Fell free to contact me if you have any questions about ExaBGP as I am
painfully aware it's documentation is nowhere near what it should be.
Thomas
Sent from my iPad
On 23 Aug 2012, at 08:52, Andy Davidson wrote:
>
> On 22 Aug 2012, at 18:42, David Hubbard wrote:
>
>> Of those who have use
joel jaeggli wrote:
On 8/23/12 2:11 PM, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
it's probably used internally and renumbering
to 10/8 would be too big a hurdle to take. ;-)
show route 12.0.0.0/8
...
That was mostly tongue in cheek. I was remembering the reasons people on
here brought up why /8 legacy assign
On 8/23/12 2:11 PM, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
Owen DeLong wrote:
AT&T should just be glad there was a /12 for them to get.
That isn't going to be true for much longer.
If you are counting on an IPv4 free pool to run your business next
year, you are making a bad bet.
The 16777214 IP addresses (
They do have a large managed VPN service where this shouldn't matter very
much, just to throw another possible use case into the pot.
On Aug 24, 2012 3:10 AM, "Ray Soucy" wrote:
> Funny,
>
> Saw this post come through this morning; then got call today for ASA
> configuration help ... I noticed t
Owen DeLong wrote:
AT&T should just be glad there was a /12 for them to get.
That isn't going to be true for much longer.
If you are counting on an IPv4 free pool to run your business next year, you
are making a bad bet.
The 16777214 IP addresses (give or take) in their 12/8 assignment aren'
On Thu, 23 Aug 2012, Ray Soucy wrote:
Funny,
Saw this post come through this morning; then got call today for ASA
configuration help ... I noticed the guy had configured his ASA to use
"private" networks of 172.100.0.0/24 and 172.200.0.0/24 ... I reminded
him that they don't fall within RFC1918
Funny,
Saw this post come through this morning; then got call today for ASA
configuration help ... I noticed the guy had configured his ASA to use
"private" networks of 172.100.0.0/24 and 172.200.0.0/24 ... I reminded
him that they don't fall within RFC1918 but the response was "oh well,
I don't c
On 8/23/12 10:57 AM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
I would really hope that wireless providers are planning for IPv6
instead, although a recent thread about Sprint LTE indicates maybe this
is wishful thinking. I know Verizon is but the single LTE MiFi I have
doesn't do IPv6, but I've seen customers with V
This Forbes article
(http://www.forbes.com/sites/petercohan/2012/08/21/will-google-fiber-waste-2
8-billion/) expresses some well-founded skepticism. As someone who works
for a service provider that does both town and rural FTTH, I can assure you
that the $2,500 (per home served?) the FCC describes
On 8/23/12 7:18 AM, Jared Mauch wrote:
>
> On Aug 23, 2012, at 10:04 AM, Blake Hudson wrote:
>
>> How does one suddenly justify needing 1,000,000 more IP addresses (explosive
>> expected growth in the next couple months?)
>
> I can easily see people moving through those IPs in short order if y
On 8/7/12 10:50 AM, Wes Felter 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
>> fail
>
>
> The 6 strikes system doesn't kick in til Jan 2013 AFAIK.
My understanding was that it started kicking in last month, but in any event,
for whomever sent the original poster the complaint, it's clearly in effect now.
>
> Does the legal letter make any kind of demand? Usually the sender
On Aug 23, 2012, at 08:26 , "Otis L. Surratt, Jr." wrote:
> IMO the justifcation is probably in other areas of their business like cloud
> services, data center, etc.
>
> Obvisouly, it was compelling enough to warrant ARIN's approval for allocation
> of the space in the last stretch of IPv4.
IMO the justifcation is probably in other areas of their business like cloud
services, data center, etc.
Obvisouly, it was compelling enough to warrant ARIN's approval for allocation
of the space in the last stretch of IPv4. All /16 and larger requests goes to
IPv4 review team anyway.
So, aga
On 08/23/12 10:51 +0430, Shahab Vahabzadeh wrote:
Thanks about every ones speech in this topic but I think I can not describe
my problem clearly, let me explain it some how more:
You know I have two kind of ADSL services, Limited and Unlimited.
Limited Like:
512Kb-4GB-3Month
1024Kb-4GB-3Month
204
On Aug 23, 2012, at 10:04 AM, Blake Hudson wrote:
> How does one suddenly justify needing 1,000,000 more IP addresses (explosive
> expected growth in the next couple months?)
I can easily see people moving through those IPs in short order if you have a
datacenter or other deployment you are w
>
> > Of those who have used Quagga or Bird, or anything else,
> > would either of them be appropriate and/or well suited for
> > use as an iBGP blackhole route server?
>
To expand the opinion set, how do Quagga, Bird, exaBGP, OpenBGPd hold up for
handling Multi-Protocol BGP Route Reflector duti
I wonder if ATT will be returning some of those /16 and /15 allocations
it has in return for the /12 - http://whois.arin.net/rest/org/SIS-80/nets
How does one suddenly justify needing 1,000,000 more IP addresses
(explosive expected growth in the next couple months?)
--Blake
Owen DeLong wrote
> Does anyone have a very lightly used, long long low bandwidth link
> they can dedicate to The Cause?
Dummynet. One cheap PC, two NICs, roll your own, as long as you like. I've
had fake circuits running with 2s RTT, applications keep doing their thing,
just very slowly.
Regards,
Tim.
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 9:21 AM, Shahab Vahabzadeh
wrote:
> Thanks about every ones speech in this topic but I think I can not describe
> my problem clearly, let me explain it some how more:
> You know I have two kind of ADSL services, Limited and Unlimited.
> Limited Like:
> 512Kb-4GB-3Month
> 10
On 22 Aug 2012, at 18:42, David Hubbard wrote:
> Of those who have used Quagga or Bird, or anything else,
> would either of them be appropriate and/or well suited for
> use as an iBGP blackhole route server?
You can use Quagga or Bird as a blackhole BGP injector, because the forwarding
load is
21 matches
Mail list logo
