Does anyone else have issues with the 9396 sending out bum SNMP responses?
Seemingly all DDM information for the optic modules return just a single digit.
IE:
[redacted]# show int eth 1/3 trans det
Ethernet1/3
transceiver is present
type is 1000base-LH
name is Fiberstore
part number is S
Variability will always happen with small businesses, but you're more likely to
encounter someone that won't do nasty things to your bits through a local WISP
as opposed to a national player. It's also more likely to be consistent versus
the variability of a mobile service.
WISPs have been goi
Hopefully Jared can fix it. Owen's description matches up very well with my
experiences in trying to fix similar problems at Akamai.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
Midwest-IX
http://www.midwest-ix.com
- Original Message -
From: "Jared
I have a policy applied to my upstreams and peers to deny the IXP's LANs
were connected to. I don't think of any reason to learn these routes from
someone else's network.
On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 7:44 PM Cummings, Chris wrote:
> Not too sure about your topology, but I’ve had something similar bit
I've been bit by this in the past at two different exchanges. I too have a
policy applied to deny IXP LANs from upstreams and peers. It would be nice
if there was a list of all IXP LANs somewhere that we could generically add
to all upstream and peers.
On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 9:11 AM Eric Dugas
* christopher.morrell.na...@gmail.com (Christopher Morrell) [Thu 28 Mar 2019,
14:35 CET]:
I've been bit by this in the past at two different exchanges. I too
have a policy applied to deny IXP LANs from upstreams and peers. It
would be nice if there was a list of all IXP LANs somewhere that we
On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 02:59:43PM +0100, Niels Bakker wrote:
> * christopher.morrell.na...@gmail.com (Christopher Morrell) [Thu 28 Mar 2019,
> 14:35 CET]:
> > I've been bit by this in the past at two different exchanges. I too
> > have a policy applied to deny IXP LANs from upstreams and peers. I
On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 09:36:20PM +, Graham Johnston wrote:
> This afternoon at around 12:17 central time today we began learning
> the subnet for the Equinix IX in Chicago via a transit provider; we
> are on the IX as well. The subnet in question is 208.115.136.0/23.
> Using stat.ripe.net I c
On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 06:17:25AM -0500, Mike Hammett wrote:
> Hopefully Jared can fix it. Owen's description matches up very well with my
> experiences in trying to fix similar problems at Akamai.
Don't worry, I can't access my car owners insurance website
from the country i'm in as we
Hey all, I’ve been having bad luck searching around, but did IPv6 transit
between HE and google ever get resolved? Ironically, I can now get to them
cheaply from a location we currently have equipment that has been Cogent-only,
so if it fixes the IPv6 issue I’d like to make the move. Anyone pe
Oops, I was corrected that HE doesn’t have IPv6 issues with Google, not sure
why I had that in my head. Cogent certainly does but something had me thinking
there’s another big name that has the same problem.
David
From: NANOG on behalf of David Hubbard
Date: Thursday, March 28, 2019 at 12:4
I think what you were remembering is Cogent/Google and Cogent/HE are both
IPv6 issues where the parties can't agree on peering vs transit for the v6
relationship.
On Thu, 28 Mar 2019, David Hubbard wrote:
Oops, I was corrected that HE doesn’t have IPv6 issues with Google, not sure
why I had
12 matches
Mail list logo
