>> So you are left with your regular inbound influence bag of tricks,
>> e.g. prepending towards Shaw.
>
> the primary inbound steering tool is selective advertisement of
> sub-prefixes
>
> i was shocked that the prepending presentation at ripe79 was blind to
> this
btw the ripe79 preso,
https:/
> So you are left with your regular inbound influence bag of tricks,
> e.g. prepending towards Shaw.
the primary inbound steering tool is selective advertisement of
sub-prefixes
i was shocked that the prepending presentation at ripe79 was blind to
this
randy
So, I'm gonna go out on a bit of a limb here, though I don't think by much. I
wasn't aware, but CANARIE is an NREN, so probably you get cheap/free transit
through that, versus some greater transit rate via Shaw.
You can decide your own outbound policy, but you can't really wield that
influence
On Thu 2019-Oct-17 14:19:54 -0600, Samir Rana wrote:
Greetings,
We have asymmetric routing issues from Microsoft TORIX connection between
Microsoft and CANARIE and Microsoft and SHAW.
We are sending traffic via Cybera-CANARIE-Microsoft ( SIX ) and
receiving via Microsoft-Shaw-Cybera ( SIX ).
Greetings,
We have asymmetric routing issues from Microsoft TORIX connection between
Microsoft and CANARIE and Microsoft and SHAW.
We are sending traffic via Cybera-CANARIE-Microsoft ( SIX ) and
receiving via Microsoft-Shaw-Cybera ( SIX ).
if anyone from Microsoft is available please contact me
On 10/16/19 5:12 PM, Brandon Martin wrote:
On 10/16/19 2:42 PM, Jeff Shultz wrote:
But I'm confused a bit by the below - G.Fast is a twisted pair
standard, last I saw - why would a cable (presumably coax) company be
offering it? Are they just taking over the PTT's inside wiring?
G.fast has
>
> Said that I haven’t played with GNS3, EVE-NG, VIRL,… recently so I don’t
> know if any of these would allow me to create these massive “spreadsheets”
> for programmatic generation of labs.
>
GNS3 you can, they have a fairly well documented JSON based API that you
can use to script up all the
We have 9 ASR's so I don't think it would be too hard to host them in the GNS3
vm insurance we're using. The main problem I've run into is our IOS isn't
supported, which is where Cisco IOSv comes in, hoping it could be configured in
a way to act very closely like our deployed hardware. I'm not s
Got my original nethead.com domain from him after he told me that someone
else two days earlier got deadhead.com. I'm still kicking myself for not
taking him up on the /24 of swamp space.
--
Joe Hamelin, W7COM, Tulalip, WA, +1 (360) 474-7474
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 8:01 PM Michael Rathbun wrote
On Thu, 17 Oct 2019 09:45:35 +0100 (BST), "t...@pelican.org"
may have written:
> The chickens have come home to roost now though, as they're struggling to
> find a cool branding for the subsequent FTTP roll-out, and not getting
> any better than "full fibre", a.k.a "we lied to you last time, but t
On Thu, 17 Oct 2019 at 15:15, wrote:
> But as you can see A) and B) can easily be tested with a single DUT (or some
> small topology around it) using actual HW plugged in a loop with IXIA/Spirent
> testers.
Snake topology does conserve IXIA/Spirent ports but will not allow you
to test everythi
I've been using network simulation well before GNS3 was around using
dynamips - and even when GNS3 came along it was still not good -since it
just couldn't handle the scale (~40nodes) (not on my compute resources at
that time anyways).
And similarly nowadays in the era of proper HW simulation t
On Wednesday, 16 October, 2019 19:42, "Jeff Shultz"
said:
> Just like any broadband deployed by a Telco gets called "DSL" these
> days - even if it's 1G fiber. And even by those in the industry who
> should know better.
We have the opposite problem in the UK - the VDSL (FTTC) roll-out was brand
13 matches
Mail list logo
