic utilization.
Best Regards,
Babak
--
Babak Pasdar
President CEO | Certified Ethical Hacker
Bat Blue Corporation | Integrity .
Depending on your needs:
- https://neon1.net/as-stats/ (some patches here
http://www.mail-archive.com/fr...@frnog.org/msg07257.html)
- Arbor PeakflowSP
- anything base on netflow
Benjamin BILLON
-- -- -- -- -- --
Splio eMarketing Services
Babak Pasdar a écrit :
Could some of you share your
Yes, we use Arbor here and *really* like it... powerful system - not
cheap but worth every penny...;)
Paul
-Original Message-
From: Stefan Fouant [mailto:sfou...@shortestpathfirst.net]
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 3:05 PM
To: 'Babak Pasdar'; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: Bandwidth
Pretty Sure Arbor makes a good box. If you are looking for reporting and
auto-tweaking of your traffic, you can look at the Internap Flow Control box as
well.
-Original Message-
From: Babak Pasdar [mailto:bpas...@batblue.com]
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 2:37 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
.
__ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 4611 (20091116) __
The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
http://www.eset.com
__ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 4611 (20091116) __
The message
I read the draft and its very interesting. There were some issues that
i had never imagined could exist and it does a wonderful job of
brining them forth.
However, i still dont understand why AH would be preferred over
ESP-NULL in case of OSPFv3. The draft speaks of issues with replaying
the OSPF
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 06:04:46PM +0100, Tore Anderson wrote:
We've been using the MX-es as border routers for some time now. It's a
role that suits them very well in my opinion, no problems at all so far.
Caveat: no MAC accounting on LAGs (IEEE speak) / Aggregated Ethernet (Juniper
speak) /
Junipers let you configure multiple IP addresses on the same network as
subinterfaces of a given physical interface. Seen a lot of this at places
like GigExchange, making it easy to use simple things like MRTG to graph
exactly this.
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 3:24 PM, Duman, Richard
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 6:23 PM, Jack Kohn kohn.j...@gmail.com wrote:
However, i still dont understand why AH would be preferred over
ESP-NULL in case of OSPFv3. The draft speaks of issues with replaying
the OSPF packets. One could also do these things with AH.
Am i missing something?
Neither
On 10/11/09 01:58, Jack Bates wrote:
And different CDN's behave differently, depending on how they deliver
content, support provider interconnects, etc. I'd hardly call many of
them DNS lies, as they do resolve you to the appropriate IP, and if that
IP disappears, try and quickly get you to
On Nov 16, 2009, at 9:07 PM, James Hess wrote:
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 6:23 PM, Jack Kohn kohn.j...@gmail.com wrote:
However, i still dont understand why AH would be preferred over
ESP-NULL in case of OSPFv3. The draft speaks of issues with replaying
the OSPF packets. One could also do these
Maybe Google needs to incorporate some level of CDN support into their
SPDY layer...
Better than DNS I would think.
-brandon
On 11/16/09, Glen Turner g...@gdt.id.au wrote:
On 10/11/09 01:58, Jack Bates wrote:
And different CDN's behave differently, depending on how they deliver
content,
+1.
I know of a network whose owners are far more worried about a replay attack
than about data being revealed to the outside world.
They need to verify the provenance of data (i. e. Make sure that it hasn#39;t
bee Natted), and AH is a simple way to do these precise things.
-David Barak
A free Netflow option is CUFlow, you can graph via AS/network/protocol.
http://www.columbia.edu/acis/networks/advanced/CUFlow
It is a bit outdated, but gets the job done here, as these details are
not mission critical for me.
-Original Message-
From: Stefan Fouant
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 01:28:06AM +0100, Daniel Roesen wrote:
PS: and of course JUNOS still undeterministically resetting unrelated
BGP sessions for no good reason when modifying BGP configuration - so
one is well-advised to do ANY configuration changes in the area of BGP
within a maint
offence. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender
immediately and delete the original message.
__ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 4611 (20091116) __
The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
http
26 matches
Mail list logo
