On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 6:02 PM, Scott Weeks wrote:
>> And so, "...the first principle of our proposed new network architecture:
>> Layers are recursive."
>
> : Anyone who has bridged an ethernet via a TCP based
> : IPSec tunnel understands that layers are recursive.
>
> WRT the paper I'm having t
--- d...@dotat.at wrote:
The point of a clean slate design is to rethink the foundations of your
architecture, and get rid of constraints that set you up to fail.
--
Yes, and I thought this idea could be the beginning of one way to do that and
became interested
On Mon, 8 Nov 2010, Scott Weeks wrote:
> From: Tony Finch
>
> : I note that he doesn't actually describe how to implement
> : a large-scale addressing and routing architecture. It's all
> : handwaving.
>
> There is more discussed in the book.
I have bought and read the book. It's an interesting a
--- eu...@leitl.org wrote:
From: Eugen Leitl
Networks are much too smart still, what you need is the barest decoration
upon the raw physics of this universe.
--
Yes, that's one thing I note. The mapping server idea that several proposals
use do not appear
Subject: Re: RINA - scott whaps at the nanog hornets nest :-) Date: Mon, Nov
08, 2010 at 10:08:53PM + Quoting Nick Hilliard (n...@foobar.org):
> On 08/11/2010 21:51, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> > So there's empirical data that It Does Indeed Matter (at least to some
> > people).
> Any
--- d...@dotat.at wrote:
From: Tony Finch
: I note that he doesn't actually describe how to implement
: a large-scale addressing and routing architecture. It's all
: handwaving.
There is more discussed in the book. The paper was written by another person
and had to only hit the highlights,
> Been unexpectedly gone for the weekend, apologies for the delay. Wow,
> can subjects get hijacked quickly here. I think it happened within one or two
> emails. It was just for weekend fun anyway...
So... You tossed a cow into a pool (that you knew was) filled with piranhas,
waited a few days
On 11/8/2010 4:08 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
Anyway, all of the arguments for it, both pro and con, have been rehashed
on this thread. The bottom line is that for most companies, it simply
isn't worth the effort, but that for some NRENs, it is.
I think a lot of that is misinformation and confus
Been unexpectedly gone for the weekend, apologies for the delay. Wow, can
subjects get hijacked quickly here. I think it happened within one or two
emails. It was just for weekend fun anyway...
--- b...@herrin.us wrote:
From: William Herrin
> And so, "...the first principle of our propos
Once upon a time, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu said:
> That's right up there with the sites that blackhole their abuse@
> address, and then claim they never actually see any complaints.
What about telcos that disable error counters and then say "we don't see
any errors"?
--
Chris Adams
Systems and N
On 08/11/2010 21:51, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> So there's empirical data that It Does Indeed Matter (at least to some
> people).
It certainly does. However, there is lots more empirical data to suggest
that It Does Not Matter to most service providers. We tried introducing it
to INEX se
On Mon, 08 Nov 2010 19:36:49 +0100, Mans Nilsson said:
> Given this empirical data, clearly pointing to the fact that It Does
> Not Matter, I think we can stop this nonsense now.
That's right up there with the sites that blackhole their abuse@
address, and then claim they never actually see any c
We are running 10.2R3 for 10 x EX4200.
Everything is working fine ... from VC to BGP and virtual routers.
> On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 2:59 PM, Richard A Steenbergen
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 11:43:55AM -0800, Mehmet Akcin wrote:
>>> Hi Keegan,
>>>
>>> I always try to go with
>>>
>>>
On 11/8/2010 12:36 PM, Mans Nilsson wrote:
I'd concur that links where routers exchange very large routing tables
benefit from PMTUD (most) and larger MTU (to some degree), but I'd
argue that most IXPen see few prefixes per peering, up to a few
thousand max. The large tables run via PNI and paid
Good deal. Sounds like a plan.
Shimol
On 11/8/10 2:00 PM, Rettke, Brian wrote:
This seems to be working now with the 'mls mpls tunnel-recir' command entered.
There are some potential downsides, but this should get things up and running
until I create the new backup tunnels (GRE over IPSec)
This seems to be working now with the 'mls mpls tunnel-recir' command entered.
There are some potential downsides, but this should get things up and running
until I create the new backup tunnels (GRE over IPSec) on a connected router
that is not MPLS-enabled. Thanks!
Sincerely,
Brian A . Rettk
Subject: RE: RINA - scott whaps at the nanog hornets nest :-) Date: Mon, Nov
08, 2010 at 08:53:47AM -0800 Quoting George Bonser (gbon...@seven.com):
> >
> > Even if larger MTUen are interesting (but most of the time not worth
> > the work) the sole reason I like SDH as my WAN technology is the
>
>
> Even if larger MTUen are interesting (but most of the time not worth
> the work) the sole reason I like SDH as my WAN technology is the
> presence of signalling -- so that both ends of a link are aware of its
> status near-instantly (via protocol parts like RDI etc). In GE it is
> legal to no
MKS wrote:
Hi list
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 and some will be sw upgraded
remotely ). It would be great if someone has the time to share
On 11/8/2010 9:56 AM, Tony Finch wrote:
I note that he doesn't actually describe how to implement a large-scale
addressing and routing architecture. It's all handwaving.
That's an extremely hard to address problem. While there are many
proposals, they usually do away with features which we u
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 and some will be sw upgraded
remotely ). It would be great if someone has the t
On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 03:56:17PM +, Tony Finch wrote:
> I note that he doesn't actually describe how to implement a large-scale
> addressing and routing architecture. It's all handwaving.
I'm probably vying for nanog-kook status as well, but in high-dimensional
spaces blocking is arbitraril
Hi,
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 and some will be sw upgraded
remotely ). It would be great if someone has the time to share their
experienc
On Sun, 7 Nov 2010, William Herrin wrote:
>
> > http://www.ionary.com/PSOC-MovingBeyondTCP.pdf
>
> The last time this was discussed in the Routing Research Group, none
> of the proponents were able to adequately describe how to build a
> translation/forwarding table in the routers or whatever passe
Hi list
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 and some will be sw upgraded
remotely ). It would be great if someone has the time to share their
experie
Subject: RE: RINA - scott whaps at the nanog hornets nest :-) Date: Sun, Nov
07, 2010 at 12:34:56AM -0700 Quoting George Bonser (gbon...@seven.com):
>
> Yes, I really don't understand that either. You would think that the
> investment in developing and deploying all that SONET infrastructure
> h
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.
> >
28 matches
Mail list logo
