Saku speaks from the privileged position of an infrastructure owner. We
assume that interface connectivity is provided by L1 links, with OEO in
transit nodes as a worst case.
But the clever budget conscious among us have deployed router links over
provided MPLS based L2 services as critical infras
BFD is binary. Service OAM 802.3ag / ITU-T Y.1731 generates time series
data that talks to service reliability and SLA. OAM offers interface shut
and fault propagation as well, which means it's both an observability tool
and an operational one. BFD is just not the thing for measuring the
reliabilit
Is this a bgp-ls solution to an snmp trap problem? Why can oss do this
notification? Are we turning bgp into nms?
On Sat, Dec 21, 2024, 7:41 PM Douglas Fischer
wrote:
> I'm looking for a way to propagate the status of BFD sessions running on
> one router to another via BGP.
>
> Considering the v
CNN mentioned Lumen. T-Mo?
On Wed, Dec 4, 2024 at 5:22 PM J. Hellenthal via NANOG
wrote:
> Failing to find a list of providers that were hit. Anyone know more ? I
> don't see them mentioned.
> Verizon & AT&T I know of.
>
> --
> J. Hellenthal
>
> The fact that there's a highway to Hell but only
Imagine decentralizing x.509.
On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 11:42 AM Roman Tatarnikov
wrote:
> >Could this approach work? Perhaps there’s existing research on similar
> >methods?
>
> Brandon, I blockchain and BGP were discussed on NANOG some years ago, back
> when the deployment of RPKI was br
Thanks for engaging with this. I was intentionally brief in my explanation.
I have observed this behavior in congested networks for years and ignored
it as an obvious symptom of the congestion. What has always piqued my
curiosity though is just how long a ping can last.
In my case yesterday, I was
Here's a question I haven't bothered to ask until now. Can someone please
help me understand why I receive a ping reply after almost 5 seconds? As I
understand it, buffers in SP gear are generally 100ms. According to my math
this round trip should have been discarded around the 1 second mark, even
Thanks for sharing. Maybe I have blinders on, but LDPv6 and the v6 SR
flavors don't have much use if v4 CE sites aren't supported.
Jason
On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 12:56 AM Mark Tinka wrote:
>
>
> On 10/21/21 21:18, Jason Iannone wrote:
>
> >
> > Hi all,
> &
Hi all,
Have there been any gap closures on RFC7439? I am particularly interested
in 4PE, 4VPE, and other MPLS enabled services like L3VPN, NG-MVPN, E-Line,
E-LAN, and EVPN. Does Juniper have an "ipv4-tunneling" mpls keyword?
Thanks,
Jason
Isn't this a problem with legacy peering agreements in today's internet?
The same thing happened between Netflix, Level3, and Verizon a few years
ago. The legacy concept of settlement-free peering is based on traffic
forwarding parity. If what I forward to you roughly matches what you
forward to me
M&A plays into this too. By my calculations, CenturyLink controls at
least 17 million /48s. How many sites does CenturyLink provide
service to? I'm gonna go out on a limb and say it's not 17 million.
3 acquisitions rolled up into AS209:
as3549
2605:a300::/32
2001:450::/32
as4323
2604:6680::/
My previous employer used 198.18/15 for CE links on IPVPN services.
Walgreens used an American SP's space internally and couldn't talk to
any users in that space as a result.
On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 11:31 PM, Eric Kuhnke wrote:
> some fun examples of the size of ipv6:
>
> https://samsclass.info/i
Hey Chris,
Size has a lot to do with policy. For very large organizations,
regional models make sense. Orwell had his regional divisions[1] and
Level3 has theirs[2]. TW had a domestic version of regions before
things were centralized.
I'd argue for the organizational affect of standardization.
I have a question regarding language. We've seen bcp38 described as a
forwarding filter, preventing unallocated sources from leaving the AS. I
understand that unicast reverse path forwarding checks support bcp38, but
urpf is an input check with significant technical differences from output
filters
The IP and Transport groups are customers of each other. When I need
a wire, I ask the Transport group to deliver a wire. This is pretty
simple division of labor stuff. Transport has the intimate knowledge
of the layer 1 infrastructure and IP has intimate knowledge of
services. Sure there is in
you want to use:
> - spt-only: is quite "simple". We only have (s,g) in the core. To validate
> an os, it's faster.
> - rpt-spt. We have both (*,g) and (s,g) in the core. the validation is more
> complex, the protocol is more dynamic...
>
> Regards,
> Yann.
&
Hi all,
I'm having trouble interpreting under what circumstance section 10 of
BGP MVPN comes into play.
The way I read this section, upon the receipt of PIM/IGMP Join to
(*,G) the Receiver Site PE does not signal Type 6 or Type 7 Joins
until a Type 5 Source Active route is received from a Sender
If your vendors support it, doing stuff in-box is nice: ITU-T Y.1731.
If you're looking for an off box solution, PerfSONAR is actively
developed. You need some kind of ownership of all test points for
configuration and reporting for both solutions.
On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 8:23 AM, Joe Maimon wrot
Hey!
New message, please read <http://shine2014.onnet.edu.vn/wait.php?z>
Jason Iannone
Hey!
New message, please read <http://iamakeupartistry.com/seven.php?twv1>
Jason Iannone
Hey!
New message, please read <http://shoroqpress.com/are.php?11tk>
Jason Iannone
Low hanging fruit.
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 6:29 PM, Miles Fidelman
wrote:
> That was quick. :-)
>
>
> Tom Paseka wrote:
>>
>> Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept
>>
>> ^http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robustness_principle
>>
on should be
> conservative in its sending behavior, and liberal in its receiving behavior"
> (reworded in RFC 1122 as "Be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in
> what you send").
>
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 8:20 PM, Jason Iannone
> wrote:
>>
>>
There was once a fairly common saying attributed to an early
networking pioneer that went something like, "be generous in what you
accept, and send only the stuff that should be sent." Does anyone
know what I'm talking about or who said it?
generates a third of the
internet's traffic. That leads to special considerations for Netflix
as it makes its transit and interconnection contracts. Anyone
promising anything to Netflix should consider its bitweight.
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 2:28 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> - Original
Lots of blame to go around. Verizon isn't an eyeball only network
(Comcast would have a more difficult time describing itself as
anything but), so a reasonable peering policy should apply. In
Verizon's case, 1.8:1. I speculate that without Netflix, Cogent and
L3 are largely within the specificat
; On July 21, 2014 12:46:27 PM EDT, Jason Iannone
> wrote:
>>
>> There was a muni case in my neck of the woods a couple of years ago.
>> Comcast spent an order of magnitude more than the municipality but
>> still lost.
>>
>> Anyway, follow the money. "Blac
There was a muni case in my neck of the woods a couple of years ago.
Comcast spent an order of magnitude more than the municipality but
still lost.
Anyway, follow the money. "Blackburn’s largest career donors are ..
PACs affiliated with AT&T ... ($66,750) and Comcast ... ($36,600). ...
Blackburn
Barry,
Your point is well made and applies to present conditions. I'm not
sure the current Net Neutrality debate extends so much to access,
though we should talk about that (Consumer access service policy: No
servers at home!? Asymmetric bandwidth profiles!? What is this, the
dark ages?). The p
I can't cite chapter and verse but I seem to remember this zeroing
problem was solved decades ago by just introducing a bit which said
this chunk of memory or disk is new (to this process) and not zeroed
but if there's any attempt to actually access it then read it back as
if it were filled with ze
We also use UNI NIDs that trap interface status, log interface and COS
queue statistics, and respond to y.1731 traffic.
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 7:56 AM, Siegel, David wrote:
> We deploy NIDs to the customer premise. You just can't get enough alarm data
> be looking only at your router/switch on
It also looks like there isn't a policy for orgs with multiple
multihomed sites to get a /48 per site. Is there an exception policy
somewhere?
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 12:50 PM, wrote:
> Initial. Documenting IPv4 usage is in the request template.
>
> --
> Adam Webb
>
>
>
>
>
> From:
> "Nick Olse
Define long prefix length. Owen has been fairly forceful in his
advocacy of /48s at every site. Is this too long a prefix? Should
peers only except /32s and shorter?
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 1:12 PM, David Conrad wrote:
> On Oct 31, 2010, at 9:01 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> Would it help if ARIN
In my experience users aren't willing to pay for dedicated bandwidth.
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 1:22 PM, manolo hernandez wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 9/28/10 3:01 PM, Warren Bailey wrote:
>> Jack,
>>
>> Apologies, I did not realize that you guys were doing so muc
http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2010/08/joint-policy-proposal-for-open-internet.html
Pretty boiler plate pro net neutral. The transparency requirements
and 'differentiated services' exceptions are particularly interesting.
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 12:23 PM, Reese wrote:
> On 09 Aug 10 12:3
I would say confeds are more appropriate for larger ibgp networks.
You can have reflectors inside confederations. See the BGP chapter of
the JNCIP book.
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 9:33 AM, Buraglio, Nicholas D
wrote:
> Lots of things can be used to determine how you decide to set up your
> BGP peer
What's the virus doing with all of those domain names?
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 8:38 AM, Michael Holstein
wrote:
>
>> Of the 50,000 DNS names generated for today ..
>
> Additional info ..
>
> Top 10 ASN by number/name :
>
> 5680 -- 1280 ISC-AS1280 Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. 2820 -- 1668
Except when their primary path goes away and relatively few networks
install the prepended route. It's all conjecture, but I like the 'in
effort to defeat local pref' option.
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 10:53 AM, Tomas L. Byrnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Not using that prepended route is exactly w
renesys?
On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 11:57 PM, Randy Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> i am looking for date-stamped rib dumps going back years from a peering
> edge router that is fairly 'stable', i.e. multi-peer dfz but the number
> of peers changes infrequently.
>
> [ routeviews and ris do not meet
there's a big ole' thread on the outages list.
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 9:11 AM, Johnson, Joe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is anyone else seeing issues with AOL Instant Messenger? Personally, my
> PC logged out for 10-15 minutes this morning and came right back, but my
> home PC and the desktops of
40 matches
Mail list logo
