We use 5 PVCs for the IP video and one for Internet. Not as uncommon as you
think.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Michael Sokolov [mailto:msoko...@ivan.harhan.org]
Sent: Saturday, January 23, 2010 12:53 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Using /31 for router links
Mark Smith
wrote
I agree!
most of the xDSL providers all over the world follow the same standard
of two VC's/ One for Data and One for voice.
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 7:20 AM, Massimiliano Stucchi
wrote:
> On 23/01/10 19:52, Michael Sokolov wrote:
>> Mark Smith
>> wrote:
>>
>
>> As for ATM... The part that tot
On 23/01/10 19:52, Michael Sokolov wrote:
> Mark Smith wrote:
>
> As for ATM... The part that totally baffles me about the use of ATM on
> xDSL lines is that I have never, ever, ever seen an xDSL line carrying
> more than one ATM VC. OK, there may be someone out there who has set up
> a config
Michael Sokolov wrote:
Wait a moment here. With a MAN/WAN involving wires/fiber running over
public property, what one is paying for is the right to use those wires
for your data, right? The wires themselves do NOT run Ethernet at the
electrical level, so if you have some "MAN/WAN Ethernet" se
Brielle Bruns wrote:
> Back in the days of Rhythms and Copper Mountain gear, Netopia had the D
> series routers which were actually xDSL to DSU units.
Yes, I am very familiar with them:
http://ifctfvax.Harhan.ORG/OpenSDSL/existing_cpe/netopia/dsu.html
As that page explains, they are only pseu
On 1/23/10 11:52 AM, Michael Sokolov wrote:
Oh, and yet another soapbox of mine, an xDSL modem that puts out V.35
instead of goddamn Ethernet would be a true modem: a modulator/demodulator
that modulates/demodulates the bits at the electrical level without
caring about what's in those bits.
Bac
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> Ah, but who's to say that all PTP links are WANs? Are you really going
> to run an OC-48 from one router to another _in the same building_ when
> you need 1Gb/s between them?
Can't say - I have never needed that much bandwidth. :) I still live in
an alternate Universe w
Michael Sokolov wrote:
> That is why I hate Ethernet with a passion. Ethernet should be for LANs
> only; using Ethernet for WANs and PTP links is the vilest invention in
> the entire history of data networking in my opinion.
>
Ah, but who's to say that all PTP links are WANs? Are you really g
* Tony Varriale:
> That's a vendor specific issue. Maybe you could take it up with them
> and ask what year they think this is?
I think they support it on point-to-point media only, which seems
sufficient for RFC 3021 compliance. Ethernet is a different story,
unfortunately.
Sincerely,
Bobby Glover
Director of Information Services
South Valley Internet
-Original Message-
From: msoko...@ivan.harhan.org (Michael Sokolov)
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 18:52:51
To:
Subject: Re: Using /31 for router links
Mark Smith wrote:
> What about NAT, ATM cell tax, unnecessar
> As for ATM... The part that totally baffles me about the use
> of ATM on
> xDSL lines is that I have never, ever, ever seen an xDSL line carrying
> more than one ATM VC. OK, there may be someone out there who
> has set up
> a configuration like that just for fun, but 99.999% of all ATM'd xDSL
Chris Costa writes:
> We recently did a backbone router upgrade and the vendor surprisingly
> didn't support /31's.
Mind dropping a name?
Jens
--
-
| Foelderichstr. 40 | 13595 Berlin, Germany | +49-151-18721264
Florian Weimer writes:
> Bad. For some systems, such tricks work to some degree only due to
> lack of input validation, and you get failures down the road (ARP
> ceases to work, packet filters are not applied properly and other
> fun).
I never had any problems using Cisco to Cisco, Linux to Lin
Mark Smith wrote:
> What about NAT, ATM cell tax, unnecessary addressing fields in PTP
> protocols (including your beloved HDLC), SSAP, DSAP fields not being big
> enough in 802.2 necessitating SNAP, IPX directly over 802.3, AAL1
> through AAL4, PPPoE "dumbell" MTUs and MSS hacks? Some of those a
That's a vendor specific issue. Maybe you could take it up with them and
ask what year they think this is?
tv
- Original Message -
From: "Florian Weimer"
To: "Seth Mattinen"
Cc: "nanOG list"
Sent: Saturday, January 23, 2010 4:06 AM
Subject: Re: U
* Seth Mattinen:
> In the past I've always used /30's for PTP connection subnets out of
> old habit (i.e. Ethernet that won't take unnumbered) but now I'm
> considering switching to /31's in order to stretch my IPv4 space
> further. Has anyone else does this? Good? Bad?
Bad. For some systems, su
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 04:22:50 GMT
msoko...@ivan.harhan.org (Michael Sokolov) wrote:
> Nathan Ward wrote:
>
> > ARP is still required on ethernet links, so that the MAC address can be =
> > discovered for use in the ethernet frame header. /31 does not change the =
> > behavior of ARP at all.
>
>
> ARP is still required on ethernet links, so that the MAC address can
be
> discovered for use in the ethernet frame header. /31 does not change
> the behavior of ARP at all.
>
> --
> Nathan Ward
>
I often manually configure the MAC addresses in static fashion on
point-to-points to eliminate the
Nathan Ward wrote:
> ARP is still required on ethernet links, so that the MAC address can be =
> discovered for use in the ethernet frame header. /31 does not change the =
> behavior of ARP at all.
That is why I hate Ethernet with a passion. Ethernet should be for LANs
only; using Ethernet fo
On 23/01/2010, at 1:31 PM, Jay Nugent wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> On Fri, 22 Jan 2010, Seth Mattinen wrote:
>
>> In the past I've always used /30's for PTP connection subnets out of old
>> habit (i.e. Ethernet that won't take unnumbered) but now I'm considering
>> switching to /31's in order to st
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 07:41:24PM -0500, Joe Provo wrote:
> rfc3021 is over 9 years old, so should be no suprise that it works
> well. :-)
Along the same line of logic, it should also be no surprise that Foundry
shits all over itself when you so much as learn a /31 via a routing
protocol (last
Shouldn't be any issues...it's 2010 :)
And, your IP allocation utilization will love you.
tv
- Original Message -
From: "Seth Mattinen"
To: "nanOG list"
Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010 6:08 PM
Subject: Using /31 for router links
In the past I've a
On Jan 22, 2010, at 4:41 PM, Joe Provo wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 04:08:28PM -0800, Seth Mattinen wrote:
>> In the past I've always used /30's for PTP connection subnets out of old
>> habit (i.e. Ethernet that won't take unnumbered) but now I'm considering
>> switching to /31's in order t
> > rfc3021 is over 9 years old, so should be no suprise that it works
> > well. :-)
> >
> I'm never surprised anymore by something that should work
> turning out to
> have some obscure quirk about it, so I figured it was worth asking. ;)
>
It's not a "quirk", it's an "implementation-specific
We recently did a backbone router upgrade and the vendor surprisingly
didn't support /31's. We had to renumber all those interconnects and
peering sessions to /30's. That wasn't fun!
On Jan 22, 2010, at 4:53 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
Joe Provo wrote:
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 04:08:28PM -0
Joe Provo wrote:
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 04:08:28PM -0800, Seth Mattinen wrote:
In the past I've always used /30's for PTP connection subnets out of old
habit (i.e. Ethernet that won't take unnumbered) but now I'm considering
switching to /31's in order to stretch my IPv4 space further. Has any
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 04:08:28PM -0800, Seth Mattinen wrote:
> In the past I've always used /30's for PTP connection subnets out of old
> habit (i.e. Ethernet that won't take unnumbered) but now I'm considering
> switching to /31's in order to stretch my IPv4 space further. Has anyone
> else d
Greetings,
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010, Seth Mattinen wrote:
> In the past I've always used /30's for PTP connection subnets out of old
> habit (i.e. Ethernet that won't take unnumbered) but now I'm considering
> switching to /31's in order to stretch my IPv4 space further. Has anyone
> else does this
In the past I've always used /30's for PTP connection subnets out of old
habit (i.e. Ethernet that won't take unnumbered) but now I'm considering
switching to /31's in order to stretch my IPv4 space further. Has anyone
else does this? Good? Bad? Based on the bit of testing I've done this
should
29 matches
Mail list logo
