The show stuff is certainly there but the config is a bit different. You may
have to get used to using the "info" command. :)
They also use logical IP interfaces which are then tied to physical, you don't
directly configure L3 on a physical interface. You also have designations
between servi
that second command is "admin display-config" or "admin display-config |
match "
cheers
On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 1:53 PM, Bob Evans
wrote:
>
> I will be getting one to try. I am pretty sure it will support the ol'
> "show ? ,config ?" If not that might be a problem :-)
>
> Thank You
I will be getting one to try. I am pretty sure it will support the ol'
"show ? ,config ?" If not that might be a problem :-)
Thank You
Bob Evans
CTO
> What's the price point of an SR-A4? Comparable to the MX104 or ASR9001?
>
> -- Stephen
>
> On 2015-05-06 7:13 PM, Craig wrote:
>>
I presume nothing is honored. I just encapsulate everything if I'm crossing
networks outside my corporate WAN.
Amazing how handy openvpn with no crypto is. :)
-Original Message-
From: "Mark Tinka"
Sent: 5/6/2015 12:39 AM
To: "Ramy Hashish" ; "nanog@nanog.org"
Subject: Re: IP DSCP
I presume nothing is honored. I just encapsulate everything if I'm crossing
networks outside my corporate WAN.
Amazing how handy openvpn with no crypto is. :)
-Original Message-
From: "Mark Tinka"
Sent: 5/6/2015 12:39 AM
To: "Ramy Hashish" ; "nanog@nanog.org"
Subject: Re: IP DSCP
On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 3:19 AM, Fred Hollis wrote:
> Honestly, I lost patience "the system learning the proper location of the
> IPv6 block". I have a very similar problem to the OP since 4-5 months,
> submitted this IP correction form multiple times... nothing changed.
> This is *very* annoying.
On 5/6/15 15:56, Randy Bush wrote:
a fellow researcher wants
> to make the case that in some scenarios it is very important for a
> network operator to be able to specify that traffic should *not*
> traverse a certain switch/link/group of switches/group of links
> (that's t
On 07.05.2015 08:30, Scott Weeks wrote:
> --- r...@gsp.org wrote:
> From: Rich Kulawiec
>
> The first rule in every firewall is of course
> "deny all" and subsequent rulesets permit only
> the traffic that is necessary.
>
>
>
> I think you got this backward?
On 7 May 2015, at 2:36, Siegel, David wrote:
By comparison, Singapore is a relatively easy country to get a license
to operate a telecommunications business.
+1
From an overall connectivity, stability, and technical collaboration
standpoint, Singapore is generally a better choice, as well.
From: Rich Kulawiec
On Wed, May 06, 2015 at 03:30:01PM -0700, Scott Weeks wrote:
> From: Rich Kulawiec
>
> The first rule in every firewall is of course
> "deny all" and subsequent rulesets permit only
> the traffic that is necessary.
>
>
> I think you
On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 6:56 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
> a fellow researcher wants
>
> > to make the case that in some scenarios it is very important for a
> > network operator to be able to specify that traffic should *not*
> > traverse a certain switch/link/group of switches/group of link
On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 6:41 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
> On 5/6/2015 3:56 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
> I don't think it is common, but I have a microwave network made up of a
> combination of license-free links and amateur radio band links (where no
> commercial traffic is permitted). For now the ham-
The most common place where I have encountered that would involve differing
AUPs on different links.
For example, if one has a link which is built on an amateur radio layer 1, one
cannot carry commercial, pornographic, encrypted, or certain other kinds of
traffic on that link.
I believe Intern
On 5/6/2015 3:56 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
a fellow researcher wants
> to make the case that in some scenarios it is very important for a
> network operator to be able to specify that traffic should *not*
> traverse a certain switch/link/group of switches/group of links
> (that's
On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 6:56 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
> a fellow researcher wants
>
> > to make the case that in some scenarios it is very important for a
> > network operator to be able to specify that traffic should *not*
> > traverse a certain switch/link/group of switches/group of link
What's the price point of an SR-A4? Comparable to the MX104 or ASR9001?
-- Stephen
On 2015-05-06 7:13 PM, Craig wrote:
If you know Juniper and Cisco, the learning curve isn't so bad to pick up
the ALU CLI, after working with it for a brief time, you catch on quickly.
Their products are quite i
If you know Juniper and Cisco, the learning curve isn't so bad to pick up
the ALU CLI, after working with it for a brief time, you catch on quickly.
Their products are quite impressive, and a # of the carriers, are moving to
them and some have already moved to them and are quite happy with their
de
It depends on the software used and implementation.
Many rulesets for pf on BSD start with 'block in on interfaceX' for
instance, because it uses a "last match wins" system, unless you use the
'quick' keyword to make rule processing stop if that rule matches.
Andrew
On 07.05.2015 08:30, Scott
On Wed, May 06, 2015 at 03:30:01PM -0700, Scott Weeks wrote:
> --- r...@gsp.org wrote:
> From: Rich Kulawiec
>
> The first rule in every firewall is of course
> "deny all" and subsequent rulesets permit only
> the traffic that is necessary.
>
>
> I think
a fellow researcher wants
> to make the case that in some scenarios it is very important for a
> network operator to be able to specify that traffic should *not*
> traverse a certain switch/link/group of switches/group of links
> (that's true right?). Could you give some examples?
I would support this. I've had a hand in supporting infrastructure
located in India and even with a relatively competent partner, some
challenges in timely issue resolution.
My current employer operate facilities in Singapore, Malaysia and China
with a lot more success (comparitively speaking)
--- r...@gsp.org wrote:
From: Rich Kulawiec
The first rule in every firewall is of course
"deny all" and subsequent rulesets permit only
the traffic that is necessary.
I think you got this backward? That way all
traffic is blocked, so none is allowed
I am worried as most tech's know Cisco and Juniper, so going to ALU would
be a learning curve based on replies I am getting off list.
On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 5:22 PM, Dan Snyder wrote:
>
> They are definitely good for that. We use them in part of our network for
> something very similar.
>
> I am
They are definitely good for that. We use them in part of our network for
something very similar.
I am not sure why they aren't mentioned that much. I know that they have been
pretty popular in the past couple years.
We are planning on using 7750 SR-a4's in the future but right now we mainly
--- colton.co...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Colton Conor
Why is ALU never mentioned, but Juniper MX
and Cisco are all day long?
-
Because they're really expensive, mostly bell
head networks use them and we're mostly bell
head free on NANOG... >;-)
scott
> On May 6, 2015, at 5:48 PM, Colton Conor wrote:
>
> I was wondering if anyone was using a
> Alcatel-Lucent 7750 Service Router> (SR)
> in their network? How does this platform
> compare the the Cisco ASR, Brocade MLXe,
> and Juniper MX line?
-
I haven't u
Taking full BGP routes from 4+ carriers on 10G connections. Why is ALU
never mentioned, but Juniper MX and Cisco are all day long?
The new 7750 SR-a4 looks like a Juniper MX80 or MX104 killer.
On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 4:58 PM, Dan Snyder wrote:
> We have been using them for almost 8 years now and
We have been using them for almost 8 years now and have been pretty happy. What
are you looking to use them for?
Sent from my iPhone
> On May 6, 2015, at 5:48 PM, Colton Conor wrote:
>
> I was wondering if anyone was using a Alcatel-Lucent 7750 Service Router
> (SR) in their network? How does
I was wondering if anyone was using a Alcatel-Lucent 7750 Service Router
(SR) in their network? How does this platform compare the the Cisco ASR,
Brocade MLXe, and Juniper MX line?
this is really a form of: "A subnet should contain all things of a
like purpose/use."
that way you don't have to compromise and say: "Well... tcp/443 is OK
for ABC units but deadly for XYZ ones! block to the 6 of 12 XYZ and
permit to all ABC... wait, can you bounce off an ABC and still kill an
XYZ
Consider setting up a separate zone or zones (via VLAN) for devices
with embedded TCP/IP stacks. I have worked in several shops using
switched power units from APC, SynAccess, and TrippLite, and find that
the TCP/IP stacks in those units are a bit fragile when confronted
with a lot of traffic,
Personal opinion: developing countries tend to have unstable utility
service (power is what matters here), so your DC of choice in India should
be Tier 4 preferably, which are hard to find and really expensive. Budget
allowing, I'd stick to Hong Kong, Shangai or Singapore as you mentioned
initially
Technical feasibility aside, you should consult with an attorney that
specializes in International business and tax law. India is similar to China
in that there are material challenges to doing business in those countries.
For example, you can't get a license to operate as a foreign entity (al
Brett,
Please share the subnet with us.
Have you followed through the list here, specifically checking Akamai, and
seeing what it lists?
http://nanog.cluepon.net/index.php/GeoIP
Frank
-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett
Sent: Wednes
This is a pre-project discovery question... any help would be greatly
appreciated.
We have upcoming partnerships (opportunities) in APAC. The original plan was to
place the hub in Singapore. Just weeks before everyone was ready to begin the
RFP, it turns out that one of our partner businesses ow
On 6 May 2015, at 8:22, Joel Mulkey wrote:
> But don't trust that's going to be the rule.
Yes, that's always the caveat.
Just do what you can within your own span of administrative control.
---
Roland Dobbins
I don't think you mentioned the out of country error on the other list. ;-)
Have you verified with any and all IP geolcoation services that you can find
that your network is properly located? Maybe they think you're in Iran?
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.i
Anyone know any good contacts with any of these companies so I can get this
resolved? As an ISP, having my entire subnet blocked prevents my customers from
being able to use these services they pay for.
We are getting the outside of the U.S. or going through hosted proxy issue. I
have never us
But don't trust that's going to be the rule. I recently had a situation where
traffic across a congested public peering link between 2 large "tier-2"
carriers was honoring DSCP, resulting in some unexpected inconsistent behavior.
Joel Mulkey
Founder and CEO
Bigleaf Networks
Direct: +1 (503) 985-
On 6/May/15 11:20, Martin T wrote:
> Hi,
>
> what are the disadvantages of peering(announcing own and all customers
> prefixes) with own IP transit customers? One disadvantage is obviously
> that amount of traffic on IP transit link is lower and thus customer
> pays for smaller amount of Mbps. On
Hi,
what are the disadvantages of peering(announcing own and all customers
prefixes) with own IP transit customers? One disadvantage is obviously
that amount of traffic on IP transit link is lower and thus customer
pays for smaller amount of Mbps. On the other hand, this can be
somewhat compensate
Honestly, I lost patience "the system learning the proper location of
the IPv6 block". I have a very similar problem to the OP since 4-5
months, submitted this IP correction form multiple times... nothing changed.
This is *very* annoying.
Yes, my whois/SWIP is perfectly fine, every other geo ip
42 matches
Mail list logo
