I found this as an unsent draft - I hope I didn't send it before.
On 3/30/2020 2:01 AM, Ragnar Sundblad wrote:
>
>
>> On 30 Mar 2020, at 08:18, Saku Ytti wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 at 01:58, Ragnar Sundblad wrote:
>>
>>> A protocol with varying packet size, as the NTS protected NTP is,
>
On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 3:07 AM Forrest Christian (List Account)
wrote:
> If you're going for accuracy, does 24x365 mean you close one day this year?
> Or should you actually be saying 24x365.25, or even more accurately
> 24x365.2425 (but still not exact).
How can you be that pedantic and not
What?
On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 2:48 PM Bryan Fields wrote:
>
> On 4/16/20 4:48 PM, Ben Cannon wrote:
> > Side note: What you describe is in-fact part of how languages change and
> > evolve. (over time, sufficiently common incorrect use becomes. well.
> > correct.)
>
> Top posting will never be
On 4/16/20 4:48 PM, Ben Cannon wrote:
> Side note: What you describe is in-fact part of how languages change and
> evolve. (over time, sufficiently common incorrect use becomes. well.
> correct.)
Top posting will never be correct, even if the entire world does it.
:-)
--
Bryan Fields
727-409
On 15/Apr/20 17:59, Deepak Jain wrote:
> Thanks for your input. How do you handle next-hops? Tunnels between all eBGP
> speakers as if they were fully meshed as their potential next-hops?
I should imagine NEXT_HOP=self still works in an ORR world, non :-)?
The question resolves arou
Honestly, sometimes I include the "Three-Hundred Sixty-Five and a Quarter” on
conference calls.
Side note: What you describe is in-fact part of how languages change and
evolve. (over time, sufficiently common incorrect use becomes. well. correct.)
-Ben Cannon
CEO 6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LL
On Wed, 15 Apr 2020 22:06:52 -0700, Ben Cannon said:
> I call our NOC â24x7x365â I hear that in my head as âtwenty-four
> (hour) - BY
> - Seven (days a week) - BY - 365 (days a year, indicating we donât close on
> any holidays).
x365 is fine, to distinguish from 24x7x360 operations tha
Peace,
On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 12:54 AM Ronald F. Guilmette
wrote:
> Those were all helpfully routed, until quite recently, to Mr. Cohen
The person with exactly the same name now runs for the RIPE NCC
Executive Board membership.
https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2020/con
At a previous employer much earlier in my career, we inherited some simple
webhosting from a company acquisition. In one of the early meetings we had
about integrating it, someone from our support team asked some questions
about the abuse report procedures, etc. Our owner came straight out and
said
On 16/Apr/20 16:50, Saku Ytti wrote:
> That would be in IGP, so that'll work. The other way that some people
> do this, is that next-hop is CE, which is in iBGP, but recurses to
> loop0. There are some TE reasons why people might do this, and it
> would not work with Cisco ORR.
Reasonably safe
On Thu, 16 Apr 2020 at 15:36, Mark Tinka wrote:
> Does it break NEXT_HOP=self in Cisco-land?
That would be in IGP, so that'll work. The other way that some people
do this, is that next-hop is CE, which is in iBGP, but recurses to
loop0. There are some TE reasons why people might do this, and it
On 16/Apr/20 15:17, Chris Jones wrote:
> We’re testing ORR at the moment as part of core upgrades (XRv on ESXi), and
> next-hop self not only works, it’s required for ORR to work properly
Yes, that would be my simple 1+1, as it's all about optimizing for the
best IGP exit for far-away nodes.
On 15/Apr/20 19:07, Saku Ytti wrote:
>
> Don't run Cisco ORR RR or have IGP next-hops :/
Does it break NEXT_HOP=self in Cisco-land?
Mark.
On 15/Apr/20 17:59, Deepak Jain wrote:
> Thanks for your input. How do you handle next-hops? Tunnels between all eBGP
> speakers as if they were fully meshed as their potential next-hops?
I should imagine NEXT_HOP=self still works in an ORR world, non :-)?
Mark.
On 15/Apr/20 17:51, Deepak Jain wrote:
>
> How is this approach working for you?
It's working out beautifully, since 2014.
We wanted ORR at the time, but it was immature, so this was our only option.
Yes, it's an old school approach, but it's simple, so we don't have to
enable any trickery.
Sorry I can't resist...
If you're going for accuracy, does 24x365 mean you close one day this
year? Or should you actually be saying 24x365.25, or even more accurately
24x365.2425 (but still not exact).
Oh wait, we missed the leap seconds in there, which there isn't any real
way to average out
24x7 is way more common, but does leave ambiguity as to holiday coverage.
(there are some 24x7 businesses that close for holidays).
24x7x365 is on the rise as a way to specify that you’re open holidays too.
End of the day, I’m not sure it matters which one you use.
Likely any Google search for
No. 24x7x365 is fine. Sheesh.
On Wed, Apr 15, 2020, 10:10 PM Ben Cannon wrote:
> So I’m taking this thread for a total test-drive and we’re going down this
> random ally...
>
> I call our NOC “24x7x365” I hear that in my head as “twenty-four (hour) -
> BY - Seven (days a week) - BY - 365 (day
Ha!
The first warning sign would be where they discuss your AUP and
exceptions / corner cases to it
Or
'we just need a /24, we are doing e-mail services and we can assure
you its all good'
...
Bye, Raymond
19 matches
Mail list logo
