Christopher Morrow wrote:
On 8/22/08, Kyle Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Here is the response I got from L3 when I inquired about IPV6:
"The answer to your questions is "no", we have not yet inplemented IPV6 for
our customers yet. IPV4 is the de facto on our backbone nad alledge router
on
On 26/08/2008, at 3:33 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
wow that is odd.. since stewart bamford has been off giving ipv6
deployment talks to various conferences (including this one:
http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0510/bamford.html )
It might be odd but its consistent. I had the response that there is
On 8/22/08, Kyle Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here is the response I got from L3 when I inquired about IPV6:
>
> "The answer to your questions is "no", we have not yet inplemented IPV6 for
> our customers yet. IPV4 is the de facto on our backbone nad alledge router
> on which customers con
Greetings,
It's not to late to think about sharing with your peers...
Got a tool you use to monitor dns or ip hijacking, got some practices
for monitoring your prefixes for anonlous events, have a commercial
product you use that does one of these really well? Have some experience
managing ipv6 ad
>
> > As a box designed with the enterprise datacenter in mind, the E-
> series
> > looks to be missing several key service provider features, including
> > MPLS and advanced control plane filtering/policing.
>
>
> Ah, because Cisco does either of these in hardware?
Yes. PFC3 inside Supervisor
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
>
>On Aug 25, 2008, at 10:22 AM, Jared Mauch wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 08:03:19PM -0400, Sean Donelan wrote:
>>
>> With all the concern about DNS cache integrity, network abuse, etc..
>> networks that are not taking afirmative action to imple
Hello everyone,
Just a friendly reminder!
Nominations for the NANOG Steering Committee, are due by Tuesday, 9th
September.
If you have not yet nominated someone and wish to do so, or if you have
been asked to serve and have not yet accepted, please do so as soon as
you can by sending a note to [
>> 2) Performance
>
> [Note: we have no 10g interfaces, so I can only speak to a many-singleg-port
> environment]
> Much higher than Cisco. So good at dealing with traffic problems that we
> have had multi-gig DoS attacks that we wouldn't have known about without
> having an IDS running on a
On Aug 22, 2008, at 7:34 AM, Matlock, Kenneth L wrote:
1) Reliability
Very good. Across our entire business we've lost 1 RPM module in ~2
years.
2) Performance
[Note: we have no 10g interfaces, so I can only speak to a many-
singleg-port environment]
Much higher than Cisco.
On Aug 23, 2008, at 10:52 PM, Paul Wall wrote:
EANTC did a comprehensive study of the E-series:
http://www.eantc.de/en/test_reports_presentations/test_reports/force_10_sfm_failover_video_ftos_6211.html
http://www.eantc.com/fileadmin/eantc/downloads/test_reports/2006-2008/Cisco-Force10/EANTC_Ful
On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 09:38:00 EDT, Chris Marlatt said:
> IIRC "bogon" is specific to unallocated space. Whether it be advertised
> or not should not matter.
Right. Tell that to everybody who's ever been at the wrong end of a bogon
filter for 69/8, 70/8, 71/8...
I'll go out on a limb and say tha
On Aug 25, 2008, at 10:22 AM, Jared Mauch wrote:
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 08:03:19PM -0400, Sean Donelan wrote:
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008, Kevin Loch wrote:
While you're at it, you also placed the reachable-via rx on
all your customer interfaces. If you're paranoid, start with the
'any'
r
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 08:03:19PM -0400, Sean Donelan wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Aug 2008, Kevin Loch wrote:
>>> While you're at it, you also placed the reachable-via rx on
>>> all your customer interfaces. If you're paranoid, start with the 'any'
>>> rpf and then move to the strict rpf. The strict
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 23:21:23 PDT, "Tomas L. Byrnes" said:
You're missing one of the basic issues with bogon sources: they are
often advertised bogons, IE the bad guy DOES care about getting the
packets back, and has, in fact, created a way to do so.
But if you've seen
On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 23:21:23 PDT, "Tomas L. Byrnes" said:
> You're missing one of the basic issues with bogon sources: they are
> often advertised bogons, IE the bad guy DOES care about getting the
> packets back, and has, in fact, created a way to do so.
But if you've seen a BGP announcement with
Yet another of topic message;)
I'm looking for IP transit in Newfoundland, since I'm not familiar
with that territory, I was hoping that someone could message me
offline for available options.
Regards
MKS
On 25 aug 2008, at 12:27, Fernando Gont wrote:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/925280
IPv4 minimum MTU is 68 bytes,
That's kind of like "a human being can live without food for four to
six weeks". It's not a recommendation.
536 is the minimum fragment re-assembly buffer size. Falling ba
At 07:07 p.m. 20/08/2008, Sam Stickland wrote:
Yet all OSes have it enabled and there is no fallback to
fragmentation in PMTUD: if your system doesn't get the ICMP
messages, your session is dead in the water.
Windows Vista/2007 has black hole detection enabled by default. It's
not massively el
Folks,
We are pursuing some work along the lines of studying BGP
scalability in terms of churn evolution. One of the key mechanisms
used by BGP to dampen the churn is the MRAI timer (Minimum Route
Advertisement Interval).
>From different vendors' specifications we find that:
1- Cisco enables MR
19 matches
Mail list logo
