Hi
What's your recipe to implement redundant multicast (stub) routing?
Let's think about the simplest scenario. We have 2 routers, R1 and R2
and 3 ip networks. All 3 networks are directly connected to both
routers and the routers are performing unicast routing between
networks using VRRP as the re
My apologies for using gmail. Company policy prohibits the use of
corporate email and identity.
Nobody has heard nothing? Hear no evil… ;)
What we basically have at this point is vendor specifications, sales
talk and rumors that big boys have built large networks using these
boxes (or predecessor
Hi list
Does anyone have (or know somebody who has) real-life experience of HP
A-series (former Huawei and H3C) high-end routers in service provider
environment? From the specs they look very good (both features and
performance) but the specs don't tell everything and nothing can
replace real-life
On Wed, 02 Feb 2011 06:25:18 +0900
Randy Bush wrote:
> > http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/rir.jpg
> >
> > This is a different graph - it is a probabilistic graph that shows the
> > predicted month when the RIR will be down to its last /8 policy
> > (whatever that policy may be), and the relativ
On Wed, 2 Feb 2011 07:04:13 -0800
Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On Feb 2, 2011, at 6:43 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On 2/2/2011 8:22 AM, Tony Finch wrote:
> >> Counterexample: rogue RAs from Windows boxes running 6to4 or Teredo and
> >> Internet Connection Sharing. This is a lot harder to fi
On Wed, 2 Feb 2011 15:18:55 -0500
John Payne wrote:
>
> On Feb 2, 2011, at 3:12 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>
> > On 2 feb 2011, at 20:37, John Payne wrote:
> >
> DHCP fails because you can't get a default router out of it.
> >
> >>> If you consider that wrong, I don't want to be rig
On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 09:20:01 -0600
Max Pierson wrote:
> >I'm not missing your point. I'm saying that in IPv6, we've put enough
> addresses
> >in to allow for things nobody has thought of in 30, 60, 90, even 100 years
> and
> >then some.
>
> As Roland said,
> "Possibly, as long as we don't blow t
On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 11:03:41 -0500
Jared Mauch wrote:
>
> On Jan 27, 2011, at 10:04 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> >
> > On Jan 27, 2011, at 6:49 AM, Jared Mauch wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On Jan 26, 2011, at 8:33 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> >>
> >>> I'd like to see IPv4 go away in ~3 years. Any faster
On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 12:49:13 +0700
Roland Dobbins wrote:
>
> On Jan 26, 2011, at 12:33 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
>
> > The correct assumption is that most people will try and usually succeed at
> > follow the specifications, as that is what is required to
> > su
On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 11:53:23 +0700
Roland Dobbins wrote:
>
> On Jan 26, 2011, at 11:37 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
>
> > But simply assuming that the IPv6 address space will forever remain that -
> > only unique host identifiers - I think is disingenious at best. :-)
>
> I think 'disingenuous' is
On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 16:32:59 -0500
"Ricky Beam" wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 13:42:29 -0500, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > Seriously? Repetitively sweeping a /64? Let's do the math...
> ...
>
> We've had this discussion before...
>
> If the site is using SLAAC, then that 64bit target is effectively 4
On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 12:19:34 -0600
Max Pierson wrote:
> Hi List,
>
> Sorry to bring up yet ANOTHER v6 question/topic, but this seems to be one
> that I cannot get a solid answer on (and probably won't and in the event
> that I do, it will probably change down the road anyways), but here goes.
>
On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 07:02:30 +0100 (CET)
sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
> > > IPv6 is classless; routers cannot blindly make that assumption for
> > > "performance optimization".
> > >
> > Blindly, no. However, it's not impractical to implement fast path switching
> > that
> > handles things on /64s
On Sun, 16 Jan 2011 00:12:26 -0500
Jim Gettys wrote:
> On 01/15/2011 06:30 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
> > On Sat, 15 Jan 2011 18:06:06 -0500 (EST)
> > Brandon Ross wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 15 Jan 2011, Brian Keefer wrote:
> >>
> >>> Actually ther
On Sat, 15 Jan 2011 18:21:52 -0600
"Frank Bulk" wrote:
> I hope the engineers in the organization will just tell their marketing folk
> that it's not possible to hand out just one IPv6 address. "Our hardware
> doesn't support it."
>
> I think there's still room for ISPs to charge $10/month for
On Sat, 15 Jan 2011 18:39:09 -0500 (EST)
Brandon Ross wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Jan 2011, Mark Smith wrote:
>
> > How do you know - have you asked 100% of the service providers out
> > there and they've said unanimously that they're only going to supply a
> > single
On Sat, 15 Jan 2011 18:06:06 -0500 (EST)
Brandon Ross wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Jan 2011, Brian Keefer wrote:
>
> > Actually there are a couple very compelling reasons why PAT will
> > probably be implemented for IPv6:
>
> You are neglecting the most important reason, much to my own disdain.
> Serv
On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 11:10:03 -0800
Randy Bush wrote:
> > the first global-scale trial of IPv6, the long-anticipated upgrade to
> > the Internet's main communications protocol known as IPv4.
>
> this phrasing is both amusing and deeply sad. amusing because many folk
> have been running ipv6 glob
On Fri, 07 Jan 2011 07:11:42 -0500
"Robert E. Seastrom" wrote:
>
> "Kevin Oberman" writes:
>
> >> The next ship will be departing in a hundred years or so, advance
> >> registration for the IPv7 design committee are available over there.
> >
> > Sorry, but IPv7 has come and gone. It was assig
On Fri, 7 Jan 2011 14:53:02 -0800
Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On Jan 7, 2011, at 1:28 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 7 Jan 2011 09:38:32 +
> > "Dobbins, Roland" wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On Jan 7, 2011, at 4:14 PM, Mark Smith wro
On Fri, 7 Jan 2011 09:38:32 +
"Dobbins, Roland" wrote:
>
> On Jan 7, 2011, at 4:14 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
>
> > Doesn't this risk already exist in IPv4?
>
>
> There are various vendor knobs/features to ameliorate ARP-level issues in
> switchin
On Thu, 6 Jan 2011 21:13:52 -0500
Jeff Wheeler wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 8:47 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > 1. Block packets destined for your point-to-point links at your
> > borders. There's no legitimate reason someone should be
>
> Most networks do not do this today. Whether
On Wed, 5 Jan 2011 18:57:50 +0100
Phil Regnauld wrote:
> Jeff Wheeler (jsw) writes:
> > are badly needed. The largest current routing devices have room for
> > about 100,000 ARP/NDP entries, which can be used up in a fraction of a
> > second with a gigabit of malicious traffic flow. What happen
Hi,
On Sun, 2 Jan 2011 08:50:42 -0500
Steven Bellovin wrote:
>
> On Jan 1, 2011, at 11:33 24PM, Mark Smith wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 01 Jan 2011 20:59:16 -0700
> > Brielle Bruns wrote:
> >
> >> On 1/1/11 8:33 PM, Graham Wooden wrote:
> >>
>
On Sat, 01 Jan 2011 20:59:16 -0700
Brielle Bruns wrote:
> On 1/1/11 8:33 PM, Graham Wooden wrote:
> > So here is the interesting part... Both servers are HP Proliant DL380 G4s,
> > and both of their NIC1 and NIC2 MACs addresses are exactly the same. Not
> > spoofd and the OS drivers are not mu
On Sat, 25 Dec 2010 08:52:42 -0500
ML wrote:
> On 12/25/2010 3:36 AM, Mark Tinka wrote:
> > On Friday, December 24, 2010 07:26:43 am Randy Bush wrote:
> >
> >> and do NOT redistribute bgp into ospf.
> >
> > This is good truth. Don't redistribute your BGP into the IGP
> > (or vice versa). I'm not
On Sat, 04 Dec 2010 22:40:50 -0500
Mark Radabaugh wrote:
> Probably a case of something being blindingly obvious but...
>
> I have seen plenty of information on IPv6 from a internal network
> standpoint. I have seen very little with respect to how a ISP is
> supposed to handle routing to resi
On Sat, 04 Dec 2010 22:40:50 -0500
Mark Radabaugh wrote:
> Probably a case of something being blindingly obvious but...
>
> I have seen plenty of information on IPv6 from a internal network
> standpoint. I have seen very little with respect to how a ISP is
> supposed to handle routing to resi
On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 16:23:54 -0500
Brandon Kim wrote:
>
> Jack brings up a good point. MTU is basically pointless since packets never
> traverse any real interface...
> So in theory the size can be anything...
>
>
Not quite. You hit packet length field limits. IPv4 packets can't be
large
On Fri, 12 Nov 2010 08:30:19 -0500
Francois Menard wrote:
> I'm embarking on a new project which involves a large scale MAN network where
> ultimately, the objective is to carry QinQ, while at the same time delivering
> services over IPv6.
>
> The objective is to support jumbo frames on all in
Hi Jack,
On Mon, 08 Nov 2010 10:36:45 -0600
Jack Bates wrote:
> On 11/8/2010 9:40 AM, MKS wrote:
> > I work for an small ISP, which does traditional xDSL service with PPPoE.
> > Currently we are in the process of migrating most of our customers to
> > DHCP (some customers are getting new CPEs an
On Sun, 7 Nov 2010 01:49:20 -0600
Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 07, 2010 at 08:02:28AM +0100, Mans Nilsson wrote:
> >
> > The only reason to use (10)GE for transmission in WAN is the
> > completely baroque price difference in interface pricing. With todays
> > line rates, the comp
On Sun, 7 Nov 2010 01:07:17 -0700
"George Bonser" wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes, I really don't understand that either. You would think that
> the
> > > investment in developing and deploying all that SONET infrastructure
> > > has been paid back by now and they can lower the prices
> dramatically.
> >
On Sat, 06 Nov 2010 11:45:01 -0500
Jack Bates wrote:
> On 11/5/2010 5:32 PM, Scott Weeks wrote:
> >
> > It's really quiet in here. So, for some Friday fun let me whap at the
> > hornets nest and see what happens...>;-)
> >
> >
> > http://www.ionary.com/PSOC-MovingBeyondTCP.pdf
> >
>
> SCTP is
On Fri, 5 Nov 2010 21:40:30 -0400
Marshall Eubanks wrote:
>
> On Nov 5, 2010, at 7:26 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 5 Nov 2010 15:32:30 -0700
> > "Scott Weeks" wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> It's really quiet in here.
On Fri, 5 Nov 2010 15:32:30 -0700
"Scott Weeks" wrote:
>
>
> It's really quiet in here. So, for some Friday fun let me whap at the
> hornets nest and see what happens... >;-)
>
>
> http://www.ionary.com/PSOC-MovingBeyondTCP.pdf
>
Who ever wrote that doesn't know what they're talking abou
On Wed, 3 Nov 2010 04:14:51 + (UTC)
Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote:
> > I've had a recent experience of this. Some IPv6 CPE I was
> > testing had a fault where it dropped out and recovered every 2 minutes
> > - a transient network fault. I was watching a youtube video over IPv6.
> > Because of the
On Wed, 03 Nov 2010 00:25:34 +1100
Karl Auer wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-11-02 at 23:23 +1030, Mark Smith wrote:
> > Prefix lifetimes don't work that way - there is no such thing as a
> > "flash" renumbering.
>
> The lifetimes are reset with every RA the nodes
On Tue, 2 Nov 2010 10:51:44 + (GMT)
Tim Franklin wrote:
>
> >> Your home gateway that talks to your internet connection can either
> >> get it via DHCP-PD or static configuration. Either way, it could
> >> (should?) be set up to hold the prefix until it gets told something
> >> different, po
On Tue, 2 Nov 2010 01:24:45 -0400
Ben Jencks wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 00:58, David Conrad wrote:
> > On Nov 1, 2010, at 6:42 PM, Nathan Eisenberg wrote:
> >>> My guess is that the millions of residential users will be less and
> >>> less enthused with (pure) PA each time they change servi
On Mon, 1 Nov 2010 18:04:28 -0700
Owen DeLong wrote:
> >>>
> >> He may or may not be. I don't think it's such a bad idea.
> >>
> >
> > How about algorithmically generating these addresses, so that
> > they're near unique, instead of having the overhead of a central
> > registry, and a global r
On Mon, 1 Nov 2010 09:20:41 -0700
Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On Nov 1, 2010, at 2:28 AM, Mark Smith wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 21:32:39 -0400
> > Christopher Morrow wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 3:10 PM, David Conrad wrote:
> >>>
On Mon, 1 Nov 2010 10:24:31 + (GMT)
Tim Franklin wrote:
> > Surely your not saying "we ought to make getting PI easy, easy enough
> > that the other options just don't make sense" so that all residential
> > users get PI so that if their ISP disappears their network doesn't
> > break?
>
> I'
On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 21:32:39 -0400
Christopher Morrow wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 3:10 PM, David Conrad wrote:
> > On Oct 31, 2010, at 6:45 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> "If Woody had gone straight to a ULA prefix, this would never have
> happened..."
> >>> Or better yet, if Wo
On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 12:55:56 -0600
Brielle Bruns wrote:
> Okay, so this has my head hurting a bit just trying to figure out just
> how this is possible and what kind of equipment would pull this stunt.
>
My initial guess was that somebody put "0.0.0.0" text as the DNS PTR RR
value for that hop
On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 16:25:39 -0400
Scott Reed wrote:
> Why would the assumption be the ISP = knowledgeable or even caring about
> RIRs, etc.?
>
> When I started my ISP 6 years ago I knew someone issued IP addresses to
> my upstream provider, but I really didn't care who that was. The
> upstr
On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 12:19:30 -0500
Jack Bates wrote:
> On 10/26/2010 12:04 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> > In practice, the RIRs are implementing sparse allocation which makes it
> > possible to aggregate subsequent allocations. I.e. not as bad as it may
> > seem.
> >
>
> Except, if you are given b
On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 15:42:41 -0700
Owen DeLong wrote:
> >>>
> >> Actually, it's not pointless at all. The RA system assumes that all routers
> >> capable of announcing RAs are default routers and that virtually all
> >> routers
> >> are created equal (yes, you have high/medium/low, but, really,
On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 01:10:08 -0700
Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On Oct 22, 2010, at 12:55 AM, Mark Smith wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 15:52:08 +1100
> > Karl Auer wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 2010-10-21 at 21:05 -0500, Jack Bates wrote:
> >
On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 15:52:08 +1100
Karl Auer wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-10-21 at 21:05 -0500, Jack Bates wrote:
> > On 10/21/2010 8:39 PM, Ray Soucy wrote:
> > >
> > > How so? We still have RA (with a high priority) that's the only way
> > > DHCPv6 works. I guess there is a lot of misunderstanding ab
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 22:09:39 -0400
Jared Mauch wrote:
>
> On Oct 21, 2010, at 9:51 PM, Barry Shein wrote:
>
> > Anyhow, it might be an interesting topic to discuss in the appropriate
> > venues, IETF, "What is the cost of maintaining IPv4 forever?" but it's
> > getting a little ahead of ourselv
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 12:44:40 +0800
Adrian Chadd wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 21, 2010, Graham Beneke wrote:
>
> > I've seen this too. Once again small providers who pretty quickly get
> > caught out by collisions.
> >
> > The difference is that ULA could take years or even decades to catch
> > someon
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 06:38:33 +0200
Graham Beneke wrote:
> On 21/10/2010 03:49, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
> > On 10/20/2010 5:51 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> >>
> >> Part 2 will be when the first provider accepts a large sum of money to
> >> route it within their public network between multiple sites own
On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 20:12:11 -0700
"George Bonser" wrote:
> >
> > * Stream Control Transport Protocol, first spec'd in 2000 (couldn't
> > be deployed widely in IPv4 because of NATs)
>
> I would dearly love to see SCTP take off. There are so many great potential
> applications for that proto
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 14:29:11 +1100
Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> In message <4cbfa9bb.9030...@matthew.at>, Matthew Kaufman writes:
> > ULA + PA can have the same problems, especially if your ULA is
> > inter-organization ULA, which was one of the cases under discussion.
>
> Which still isn't a probl
On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 19:50:06 -0700
Matthew Kaufman wrote:
> On 10/20/2010 7:27 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
> >
> > * Stream Control Transport Protocol, first spec'd in 2000 (couldn't
> >be deployed widely in IPv4 because of NATs)
> "because of NATs&q
On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 21:15:35 -0500
James Hess wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 8:46 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
> > On 10/20/2010 6:20 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
> > Right. Just like to multihome with IPv6 you would have both PA addresses
> > from provider #1 and PA addresses fro
On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 18:46:34 -0700
Matthew Kaufman wrote:
> On 10/20/2010 6:20 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
> >
> > To make it clear, as it seems to be quite misunderstood, you'd have
> > both ULA and global addressing in your network.
>
> Right. Just like to multihome
Hi Owen,
On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 17:51:11 -0700
Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On Oct 20, 2010, at 5:29 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 19:39:19 -0400
> > Deepak Jain wrote:
> >
> >>> Use a pseudo random number, not follow bad examples. Where are
On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 19:07:57 -0500
James Hess wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 4:48 PM, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
> >
>
> > these addresses, their address scope is global, i.e. they are expected to be
> > globally unique."
>
> The ULA /48s are hoped to only be globally unique, but this only has
On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 19:39:19 -0400
Deepak Jain wrote:
> > Use a pseudo random number, not follow bad examples. Where are these
> > examples? I'd be curious as to what they say regarding why they haven't
> > followed the pseudo random number requirement.
> >
> > > Use something like fd00::1234, o
On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 14:48:47 -0700
Jeroen van Aart wrote:
>
>
> According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6_address#Special_addresses
> an fc00::/7 address includes a 40-bit pseudo random number:
>
> "fc00::/7 — Unique local addresses (ULA's) are intended for local
> communication. They a
On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 22:24:02 +0200
Jens Link wrote:
> valdis.kletni...@vt.edu writes:
>
> >> You are going to kill about 90% of all net-/sysadmins?
> >
> > Do you *really* want somebody working on your network that gets confused by
> > a
> > reference to 213/8 because it's in Class-C space?
On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 11:41:09 -0700
"George Bonser" wrote:
> > >
> > You are confusing SI with Packet Filters. The technologies are
> > different
> > and it is, also, important to understand this distinction as well.
>
> I don't think I am "confusing" the two. I am saying that I have seen
> peop
On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 16:25:12 -0700
Zaid Ali wrote:
>
> On 10/19/10 3:58 PM, "Mark Andrews" wrote:
>
> > Adding is seperate IPv6 server is a work around and runs the risk
> > of being overloaded.
>
> And what a wonderful problem to have! You can show a CFO a nice cacti graph
> of IPv6 growth s
On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 14:39:19 -0700 (PDT)
Doug Barton wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Oct 2010, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> > I think it's generally a bad idea. /48 is the design architecture for
> > IPv6. It allows for significant innovation in the SOHO arena that we
> > haven't accounted for in some of our cu
On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 13:03:54 +0100
Will Hargrave wrote:
> On 16/10/10 10:02, Warren Bailey wrote:
>
> > While we are on the subject of "the godfathers of the Internet", when is a
> > documentary coming out that tells the story? There was a really long
> > documentary done on the BBS, surely some
On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 08:18:57 -0700
Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On Oct 18, 2010, at 5:28 AM, Curtis Maurand wrote:
>
> > On 10/18/2010 8:16 AM, ML wrote:
> >> > And +1 on the "pioneers" comment too.
> >>>
> >>> Paul.
> >>>
> >>
> >> IPv6 Hipsters..Doing it before it was cool.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 13:21:29 +0100
Nick Hilliard wrote:
> On 18/10/2010 12:25, Lin Pica8 wrote:
> > We are starting to distribute Pica8 Open Source Cloud Switches :
>
> Sounds interesting. What chipset does this run on?
>
> Also, what's a cloud switch? Is this a switch which forwards L2 traff
Hi Kevin,
On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 20:13:22 -0700
"Kevin Oberman" wrote:
> > Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 10:24:41 +1030
> > From: Mark Smith
> >
> >
> > On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 15:26:54 -0700
> > "Kevin Oberman" wrote:
> >
> >
On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 19:52:31 -0400
Bill Bogstad wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 6:26 PM, Kevin Oberman wrote:
> >> Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 00:40:41 +1030
> >> From: Mark Smith
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 12:31:22 +0100
> >> Ra
On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 15:26:54 -0700
"Kevin Oberman" wrote:
> > Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 00:40:41 +1030
> > From: Mark Smith
> >
> >
> > On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 12:31:22 +0100
> > Randy Bush wrote:
> >
> > > http://www.
On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 12:31:22 +0100
Randy Bush wrote:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-6man-prefixlen-p2p-00.txt
>
Drafts are drafts, and nothing more, aren't they?
Hi,
On Fri, 15 Oct 2010 12:26:13 -0700
Zaid Ali wrote:
> SO I have been turning up v6 with multiple providers now and notice that
> some choose /64 for numbering interfaces but one I came across use a /126. A
> /126 is awfully large (for interface numbering) and I am curious if there is
> some r
On Sat, 2 Oct 2010 22:27:32 -0300
jim deleskie wrote:
> If you can do a business case to support replacing routers every 3years you
> doing much better then most. IMO a router should last 5 yrs on the book,
> but I expect to get more life then then from it. You core today
> is tomorrow's edge.
ultiple OSPF processes redistributing between each
> > other...)
> >
> I think I have an anxiety disorder from this sort of "design"..
>
> On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 11:29 PM, Mark Smith
> wrote:
> > How do you prevent those business partners spoo
On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 14:13:11 +1000
Julien Goodwin wrote:
> On 30/09/10 13:42, Mark Smith wrote:
> > One of the large delays you see in OSPF is election of the designated
> > router on multi-access links such as ethernets. As ethernet is being
> > very commonly used for po
On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 19:31:26 -0500
Christopher Gatlin wrote:
> My point here is untrusted networks, such as business partners exchanging
> routes with each other. Not many hops and less than a 100 prefixes.
>
> Using BGP to exchange routes between these types of untrusted networks is
> like usi
On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 17:26:17 -0400
Craig wrote:
> We have a design for our wan where we use rip v2 and it works very well, we
> were using ospf but it was additional config, so in our case simple was
> better, and it works well..
>
I'm don't really buy the extra config argument. It's literall
On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 15:35:06 -0500
Christopher Gatlin wrote:
> RIPv2 is a great dynamic routing protocol for exchanging routes with
> untrusted networks. RIPv2 has adjustable timers, filters, supports VLSM and
> MD5 authentication. Since it's distance vector it's much easier to filter
> than a
On Sat, 25 Sep 2010 16:56:21 -0400 (EDT)
Jon Lewis wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Sep 2010, Rodrick Brown wrote:
>
> > If you follow the links in the article people are complaining that the LotR
> > process has served 70gb in a week, others are complaining that the service
> > is resulting in 300ms pings,
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 08:06:03 -0700
Leo Bicknell wrote:
> In a message written on Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 09:44:40AM -0500, Brian Johnson
> wrote:
> > OK... so doesn't this speak to the commoditization of service providers?
> > I'm against more regulation and for competition.
>
> Competition would
On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 15:20:05 +0300
lorddoskias wrote:
> I'm just curious - what is the largest OSPF core (in terms of number
> of routers) out there?
>
Presuming OSPF and IS-IS SPF costs are fairly similar, the following
page from "The complete IS-IS routing protocol" (really quite a good
bo
On Wed, 01 Sep 2010 23:18:55 +0200
Simon Leinen wrote:
> Jack Bates writes:
> > 1) Your originating host may be breaking PMTU (so the packet you send
> > is too large and doesn't make it, you never resend a smaller packet,
> > but it works when tracerouting from the other side due to PMTU working
On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 01:18:15 -0400
Christopher Morrow wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 4:32 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 1:20 PM, Christopher Morrow
> > wrote:
> >> Polling a little bit here, there's an active discussion going on
> >> 6...@ietf about whether or not v6 r
On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 13:25:01 -0700
"David W. Hankins" wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 10:12:01AM +0930, Mark Smith wrote:
> > o allow an IPv6 router to indicate to an end-node that the destination
> > it is attempting to send to is onlink. This situation occurs wh
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 05:59:43 -0400
valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 22:23:19 -1000, Michael Painter said:
> > Researchers in South Korea have built a networking router that transmits
> > data
> > at record speeds from components found in most high-end desktop computers
> > ht
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 05:51:53 +1000
Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 12:42:03AM +1000, Karl Auer wrote:
> > On Sun, 2010-08-22 at 10:17 -0400, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
> > > On Aug 22, 2010, at 9:52 AM, Rogelio wrote:
> > > > What other "network operator groups" are there around the
On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 09:12:47 -0500
Jack Bates wrote:
> Eric J. Katanich wrote:
> >
> > You disable it on the host and if no host is using it, you might as well
> > disable it on the router as wel. Others mentioned
> > some routers need to handle this in software instead of hardware, which
> >
On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 10:32:00 -0400
Jared Mauch wrote:
>
> On Aug 21, 2010, at 10:12 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
>
> > Eric J. Katanich wrote:
> >> You disable it on the host and if no host is using it, you might as well
> >> disable it on the router as wel. Others mentioned
> >> some routers need to
On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 01:35:50 +0200
Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 11:41 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
> > Web portals work fine, and honestly, it's not like you need to switch
> > subnets, either. PPPoE/A implementations work great, as they are already
> > designed to utilize radiu
On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 21:24:43 -0400
"Ricky Beam" wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 20:43:39 -0400, Mark Smith
> wrote:
> > You're assuming the cost of always hair pinning traffic on an interface
> > is cheaper than issuing a redirect.
>
> I am saying no s
On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 19:49:43 -0400
"Ricky Beam" wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 13:20:58 -0400, Christopher Morrow
> wrote:
> > Polling a little bit here, there's an active discussion going on
> > 6...@ietf about whether or not v6 routers should:
> > o be required to implement ip redirect funct
On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 14:30:07 +0200
Joakim Aronius wrote:
> * Hannes Frederic Sowa (han...@mailcolloid.de) wrote:
> >
> > But most people just don't care. My proposal is to have some kind of
> > sane defaults for them e.g. changing their prefix every week or in the
> > case of a reconnect. This w
On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 20:04:47 +0930
Mark Smith
wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 01:12:19 +0200
> Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
>
> > Hello!
> >
> > As the first IPv6 deployments for end-users are in the planning stage
> > in Germany, I realized I have not found any B
On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 16:18:00 +0200
Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
> > Haven't really thought about it before.
> >
> > One thing to consider is that unless the preferred and valid lifetimes
> > of an IPv6 prefix ar
On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 01:12:19 +0200
Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
> Hello!
>
> As the first IPv6 deployments for end-users are in the planning stage
> in Germany, I realized I have not found any BCP for handling
> addressing in those scenarios. IPv6 will make it a lot easier for
> static address de
On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 10:52:53 + (UTC)
Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote:
> Hi, considering the fact that several organisations have been severely
> undermining net-neutrality over the past few months,
What is your definition of violating net-neutrality?
Is it
(a) carriers ransoming content provide
On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 03:56:52 +1000
Karl Auer wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-07-24 at 10:42 -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > You do have to properly set up the rules for which addresses to use for what
> > communication properly. It breaks less if you forego the ULA brokenness,
> > but, some people insist for
On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 12:34:40 -0700
Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On Jul 27, 2010, at 12:05 PM, Akyol, Bora A wrote:
>
> > Please see comments inline.
> >
> >
> > On 7/22/10 10:13 PM, "Owen DeLong" wrote:
> >
> >> In all reality:
> >>
> >> 1. NAT has nothing to do with security. Stateful insp
1 - 100 of 231 matches
Mail list logo
