On 23/01/10 19:52, Michael Sokolov wrote:
Mark Smith na...@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org 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,
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 na
* 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, such
Subject: Re: Using /31 for router links
* 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
Mark Smith na...@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org 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
Florian Weimer f...@deneb.enyo.de 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
Chris Costa cco...@cenic.org 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 |
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
of Information Services
South Valley Internet
-Original Message-
From: msoko...@ivan.harhan.org (Michael Sokolov)
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 18:52:51
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Using /31 for router links
Mark Smith na...@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org wrote:
What about
* 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.
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
Stephen Sprunk step...@sprunk.org 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
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.
Brielle Bruns br...@2mbit.com 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
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
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
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?
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
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 feature ;)
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 to
Shouldn't be any issues...it's 2010 :)
And, your IP allocation utilization will love you.
tv
- Original Message -
From: Seth Mattinen se...@rollernet.us
To: nanOG list nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010 6:08 PM
Subject: Using /31 for router links
In the past I've always
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 stretch my
Nathan Ward na...@daork.net 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.
soapbox
That is why I hate Ethernet with a passion. Ethernet should be for LANs
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
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 04:22:50 GMT
msoko...@ivan.harhan.org (Michael Sokolov) wrote:
Nathan Ward na...@daork.net 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
25 matches
Mail list logo
