> > Or how they do vlan configurations.
>
> I have complained about that, too. With Cisco you add vlans to ports,
> with Brocade you add ports to vlans. Subtle difference. You can't look
> at the config and very easily see which vlans are on which ports, you
> have to do something like:
Extreme
On 3/9/11 11:06 PM, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
> At 12:07 09/03/2011 -0800, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>> I'd be willing to bet that's maxmind's geoip database.
>>
>> for some if not all three it corroborates the argentina response...
>>
>> correct...@maxmind.com
>
> That is a blackhole. I have sent emails
At 12:07 09/03/2011 -0800, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
I'd be willing to bet that's maxmind's geoip database.
for some if not all three it corroborates the argentina response...
correct...@maxmind.com
That is a blackhole. I have sent emails there on Jan 18, Feb 3, Feb 23 as
well as to supp...@maxmi
Good Evening all. I got an odd and somewhat crazy request from our
development group for a long haul OC48 connection for testing (they
specifically said from their office in Utah to the east coast and back)
with minimal jitter. They need to be able to run their own framing Sonet
and WDM - don't a
> No SNMP stats for virtual vlan interfaces and when asking Brocade
> about it, you get told "it is too hard to program". You gotta be
> kiddin me
Yeah, that is something that has been bugging me. No stats on ve
interfaces.
> Or how they do vlan configurations.
I have complained about that
On Thu, 2011-03-10 at 11:43 +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
> In message <1299711449.2109.98.camel@karl>, Karl Auer writes:
> > On Wed, 2011-03-09 at 09:01 -0600, imNet Administrator wrote:
> > > Where are you pinging it from? also, the 2001:db8::/32 prefix is used
> > > for "documentation purposes" and
On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 07:00:57PM -0800, George Bonser wrote:
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Chris Woodfield [mailto:rek...@semihuman.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 6:11 PM
> > To: Chris Enger
> > Cc: 'jgood...@studio442.com.au'; 'nanog@nanog.org'
> > Subject: Re: Interne
> -Original Message-
> From: Chris Woodfield [mailto:rek...@semihuman.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 6:11 PM
> To: Chris Enger
> Cc: 'jgood...@studio442.com.au'; 'nanog@nanog.org'
> Subject: Re: Internet Edge Router replacement - IPv6 route table
> sizeconsiderations
>
> I think
On Wed, 09 Mar 2011 18:20:12 PST, Jeroen van Aart said:
> I was doing some packet scanning on one of my IPv6 enabled servers and I
> found traffic such as the following frequently (IPs slightly edited):
>
> 02:23:02.410360 IP6 fe80::ff78.546 > ff02::2.547: dhcp6 solicit
> The addresses are not m
I was doing some packet scanning on one of my IPv6 enabled servers and I
found traffic such as the following frequently (IPs slightly edited):
02:23:02.410360 IP6 fe80::ff78.546 > ff02::2.547: dhcp6 solicit
Not having done too much ipv6 packet scanning yet I am curious to know
if this is a mis
I think this is the point where I get a shovel, a bullwhip and head over to the
horse graveyard that is CAM optimization...
-C
On Mar 8, 2011, at 5:18 20PM, Chris Enger wrote:
> Our Brocade reps pointed us to the CER 2000 series, and they can do up to
> 512k v4 or up to 128k v6. With other Br
In message <1299711449.2109.98.camel@karl>, Karl Auer writes:
> On Wed, 2011-03-09 at 09:01 -0600, imNet Administrator wrote:
> > Where are you pinging it from? also, the 2001:db8::/32 prefix is used
> > for "documentation purposes" and might be handled differently by the
> > TCP/IP stack.
>
> Wo
On Wed, 2011-03-09 at 09:01 -0600, imNet Administrator wrote:
> Where are you pinging it from? also, the 2001:db8::/32 prefix is used
> for "documentation purposes" and might be handled differently by the
> TCP/IP stack.
Works fine in Linux - I've been using it (in an isolated training room
setup)
> The implication of this statement would seem to be that the reason the
> routing tables are growing is due primarily to allocations and not
> deaggregation (e.g., for traffic engineering). Does anyone have any
> actual data to corroborate or refute this?
Luca Cittadini, Wolfgang Mühlbauer, Stev
Hi :)
I don't manage IP space day to day anymore.. But can get you in touch
w/ the folks who do. No promises, as I don't know what the issue is -
but I can try to help clear up any problem as well. ..and there really
isn't a panic over here, we've known it was coming for years.
--Heather
I'd be willing to bet that's maxmind's geoip database.
for some if not all three it corroborates the argentina response...
correct...@maxmind.com
On 3/9/11 11:32 AM, Schiller, Heather A wrote:
>
> If anyone is listening, would you be so kind as to update geolocation
> info for the following-- t
There is no (publicly) known process for those three major sites -- if
anyone does learn, please update the wiki.
Probably the best place to start with each of those is the generic support
e-mail/web form.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Schiller, Heather A [mailto:heather.schil...@verizo
If anyone is listening, would you be so kind as to update geolocation
info for the following-- they are in Mexico, not Argentina.
inetnum: 186.64.16.176/29
status: reallocated
owner: Infor Global Solutions Mexico SA de CV
ownerid: MX-IGSM-LACNIC
responsible: Hector Garcia Berna
On Wed, 9 Mar 2011, Shane Amante wrote:
::
:: On Mar 9, 2011, at 00:35 MST, Igor Gashinsky wrote:
:: > On Wed, 9 Mar 2011, Randy Bush wrote:
:: >
:: > :: a real use for the diffserv bits! why not flowlabel in 6? it's been
:: > :: looking for a use for a decade.
:: >
:: > Honestly, we figured
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&cluster=6058676534328717115
@article{cittadini2010evolution,
title={{Evolution of Internet Address Space Deaggregation: Myths and
Reality}},
author={Cittadini, L. and Muhlbauer, W. and Uhlig, S. and Bush, R. and
Fran{\c{c}}ois, P
Thank you everyone for the suggestions both on and off list. We will be
looking at a few additional devices along with what we have researched.
Thanks,
Chris
-Original Message-
From: Bill Blackford [mailto:bblackf...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 5:53 AM
To: Chris Enger
On Mar 9, 2011, at 7:28 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> It won't, it will take an "S" shape eventually. Possibly around 120k
>> prefixes, then it will follow the normal growth of the Internet as v4 did.
> I think it will grow a lot slower than IPv4 because with rational planning,
> few organizations s
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 9:28 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On Mar 9, 2011, at 4:06 AM, Arturo Servin wrote:
>
>>
>> On 9 Mar 2011, at 07:18, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>>>
>>> one of these curves is steeper than the other.
>>
>> That's what we wanted for the first one.
>>
>>>
>>> http://www.cidr-report
On Mar 9, 2011, at 4:06 AM, Arturo Servin wrote:
>
> On 9 Mar 2011, at 07:18, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>>
>> one of these curves is steeper than the other.
>
> That's what we wanted for the first one.
>
>>
>> http://www.cidr-report.org/cgi-bin/plota?file=%2fvar%2fdata%2fbgp%2fv6%2fas2.0%2fb
> the last serious satainc phylters died in 2001. sales&marketing
> pressure. when eyecandy.com is behind a /27, or your s&m folk
> sell to weenie.foo who wants you to announce their /26, it will be
> the end of the /24 barrier.
Sure, you can sell to someone who wants to announce a /26 and you c
On 3/9/11 1:55 AM, Antonio Querubin wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Mar 2011, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>
>> one of these curves is steeper than the other.
>>
>> http://www.cidr-report.org/cgi-bin/plota?file=%2fvar%2fdata%2fbgp%2fv6%2fas2.0%2fbgp-active%2etxt&descr=Active%20BGP%20entries%20%28FIB%29&ylabel=Active%20
In a message written on Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 10:21:03AM -0500, Jeff Wheeler
wrote:
> Making some assumptions, let's say every active ASN in DFZ will
> announce a mean of 1.4 IPv6 routes (the number seen today.) If IPv6
I figure backbone gear should have a lifespan of 5 years minimum,
and that it
On Wed, 09 Mar 2011 03:34:18 PST, Vadim Antonov said:
> Steven Bellovin wrote:
>
> > And then some other dim bulb will connect one of those 5 layers to the
> > outside world...
Broken attribution alert - I wrote that, not Steve..
> A dim bulb has infinite (and often much subtler) ways of screwi
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 2:19 AM, George Bonser wrote:
> The ipv4-ipv6-2 CAM profile in 5.1 gives 768K v4 routes and 64k v6
> routes which should be good for quite a while. That is provided you
How many IPv6 BGP routes are folks typically planning for in the DFZ
before a hardware upgrade is requir
On Mar 9, 2011, at 00:35 MST, Igor Gashinsky wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Mar 2011, Randy Bush wrote:
>
> :: a real use for the diffserv bits! why not flowlabel in 6? it's been
> :: looking for a use for a decade.
>
> Honestly, we figured flowlabel might actually find a use before all the
> values of di
On 3/9/2011 8:41 AM, ann kok wrote:
> Hi
>
> I read ipv6forum.pdf about ipv6
>
> It said
>
> MTU must be at least 1280 bytes (1500+)
> Does it mean to set the mtu over 1500
No, it simply means that the minimum MTU for IPv6 is 1280.
>
> I set my linux box eth0 as 2001:db8:cafe:::12/64 but
Hi
I read ipv6forum.pdf about ipv6
It said
MTU must be at least 1280 bytes (1500+)
Does it mean to set the mtu over 1500
I set my linux box eth0 as 2001:db8:cafe:::12/64 but I can't ping it
inet6 2001:db8:cafe:::12/64 scope global tentative
ls it this problem? Thank you
# ping6 200
On Mar 9, 2011, at 12:43 AM, Majdi S. Abbas wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 12:44:05PM +0900, Randy Bush wrote:
>> i am more of a pessimist. i suspect that there will be enough v4-only
>> destinations out there that multi-homed enterprises fronting onto
>> dual-stack backbones will announce teen
Chris,
With address exhaustion and deaggregation, the table is only going to
get bigger so choosing anything now that can only handle anything
south of 1M routes is not a wise investment.
Several posters have recommended ASR1002 and MX80. I use both of these
platforms in my environment and have b
On 3/8/11 2:32 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Tue, 08 Mar 2011 07:37:27 EST, Steven Bellovin said:
No. It was rejected because routers tended to melt down into quivering
puddles of silicon from seeing many packets with IP options set -- a fast
trip to the slow path. It also requires
On 9 Mar 2011, at 07:18, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>
> one of these curves is steeper than the other.
That's what we wanted for the first one.
>
> http://www.cidr-report.org/cgi-bin/plota?file=%2fvar%2fdata%2fbgp%2fv6%2fas2.0%2fbgp-active%2etxt&descr=Active%20BGP%20entries%20%28FIB%29&ylabel
On Tue, 2011-03-08 at 07:37 -0500, Steven Bellovin wrote:
> >
> > ...well, kind of. What you don't mention is that it was thought to be
> > ugly and rejected solely on the aesthetic grounds. Which is somewhat
> > different from being rejected because it cannot work.
> No. It was rejected becau
Sure you all know this already:
http://google.com/ncr
Temp fix for getting the .com version.
G
-Original Message-
From: Mark Keymer [mailto:m...@viviotech.net]
Sent: 04 March 2011 06:14
To: Raymond Macharia
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Interesting google redirects.
On this same sub
On Wed, 9 Mar 2011, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
one of these curves is steeper than the other.
http://www.cidr-report.org/cgi-bin/plota?file=%2fvar%2fdata%2fbgp%2fv6%2fas2.0%2fbgp-active%2etxt&descr=Active%20BGP%20entries%20%28FIB%29&ylabel=Active%20BGP%20entries%20%28FIB%29&with=step
http://www.cidr-
> one of these curves is steeper than the other.
>
> http://www.cidr-report.org/cgi-bin/plota?file=%2fvar%2fdata%2fbgp%2fv6%2fas2.0%2fbgp-active%2etxt&descr=Active%20BGP%20entries%20%28FIB%29&ylabel=Active%20BGP%20entries%20%28FIB%29&with=step
>
> http://www.cidr-report.org/cgi-bin/plota?file=%2f
Jim Gettys writes:
> Now that I have mitigated the bufferbloat disaster in my home cable
> service via bandwidth shaping, Skype works sooo much better for
> me. This is what devices such as Ooma are doing. Unfortunately, it
> means you have to defeat features such as Comcast's PowerBoost.
Actu
On 3/9/11 12:35 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
>>> i am more of a pessimist. i suspect that there will be enough
>>> v4-only destinations out there that multi-homed enterprises fronting
>>> onto dual-stack backbones will announce teenie bits of v4 so they can
>>> nat64.
>> that teenie bit better be part of
>> i am more of a pessimist. i suspect that there will be enough
>> v4-only destinations out there that multi-homed enterprises fronting
>> onto dual-stack backbones will announce teenie bits of v4 so they can
>> nat64.
> that teenie bit better be part of a larger aggregate that can reach at
> lea
43 matches
Mail list logo
