I am worried as most tech's know Cisco and Juniper, so going to ALU would
be a learning curve based on replies I am getting off list.
It's definitely quite different from the CLI. I'm still dabbling, but the guys
here who have been through the training and are immersed in it really like it.
On 7/May/15 11:12, James Bensley wrote:
This.
You can't really put SLAs on traffic that has to egress/ingress the
Internet, if you try to you're asking for trouble, so we simply remark
to 0 on all inbound traffic.
And this is what sales and marketing droids don't get - so-called
Premium
On 6 May 2015 at 03:27, Blake Dunlap iki...@gmail.com wrote:
If there isn't a specific peering agreement which sets up DSCP marks
with your Z side, you're going to have a bad time doing anything other
than remarking to 0.
-Blake
This.
You can't really put SLAs on traffic that has to
The other thread about the Alcatel-Lucent routers has been pleasantly
delightful. Our organization used to believe that Juniper, Cisco, and
Brocade were the only true vendors for carrier grade routing, but now we
are going to throw Alcatel-Lucent into the mix.
ZTE and Huawei, the big chinese
Colton Conor colton.co...@gmail.com writes:
The other thread about the Alcatel-Lucent routers has been pleasantly
delightful. Our organization used to believe that Juniper, Cisco, and
Brocade were the only true vendors for carrier grade routing, but now we
are going to throw Alcatel-Lucent
LOL :)
On May 7, 2015 9:38:15 AM AKDT, Rob Seastrom r...@seastrom.com wrote:
More like at least be willing to man up and learn your way around
some platform other than RHEL without whining if there is a business
need for it.
-r
Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.com writes:
*grumble, grumble,
seems pretty real to me, I know we (AS11404) mark to zero on ingress... I
think that is the typical case otherwise people would just tag their flood
style ddos traffic as max and try to take out everything.
John
From: NANOG [nanog-boun...@nanog.org]
On 5/7/2015 2:25 PM, Daniel Corbe wrote:
Colton Conor colton.co...@gmail.com writes:
The other thread about the Alcatel-Lucent routers has been pleasantly
delightful. Our organization used to believe that Juniper, Cisco, and
Brocade were the only true vendors for carrier grade routing, but now
---BeginMessage---
On 7/May/15 15:16, Phil Bedard wrote:
Forgot to send this yesterday…
We use them in our networks along with ASR9Ks and MXs. There are a lot of
them deployed around the world doing very similar things as ASRs and MXs.
The config is more like Juniper than Cisco IMHO.
---BeginMessage---
What churn rates are you talking about?
Josh Reynolds
CIO, SPITwSPOTS
www.spitwspots.com
On 05/07/2015 05:36 PM, Watson, Bob wrote:
Many of these churn rates result from problems self inflicted hence all the
dramatic sdn promises, popularity in abstractions, Api all the
---BeginMessage---
On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 7:12 AM, Rich Kulawiec r...@gsp.org wrote:
Ah...got it, this was sloppy phrasing on my part. I meant first
in the sense of first rule that one should write. Depending on
Security best practice to always have an active cleanup rule for
every traffic
---BeginMessage---
Many of these churn rates result from problems self inflicted hence all the
dramatic sdn promises, popularity in abstractions, Api all the things, let's go
yang/netconf and retrofit every ietf standard. There's benefits but gotta
rant a little. What's better than correct?
---BeginMessage---
On 5/6/15, 4:56 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
a fellow researcher wants
to make the case that in some scenarios it is very important for a
network operator to be able to specify that traffic should *not*
traverse a certain switch/link/group of
On Wed, 6 May 2015, Mark Tinka wrote:
With color-aware policing toward a customer in Uganda, any traffic
coming from that peer in South Africa was getting dropped toward that
customer in Uganda. After a very odd sequence of troubleshooting events,
we found that the AF DSCP alues being set by
That sounds like a rather poor implementation. What if they had more than one
VoIP call?
Seems like this thread has more FUD than real examples.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
- Original Message -
From: Mikael Abrahamsson
---BeginMessage---
Looks like there's an extra line break after:
---End Message---
---BeginMessage---
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Does anyone any else find it weird that the last dozen or so messages
from the list have been .eml attachments?
Or is it just me?
- - ferg
- --
Paul Ferguson
PGP Public Key ID: 0x54DC85B2
Key fingerprint: 19EC 2945 FEE8 D6C8
List-Post: mailto:nanog@nanog.org
From: Nathan Angelacos via NANOG nanog@nanog.org
you are seeing the effect of whatever that new 'we will stop spam with
dns records' process (not spf, not dkim ... the other one)
On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 10:04 PM, Nathan Angelacos via NANOG
nanog@nanog.org wrote:
---BeginMessage---
Seeing them here too.
--
Joel Esler
Sent from my iPhone
On May 7, 2015, at 9:58 PM, Paul Ferguson via NANOG
nanog@nanog.orgmailto:nanog@nanog.org wrote:
mime-attachment
---End Message---
There was an inadvertent DMARC handling setting applied to all posts. This has
been corrected. Sorry for the disruption.
Andrew Koch
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 5/7/2015 7:23 PM, Paul Ferguson wrote:
I'm on a gazillion lists, and this is the only one which seems to
have this particularly annoying problem.
And fixed!
Apologies for the noise.
- - ferg
- --
Paul Ferguson
PGP Public Key ID:
---BeginMessage---
Looks like there's an extra line break after this header line:
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP
So the SMTP headers are getting partitioned.
---End Message---
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 5/7/2015 7:11 PM, Ted Cooper wrote:
On 08/05/15 11:58, Mike Hammett via NANOG wrote:
I've seen the same over here and also considered it weird.
It looks exactly like the the DMARC senders treatment - I think
there's something wiggy and
---BeginMessage---
I've seen the same over here and also considered it weird.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
- Original Message -
From: Paul Ferguson via NANOG nanog@nanog.org
To: NANOG nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Thursday, May 7, 2015
On 08/05/15 11:58, Mike Hammett via NANOG wrote:
I've seen the same over here and also considered it weird.
It looks exactly like the the DMARC senders treatment - I think there's
something wiggy and everyone is being treated as a DMARC encumbered sender.
+1 for the command structure and configuration being pretty simple to
follow if you're used to a Cisco or Juniper.
In the main they are pretty good at what they do I guess but I'm not
sure whether or not we're having seriously bad luck or there's something
else a miss but sadly we've had a
Forgot to send this yesterday…
We use them in our networks along with ASR9Ks and MXs. There are a lot of them
deployed around the world doing very similar things as ASRs and MXs. The
config is more like Juniper than Cisco IMHO. Being kind of the “3rd” vendor
they have a tendency to
---BeginMessage---
Well said Mark ...
There's a certain large transit provider that this all the time and I never
understood why ...
Paul
-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Mark Tinka
Sent: Wednesday, May 6, 2015 5:32 AM
To: Martin T;
---BeginMessage---
ZTE and Huawei, the big chinese vendors, have also been mentioned to
us. I know there are large national security issues with using these
vendors in the US
uh, you have not seen the lovely picture of the nsa implanting a cisco?
randy
---End Message---
On May 6, 2015, at 5:24 PM, Colton Conor colton.co...@gmail.com wrote:
I am worried as most tech's know Cisco and Juniper, so going to ALU would
be a learning curve based on replies I am getting off list.
It’s not that hard to learn if you know the basics of IP routing. I just did
an
yep.. its way easier and faster to take a look at what is configured:
A:R01configservicevprn# interface to-what-ever-eBGP
A:R01configservicevprnif# info
--
description L3 Ckt ID:
enable-ingress-stats
Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.com writes:
It really bothers me to see that people in this industry are so
worried about a change of syntax or terminology. If there's one
thing about the big vendors that bothers me, it's that these
batteries of vendor specific tests have allowed many techs to
It really bothers me to see that people in this industry are so worried about
a change of syntax or terminology. If there's one thing about the big
vendors that bothers me, it's that these batteries of vendor specific tests
have allowed many techs to get lazy. They simply can't seem to operate
*grumble, grumble, grumble*
Get off my lawn!
:)
On May 7, 2015 8:49:43 AM AKDT, Rob Seastrom r...@seastrom.com wrote:
Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.com writes:
It really bothers me to see that people in this industry are so
worried about a change of syntax or terminology. If there's one
And if you ever need to find out what can commands exist for a certain
string xxx
tree flat detail | match xxx
is a huge helper when learning.
e.g.
A:router# tree flat detail | match aspath-regex
show router bgp routes [family [type mvpn-type]] aspath-regex reg-ex
show router bgp routes
It really bothers me to see that people in this industry are so worried about a
change of syntax or terminology. If there's one thing about the big vendors
that bothers me, it's that these batteries of vendor specific tests have
allowed many techs to get lazy. They simply can't seem to operate
we do cry when we interview people that claim to have advanced
knowledge of BGP and we ask them some very basic BGP questions, and we get
a blank stare.
On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 12:49 PM, Rob Seastrom r...@seastrom.com wrote:
Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.com writes:
It really bothers me
Ah...got it, this was sloppy phrasing on my part. I meant first
in the sense of first rule that one should write. Depending on
the firewall type/implementation, that might be the rule that's
lexically first or last (or maybe somewhere else).
---rsk
You know where these people wouldn't fit? W/ISPs.
Every three years or so you are forklifting the majority of your wireless PtMP
for either a new series or a totally different vendor. New backhaul vendors
often. You're building AC and DC power plants. You likely touch Cisco, juniper,
HP,
More like at least be willing to man up and learn your way around
some platform other than RHEL without whining if there is a business
need for it.
-r
Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.com writes:
*grumble, grumble, grumble*
Get off my lawn!
:)
On May 7, 2015 8:49:43 AM AKDT, Rob Seastrom
40 matches
Mail list logo
