On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 6:02 PM, Adam Vitkovsky
wrote:
> Alright so would you mind sharing the business drivers that would make
> you migrate your current production infrastructure to this new unproven
> possibly buggy LDPv6 and 4PE/4VPE setup please?
>
>
>
> adam
>
Businesses bigger than me th
For L2VPN if you could make it work - go with EVPN day 1, it solves most of the
issues present in both LDP and BGP VPLS implementations.
Be aware of differences in PBB vs plain EVPN and platform support.
EVPN, specifically multhoming/split horizon/some other stuff as well as
presence of L3 (type
>From market prospective v6 SR is definitely lower priority. Comcast and few
>more are looking into native rather than v6 with MPLS encap.
Wrt v4 - 2 weeks ago at EANTC in Berlin we have tested 3 implementations of
ISIS SR v4 MPLS with L3VPN and 6VPE over SR tunnels. Worked very well, very few
i
>On (2015-02-17 06:11 +0530), Glen Kent wrote:
>
>> I think the hardware used was Broadcom. They have a few chipsets which
>>do
>> MD5 and (possibly) SHA in hardware for BFD -- which i have been told is
>> pretty much useless when you start scaling.
While I don¹t fully understand the context of
On 20/Feb/15 13:39, Saku Ytti wrote:
>
> Is there 4PE implementation to drive IPv4 edges, shouldn't be hard to accept
> IPv6 next-hop in BGP LU, but probably does not work out-of-the-box?
> Isn't Segment Routing implementation day1 IPV4+IPV6 in XR?
The last time I checked, MPLS support in SR for
BGP Update Report
Interval: 12-Feb-15 -to- 19-Feb-15 (7 days)
Observation Point: BGP Peering with AS131072
TOP 20 Unstable Origin AS
Rank ASNUpds % Upds/PfxAS-Name
1 - AS61894 367710 7.2% 122570.0 -- FreeBSD Brasil LTDA,BR
2 - AS23752 271684 5.3%
This report has been generated at Fri Feb 20 21:14:25 2015 AEST.
The report analyses the BGP Routing Table of AS2.0 router
and generates a report on aggregation potential within the table.
Check http://www.cidr-report.org/2.0 for a current version of this report.
Recent Table History
Date
On (2015-02-20 09:00 -0500), Tim Durack wrote:
Hey Tim,
> I also need some flavor of L2VPN (eVPN) and L3VPN (VPNv4/VPNv6) working
> over IPv6.
L3VPN uses BGP exclusively for VPN label signalling, no need for LDP.
For L2VPN only Martini uses LDP, but if you have choice, why wouldn't you
choose K
Sent a note off-list.
- Jason
On 2/20/15, 1:38 PM, "Mark Stevens" wrote:
>If a DNS Admin at Comcast could contact me offline it would be great.
>This is concerning your IPV6 configured mail servers.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Mark
>
>
If a DNS Admin at Comcast could contact me offline it would be great.
This is concerning your IPV6 configured mail servers.
Thanks,
Mark
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 12:08 PM, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq.
wrote:
> We have an email reputation accreditation applicant, who otherwise
> looks clean, however there is a very strange and somewhat
> concerning domain being pointed to one of the applicant's IP
> addresses Let's call the domain example
This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet
Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan.
The posting is sent to APOPS, NANOG, AfNOG, AusNOG, SANOG, PacNOG,
CaribNOG and the RIPE Routing Working Group.
Daily listings are sent to bgp-st...@lists.apnic.net
For hi
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 11:33 AM, Adam Vitkovsky wrote:
> > Of Tim Durack
> > Sent: 20 February 2015 14:00
> > IPv6 control plane this decade may yet be optimistic.
> >
>
> And most importantly it's not actually needed it's just a whim of network
> operators.
>
> adam
>
>
> --
On 2/20/2015 11:08 AM, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. wrote:
a) just not worry about it and keep an eye on it
If they have held the netblock for awhile and are already using the IP
Address in question, this is fine. I presume that the servers don't
actually respond for that domain (name-based web or do
Hi,
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 12:08 PM, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq.
wrote:
> All,
>
> We have a rather strange situation (well, strange to me, at least).
>
> We have an email reputation accreditation applicant, who otherwise looks
> clean, however there is a very strange and somewhat concerning domain
On 2/20/2015 4:13 AM, Nikolay Shopik wrote:
rfc6115 have good overview and recommendation. IPv6 clearly need
separation of identification of endpoints and routing information to
that endpoint.
I'm not overly familiar, but I'm always good for new things if one
process is supported.
deagg X
All,
We have a rather strange situation (well, strange to me, at least).
We have an email reputation accreditation applicant, who otherwise looks clean,
however there is a very strange and somewhat concerning domain being pointed to
one of the applicant's IP addresses Let's call the domain exa
Hi all,
We're currently a UK based managed service provider looking to open up in the
New York area. Part of our service model involves buying quite a lot of L2
ethernet tails from customer prems back to our DCs, usually 100Mb and 1Gb, but
sometimes smaller 10-50Mb services for backups. I was w
Hi all,
Has anyone used this product?
http://www.liveaction.com/
Cisco seems to tout it:
http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/solutions/enterprise-networks/intelligent-wan/i
ndex.html
(scroll down)
We're evaluating it as a way to manage customer bandwidth utilization on our
service pr
BTW: This scenario's combination has another portion for us like as below.
High Availability Server Clustering without ILB(Internal Load Balancer)
(MEMO)
http://slidesha.re/1vld6uB
--
Naoto MATSUMOTO
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 12:23 PM, NAOTO MATSUMOTO
wrote:
> Hi Dan and ken.
>
> I respect your
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 6:39 AM, Saku Ytti wrote:
> On (2015-02-19 11:06 -0500), Tim Durack wrote:
>
> > What is the chance of getting working code this decade? I would quite
> like
> > to play with this new fangled IPv6 widget...
> >
> > (Okay, I'd like to stop using IPv4 for infrastructure. LDP
On (2015-02-19 11:06 -0500), Tim Durack wrote:
> What is the chance of getting working code this decade? I would quite like
> to play with this new fangled IPv6 widget...
>
> (Okay, I'd like to stop using IPv4 for infrastructure. LDP is the last
> piece for me.)
Is there 4PE implementation to dr
On 20/02/15 12:42, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> I don't like where this is headed. There are millions of entities that
> are justifiable to announce a /48 into DFZ. Do we want this to happen?
rfc6115 have good overview and recommendation. IPv6 clearly need
separation of identification of endpoints
On Fri, 20 Feb 2015, Saku Ytti wrote:
Correct solution is not to use some so called 'strict' ipv6 filters,
which break Internet, by not allowing discontinuous pops having
connectivity.
Before, the practical level of de-agg was at /24 for IPv4. This meant only
larger organisations could do it
> From: Saku Ytti
> Is deaggregation inherently undesirable?
I'd say yes when the only limit to deaggregation is /48.
Given the opportunity people will do whatever they see
fit at everyone elses expense
> What is the correct solution here? Deaggregate or allocate space you don't
> need?
Whiche
On 20/Feb/15 02:36, George, Wes wrote:
>
> The document has come out the other side of the IETF sausage grinder now:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7439
>
> Unfortunately, it's just a list of the gaps.
> It is worth leaning on your vendors of choice to ensure that they have
> people focused on
On (2015-02-20 12:07 +0900), Randy Bush wrote:
Hey,
> in a discussion with some fellow researchers, the subject of ipv6
> deaggregation arose; will it be less or more than we see in ipv4?
Is deaggregation inherently undesirable? In some RIR LIR will not get new
allocation, just because LIR lacks
27 matches
Mail list logo
