On Fri, 16 Jul 2010, Uri Joskovitch wrote:
I am wondering, do you see in the Wireless Backhaul application, RNC's
that support in ATM services OC12/STM4 ports? (not only OC3/STM1)
If you need that much capacity, go for GigE instead, you'll be happy for
it in the long run.
If answer is yes
Hi All
I am wondering, do you see in the Wireless Backhaul application, RNC's
that support in ATM services OC12/STM4 ports? (not only OC3/STM1)
If answer is yes does they support mapping of STS3c only?, STS12c only?,
Or both?
Thanks
Uri
Edge Router Definition:
- A term used in asynchronous transfer mode (ATM) networks, an edge router is
a
device that routes data packets between one or more local area networks (LANs)
and an ATM backbone network, whether a campus network or a wide area network
(WAN). An edge router is an exa
On 7/15/2010 11:40 AM, Michael Holstein wrote:
>> Why is it that network operators can't work together
>> on instances like this and have a "botnet killswitch"
> Trust (or lack thereof).
If networking tools were designed properly it wouldn't matter...
its about designing tools for the intentiona
I have that same problem with vendors that insist that there is a core vs
customer vs peering edge set in networks. If a customer has 10g to a specific
peer why should one not place them on the same device, ASIC, linecard, usw
Core today means something that is 200g+/slot capable IMHO. Anyth
The multihop BGP solution might be the best one with least overhead;
however you should be able to use a GRE tunnel if you still want to do this:
interface Tunnel1
ip address 10.10.10.1 255.255.255.252
tunnel source FastEthernet0/0
tunnel destination small.router.ip
interface Tunnel1
ip address
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 1:22 PM, Dennis Burgess wrote:
> RouterOS is a software based router, we have them all over the world as
> CORE and EDGE routers to networks.
You keep using that word ("CORE"). I do not think it means what you
think it means.
Drive Slow, DoS Slower,
Paul Wall
On Thu, 15 Jul 2010, Matt Larson wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jul 2010, Matt Larson wrote:
> > [...] was published and began rolling out to the root servers at 1625 UTC.
>
> Make that 1650 UTC...
>
> (The perils of staging email.)
Make that 2050 UTC (1650 EDT).
(The perils of a stressful deployment and
On Thu, 15 Jul 2010, Matt Larson wrote:
> [...] was published and began rolling out to the root servers at 1625 UTC.
Make that 1650 UTC...
(The perils of staging email.)
I am pleased to report that the first fully validatable production
signed root zone, with SOA serial number 2010071501, was published and
began rolling out to the root servers at 1625 UTC.
More details to follow in a formal update.
Matt
...on behalf of the root DNSSEC design team
- Forwarded message from Member Services -
From: Member Services
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 16:03:37 -0400
To: "arin-annou...@arin.net"
Subject: [arin-announce] ARIN's Whois-RWS Directory Service Available 17 July
ARIN is pleased to announce that it will deploy its Whois-RWS service on
> Why is it that network operators can't work together
> on instances like this and have a "botnet killswitch"
Trust (or lack thereof).
Cheers,
Michael Holstein
Cleveland State University
On 2010-07-15 19:22, Dennis Burgess wrote:
RouterOS is a software based router, we have them all over the world as
CORE and EDGE routers to networks.
Wonderful, congratulations.
> Some of our hardware can hit multi-gig speeds, BGP etc.
Same can do your competitors.
We commonly replace 7206V
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 1:03 PM, wrote:
>
> Hint: Why do many sites refuse to accept automated BGP feeds from Cymru's
> bogon list or RIR services?
>
The same reason many sites don't follow best practices and let spoofed
packets leave their network, etc?
On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 13:46:24 EDT, "J. Oquendo" said:
> RFP anyone.. Botnet Mitigation for Networks surely collectively it would
> and CAN work.
A nice idea, but consider if a more automated tool/system was created to
behead a botnet (50,000 null0 routes to blackhole all the nodes? Or accept
colla
While on another list (security list that some of you guys are on) there
is a discussion about a particular botnet that the "BP approach" of
containment is occurring. Not a big deal, we've all seen them from time
to time.
I read with interest on how volunteers are scrambling to contain this
botn
RouterOS is a software based router, we have them all over the world as
CORE and EDGE routers to networks. Some of our hardware can hit
multi-gig speeds, BGP etc. We commonly replace 7206VXRs. Does some
other form of DoS attack have an effect on it, sure, but as long as you
have enough CPU to w
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 4:08 AM, Jay Hennigan wrote:
> On 7/10/10 7:26 AM, Nick Boyce wrote:
>
>> I tend to assume that when I get an email allegedly from Company A
>> (Internap) but actually sent by Company/Domain B (iContact), inviting
>> me to enter all kinds of sensitive information about my o
On Jul 15, 2010, at 11:43 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
> A democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner.
Under the assumption that I'm meant to be fulfilling the role of the lamb, I
know when I'm outvoted, heh. This topic is obviously past its shelf-life.
;>
Oops--itch trigger finger
[a round of the on-going and growing tedious micturation tournament]
Is this squalling fest really more "operational" than a conversation
dealing with a disabling spam attack?
Really?
--
Somebody should have said:
A democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on wh
On 7/15/2010 11:39, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
>
> On Jul 15, 2010, at 11:33 PM, Joe Greco wrote:
>
>> Provided with a counterexample where this isn't true, you simply ignore it.
>
>
> I've yet to see a counterexample involving a software-based edge router in a
> realistic testbed environment bein
On Jul 15, 2010, at 11:33 PM, Joe Greco wrote:
> Provided with a counterexample where this isn't true, you simply ignore it.
I've yet to see a counterexample involving a software-based edge router in a
realistic testbed environment being deliberately packeted in order to cause an
availability
> On Jul 15, 2010, at 10:23 PM, Joe Greco wrote:
> > For example, for a provider whose entire upstream capacity is 1Gbps, I ha=
> ve a hard time seeing how a Linux- or FreeBSD-based box could credibly be c=
> laimed not to be a suitable edge router.
>
> Because it can and will be whacked quite eas
On Jul 15, 2010, at 11:01 PM, Cian Brennan wrote:
> I'm almost certain they're not the uses that Roland is saying that software
> routers are entirely unsuited for.
Correct - I'm talking about SP (and even enterprise) edge routers. I've seen
as little as a few hundred kpps totally hose Cisco 7
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 11:54:39AM -0400, Bill Bogstad wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 11:35 AM, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
> >
> > On Jul 15, 2010, at 10:23 PM, Joe Greco wrote:
> >
> >> For example, for a provider whose entire upstream capacity is 1Gbps, I
> >> have a hard time seeing how a Linux-
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 11:35 AM, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
>
> On Jul 15, 2010, at 10:23 PM, Joe Greco wrote:
>
>> For example, for a provider whose entire upstream capacity is 1Gbps, I have
>> a hard time seeing how a Linux- or FreeBSD-based box could credibly be
>> claimed not to be a suitable e
On Jul 15, 2010, at 10:23 PM, Joe Greco wrote:
> For example, for a provider whose entire upstream capacity is 1Gbps, I have a
> hard time seeing how a Linux- or FreeBSD-based box could credibly be claimed
> not to be a suitable edge router.
Because it can and will be whacked quite easily by a
> I briefly browsed the links and I didn't see any traffic profiles included.
>
> If you are talking about pushing x mbps with no specifics and/or general
> traffic, I think most of us agree you can do that easily and probably
> consistently without any issues. And for some icing, you may even
28 matches
Mail list logo
