Interesting... I've never heard of SPRINGv4
https://www.juniper.net/us/en/products-services/routing/ptx-series/datasheet
s/1000538.page
I found it in the bottom section
I wonder if SPRINGv4 is like SRv6, meaning, SPRING(SR) over IPv4 dataplane?
Or, am I reading way too much into that SPRINGv4 a
On Sun, Sep 6, 2020, at 10:14, Jeff Tantsura via NANOG wrote:
> Out of curiosity - if you are interested in SR, where are you getting
> your information from if not IETF (SPRING)?
Much beloved vendor claims support for "SPRINGv4" feature for a certain family
of products (I personally expect som
Hello All,
Does anyone have reliable contact info for AT&T TV's ISP support? We are an ISP
experiencing issues providing internet connectivity to AT&T TV boxes and we
aren't having any luck reaching the correct support for this issue within AT&T
TV's support structure. Has anyone worked with AT
In article <120a24d4e0da4f2392a25a8140be2...@ex1.obs.local> you write:
>We are parsing dmarc reports using parsedmarc and the forensics reports coming
>from antispamcloud.com seems not to
>follow the recommended reporting format (AFRF) and therefore are considered
>invalid.
You're right, they're
BCP38 is an RFC, 2827.
It is a grand advise if you can:
-find someone who is actually well versed
-afford that someone.
Personally - when in early 2000s I had to write complete community tagging
design for a multi country network, I wish I had a “how to”
Regards,
Jeff
> On Sep 9, 2020, at 15:
Great excuse ;-)
Regards,
Jeff
> On Sep 9, 2020, at 15:16, Mike Hammett via NANOG wrote:
>
>
> If history has taught us anything, everything we do will be ignored by those
> that most need it. :-)
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
>
On 9/Sep/20 17:42, Robert Raszuk wrote:
>
> It's not about numbers ... it's about ability to uniformly express
> policy with chain of arguments.
>
> See even with large communities you can define a policy with an
> unstructured parameter and single action then you need to put it on
> all of you
On 9/Sep/20 17:52, Mike Hammett wrote:
> No, but most network operators also aren't NANOG members, attend NANOG
> shows, subscribe to NANOG lists.
>
> They're small outfits where there's between 1 - 5 total networking people.
Yeah, I'll steer clear of that one :-)...
>
> Circling back to earl
No, but most network operators also aren't NANOG members, attend NANOG shows,
subscribe to NANOG lists.
They're small outfits where there's between 1 - 5 total networking people.
Circling back to earlier where I said there are almost 70k ASNs in use on the
public Internet. Most of those ope
It's not about numbers ... it's about ability to uniformly express policy
with chain of arguments.
See even with large communities you can define a policy with an
unstructured parameter and single action then you need to put it on all of
your boxes to act upon.
Is it possible to perhaps express i
On 9/Sep/20 15:25, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> That's not quite true.
>
> See the entire idea behind defining a common mechanism for signalling
> policy in communities in a flexible way for both intra and
> inter-domain use is to help you to use the same encoding acros policy
> engines of many vendo
Hi Geir,
Gratefully thanks for your detailed sharing. Very informative and helpful
to our network's synchronization planning and operation.
We'll take your experiences into discussion and consideration. Get back to
share our experiences with you soon.
Thanks and best regards,
Taichi
On Wed, Se
Hello,
We are parsing dmarc reports using parsedmarc and the forensics reports coming
from antispamcloud.com seems not to follow the recommended reporting format
(AFRF) and therefore are considered invalid.
Maybe is there anyone from SpamExperts in this list that could enlighten me
about how w
> Chriztoffer Hansen via NANOG
> Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2020 1:29 PM
>
> On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 at 06:25, Mark Tinka via NANOG
> wrote:
> > It's not unlike trusting your customers to send you FlowSpec
> > instructions. No issues technically, but do you want to do it?
>
> Why not? As a servic
My advice to “someone who is setting up a new ISP and has a very little clue as
where to start” would be just don’t and instead hire someone who’s well versed
in this topic.
But I see what you mean, RFC7938 was a good food for thought. But at the same
time I’m sceptical, for instance would it h
>
> Well, the proposed de facto standard is only useful for what we need to
> signal outside of the AS.
That's not quite true.
See the entire idea behind defining a common mechanism for signalling
policy in communities in a flexible way for both intra and inter-domain use
is to help you to use t
On 9/Sep/20 15:09, Mike Hammett wrote:
> If history has taught us anything, everything we do will be ignored by
> those that most need it. :-)
Touche :-)...
Mark.
On 9/Sep/20 15:06, Mike Hammett wrote:
> More operators don't use communities internally than the number of
> operators that do.
Do you have some empirical data on that?
I don't know if it's more, or less. But as Charlton Heston said in "True
Lies":
"So far this is not blowing my skirt up, g
If history has taught us anything, everything we do will be ignored by those
that most need it. :-)
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
Midwest-IX
http://www.midwest-ix.com
- Original Message -
From: "Mark Tinka"
To: "Mike Hammett"
Cc:
On 9/Sep/20 14:29, Chriztoffer Hansen wrote:
> Why not? As a service offering, it makes total sense.
Yes, makes total sense.
So why aren't jumping all over it?
>
> Thou, generally I agree with you. Trust, but verify any received
> announcement conforms to a base-set of expectations. Discard
More operators don't use communities internally than the number of operators
that do.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
Midwest-IX
http://www.midwest-ix.com
- Original Message -
From: "Mark Tinka"
To: "Mike Hammett"
Cc: nanog@nanog.o
Well, the proposed de facto standard is only useful for what we need to
signal outside of the AS.
Since an operator will still need to design for communities used
internal to the AS (which will have nothing to do with the outside
world, and be of a higher number), they can accomplish both tasks in
Exactly. There are far more pressing things when launching a new network than
coming up with a BGP community scheme from scratch, learning everyone else's
BGP community scheme, etc. If networks used a standard, then there is a very
minimal ramp-up.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing
On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 at 06:25, Mark Tinka via NANOG wrote:
> It's not unlike trusting your customers to send you FlowSpec
> instructions. No issues technically, but do you want to do it?
Why not? As a service offering, it makes total sense.
Thou, generally I agree with you. Trust, but verify any r
On 9/Sep/20 13:41, Mike Hammett wrote:
> How is that any different than any other network with minimal
> connectivity (say a non-ISP such as a school, medium business, local
> government, etc.)?
Because the existing flexibility of dis-aggregated BGP community design
can be done without any need
How is that any different than any other network with minimal connectivity (say
a non-ISP such as a school, medium business, local government, etc.)?
Also, it would likely help that new ISP in Myanmar learn their limited
upstream's communities if there were a standard.
-
Mike Hammett
I don't think the OP cares about what you do internally.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
Midwest-IX
http://www.midwest-ix.com
- Original Message -
From: "Mark Tinka via NANOG"
To: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2020 11:2
Robert,
This is not whether you should do it, but, should you have decided to, how to
do it in the best possible way, without making mistakes someone else has made
and learnt from.
Regards,
Jeff
> On Sep 9, 2020, at 11:40, Robert Raszuk wrote:
>
>
> And use of BGP without IGP left and righ
Jeff Tantsura via NANOG wrote on 09/09/2020 09:03:
De-facto standards are as good as people implementing them, however in
order to enforce non ambiguous implementations, it has to be de-jure
(e.g. a standard track RFC).
While I’m sympathetic to the idea, I’m quite skeptical about its viability.
And use of BGP without IGP left and right when even today bunch of DCs can
do just fine with current IGPs scaling wise is IMO not a good thing.
Thx
R.
On Wed, Sep 9, 2020, 10:55 Jeff Tantsura via NANOG wrote:
> I don’t think, anyone has proposed to use ‘’reserved ASNs” as a BCP,
> example of “a
I don’t think, anyone has proposed to use ‘’reserved ASNs” as a BCP, example of
“ab”use of ASN0 is a de-facto artifact (unfortunate one).
My goal would be to provide a viable source of information to someone who is
setting up a new ISP and has a very little clue as where to start. Do’s and
don’t
Hi Taichi,
It depends. GNSS at the cell site has its own operational challenges, for
example making sure that the antenna has a clear enough view of the sky. A
challenge in Asia is that very little of the fiber is in the ground, hence
multiple fiber cuts happen on a daily basis which changes the
On 9/Sep/20 10:03, Jeff Tantsura via NANOG wrote:
> De-facto standards are as good as people implementing them, however in
> order to enforce non ambiguous implementations, it has to be de-jure
> (e.g. a standard track RFC).
> While I’m sympathetic to the idea, I’m quite skeptical about its
> v
De-facto standards are as good as people implementing them, however in order to
enforce non ambiguous implementations, it has to be de-jure (e.g. a standard
track RFC).
While I’m sympathetic to the idea, I’m quite skeptical about its viability.
A well written BCP would be much more valuable, and
I don’t agree with the use of reserved ASNs, let alone making it BCP, cause it
defeats the whole purpose of the community structure.
Community is basically sending a message to an AS. If I want your specific AS
to interpret the message I set it in format YOUR_ASN:, your AS
in the first part of
On 9/Sep/20 09:21, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> Nope .. it is the other way around.
>
> It is all easy if you look from your network centric view.
>
> But if I am connected to 10 ISPs in each POP I have to build 10
> different egress policies, each embedding custom policy, teach NOC to
> understand i
On 9/Sep/20 09:15, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> On last point yes. The entire idea behind flow spec is to work
> inter-as to mitigate DDoS as close to a source as possible.
Indeed, that is the original intention. Any reason why we don't see it
happening in this way, today?
> And as far as wide the
Mark,
Nope .. it is the other way around.
It is all easy if you look from your network centric view.
But if I am connected to 10 ISPs in each POP I have to build 10 different
egress policies, each embedding custom policy, teach NOC to understand it
etc...
I think if there is a defined way to ex
Mark,
On last point yes. The entire idea behind flow spec is to work inter-as to
mitigate DDoS as close to a source as possible.
And if you validate against advertising reachability what's the problem ?
And as far as wide they just let you structure your community in a common
way. It is both to
39 matches
Mail list logo
