So, I run a small chat service and it has attracted abuse from multiple
kinds of open device.
Most recently, I've found DVRs being spammed through. This is the kind
of "default password"/"open Cisco" abuse that is very hard to detect
with an open proxy scanner without, well, logging in and see
Hence my mention of thinking it was a "sin" to subnet on the bit boundary in
v6... again, I will do my best to never go back to bit boundary subnetting
math in my v6 deployment. Actually, you folks are giving me bad flashbacks
to my ATM H-PNNI days of pnni peer group nsap address subnetting. Oh h
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> 1) Are they present an IX where I am present?
>
> 2) Can they configure BGP correctly?
>
> 3) … Beer?
Naah, way overthought. I prefer the traditional:
1) do they have a pulse?
Nick
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 3:24 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore
wrote:
> > Then you need to decide if you want to be a hop between those two peers
> or if you want them to serve you only. You can change your routing so that
> both providers know of your routes but you are not sharing routes between
> the two
> Then you need to decide if you want to be a hop between those two peers or if
> you want them to serve you only. You can change your routing so that both
> providers know of your routes but you are not sharing routes between the two
> providers.
The definition of “peering” to most ISPs would
craig washington wrote:
> Newbie question, what criteria do you look for when you decide that
> you want to peer with someone or if you will accept peering with
> someone from an ISP point of view.
If you're new to the game, peer with everyone you can and use route
servers aggressively. You have
Considering the wording you use, I would include this,
'Peering' is not always necessary. If you can get an upstream provider
to give you a pack of IP's and it is sufficient to just use them as a
gateway instead of setting up peering that would be preferred.
If you decide you want to have mul
There is one more thing to consider based on your app or content latency
criteria needs. Do you provide a service that performs better with low
latency - such as live desktop, live video/voice. You may wish to peer to
have more control and more direct path to your customer base. If you
identify yo
* br...@shout.net (Bryan Holloway) [Tue 11 Jul 2017, 19:28 CEST]:
Also worth looking at your telemetries to see if it makes sense from
an inbound/outbound point of view.
That is, you'll get more bang for your buck if you're eyeballs and
peering with a content provider (or vice versa), as oppos
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 4:12 PM, craig washington <
craigwashingto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Newbie question, what criteria do you look for when you decide that you
> want to peer with someone or if you will accept peering with someone from
> an ISP point of view.
I assume you mean "reciprocal pe
Also worth looking at your telemetries to see if it makes sense from an
inbound/outbound point of view.
That is, you'll get more bang for your buck if you're eyeballs and
peering with a content provider (or vice versa), as opposed to eyeballs
<-> eyeballs or content <-> content.
On 7/11/17
1) Are they present an IX where I am present?
2) Can they configure BGP correctly?
3) … Beer?
Private interconnect requires actual thinking. Putting a procedure in around
public peering is just overhead we don’t need.
--
TTFN,
patrick
> On Jul 10, 2017, at 4:12 PM, craig washington
> wrote
Hello,
Newbie question, what criteria do you look for when you decide that you want to
peer with someone or if you will accept peering with someone from an ISP point
of view.
Thanks.
In message , William Herrin writes:
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 11:09 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> > If I had 32 departments and were wanting to give them equal sized
> > allocations then I'd give them a /53 each which is 2064 subnets
> > each. It isn't that hard to do 8 delegations in the reverse
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 11:09 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> If I had 32 departments and were wanting to give them equal sized
> allocations then I'd give them a /53 each which is 2064 subnets
> each. It isn't that hard to do 8 delegations in the reverse tree
> for each of the 32 departments. Delega
Mark Andrews writes:
> If I had 32 departments and were wanting to give them equal sized
> allocations then I'd give them a /53 each which is 2064 subnets
> each. It isn't that hard to do 8 delegations in the reverse tree
> for each of the 32 departments. Delegation on nibble boundaries
> is fo
16 matches
Mail list logo
