I am having trouble with Quagga in setting up IPv6 BGP. So far it was
failing with external providers. Just now I gave it a try to setup BGP
session (IPv6 only) within our ASN between two routers.
From our other end router I see there is no acconcement, while I see blocks
being announced
Hi Anurag,
node4# show bgp ipv6 neighbors 2607:1b00:10:a::1 advertised-routes
BGP table version is 0, local router ID is 199.116.78.28
Status codes: s suppressed, d damped, h history, * valid, best, i -
internal,
r RIB-failure, S Stale, R Removed
Origin codes: i - IGP, e -
Well, you haven't provided any proof of that. Their website works just
fine for me (TM).
Since your troubleshooting is limited to methods that are blocked by
Checkpoint's network, you might need to revisit how you're going about
diagnosing the problem you're facing.
In any case, I won't be
http://www.wired.com/business/2012/08/ff_wallstreet_trading/all/
Some interesting, network-relevant content there (but for the
neutrino and drone rubbish).
Sorry, I do not give verbose responses via iPhone on that small device
with my tired old eyes. I ran Wireshark this morning.
Without sniffing packets, the layman's description of problem is I
can't get to vendor web site, http://www.CheckPoint.com, on Time Warner
Business Class network I use.
Dear colleagues,
thanks to the feedback we received after we've published
the interactive widget for querying RIR prefix size distribution
in RIPEstat, we created a follow-up:
a dynamically updated web page that gives an overview of
IPv4 address space prefix size distribution, per /8:
On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Jim Ray j...@neuse.net wrote:
I have a Time Warner Business Class connection and am unable to reach
http://www.checkpoint.com to research product line I wish to carry. I
did a trace route and confirmed packets are past my network, Time Warner
network and onto
On 8/6/12 8:04 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
The goal here was to make this as simple and cost-effective as the NAT-based
IPv4 solution currently in common use. There's no reason it can't be exactly
that.
It does provide advantages over the NAT-based solution (sessions can survive
failover).
What
On Aug 7, 2012, at 10:50 , Wes Felter w...@felter.org wrote:
On 8/6/12 8:04 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
The goal here was to make this as simple and cost-effective as the NAT-based
IPv4 solution currently in common use. There's no reason it can't be exactly
that.
It does provide advantages
The problem you're missing is that there is 0 market pressure to build
and standardize all of this.
Netconf isn't a claimed standard yet much less a functional one in the
SOHO world. Lets assume for a moment that someone finds enough of a
reason to herd the cats that are the soho router
On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 15:55:19 -0700, Owen DeLong said:
That would allow a zeroconf BGP-enabled router in relatively small hardware
accepting a default route t
OK Owen, I'll bite - what are the chances that a zeroconf router will accept
the *wrong* default route?
If you're trying to do the Use
Hi Micah,
From: micah anderson [mailto:mi...@riseup.net]
Thanks for the suggestion. Do you know what their bandwidth is? I can
easily pull a .iso or similar from there to do some tests.
There's some info at http://mirror.aarnet.edu.au/indexabout.html - it's
connected at 10Gbps.
Eugen Leitl wrote:
http://www.wired.com/business/2012/08/ff_wallstreet_trading/all/
Some interesting, network-relevant content there (but for the
neutrino and drone rubbish).
'Rubbish' might be a pretty strong word when you're talking about the players
in this space.
My favorite from the
13 matches
Mail list logo
