Juniper Networks has also tried using Bloom filters.
https://patents.google.com/patent/US20170187624
I think the QFX10002 was the first product they made which used this approach.
https://forums.juniper.net/t5/Archive/Juniper-QFX10002-Technical-Overview/ba-p/270358
On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 1:45 P
Employer has been using them for transit in Chicago for a while now.
There was a case where they had a weird detour path through a router
on the east coast for a prefix ultimately destined for the west coast,
but once we notified them they quickly (same day) got it resolved.
Been pretty happy with
When it comes to reasons for them to force everyone off I believe it
has to do with control. ISP accounts tend to be personal accounts, but
when you stop being a customer of the ISP they will deactivate the
account. Now that they tied purchases on the play store to the account
it made things very m
On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 4:59 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
> josh,
>
> thanks for the more technical scoop. now i get it a bit better.
>
>> We also re-designed the LAN back in 2011 to break up the giant single
>> broadcast domain down to a subnet per table switch.
>
> so it is heavily routed using L3 on t
Not that often you see a bunch of people talking about a video you're
in, especially so on NANOG. So here goes.
BYOC is around 2700 seats. Total attendance was around 11,000.
2Gbps has been saturated at some point every year we have had it.
Additional bandwidth is definitely a serious considerati
> Now, boss man comes in and has a new office opening up. Go grab the r1 box
> out of the closet, you need to upgrade the code and reconfigure it. Cable
> it up to your PC with a serial port, open some some sort of terminal program
> so you can catch the boot and password recover it. Plug it's e
Ubiquiti has been contributing to VyOS, so I'm assuming it is the
version they are using as the upstream for their code.
On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Nolan Rollo wrote:
> I wonder how Ubiquiti Networks is going to react to this since their EdgeMax
> Routers run a fork of the Vyatta code (Edg
Our local Akamai cluster has pegged it's 1G uplink a few times, and we
are hitting our 1G Equinix IX link pretty hard as well.
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Ben Bartsch wrote:
> We are seeing Akamai traffic up about 100-300% since noon CDT. Seeing
> similar increased from our participants - c
My first question is, how are they going to keep themselves from
congesting links?
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
> http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/06/google-making-the-web-faster-with-protocol-that-reduces-round-trips/?comments=1
>
> Sorry if this is a
> But what I don't understand is why everyone implies that the status
> quo with round-robin DNS is any better.
I don't think anyone believes round robin DNS records is better. It's
that attempting to do better requires adding onto or changing
standards that must maintain backwards compatibility a
Have you looked at anything from Clear Field, just as an example
something like this.
http://www.clearfieldconnection.com/products/panels/fieldsmart-small-count-delivery-scd-1ru-rack-mount-cabinet-mount-panel.html
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Chuck Anderson wrote:
> I'm looking for better T
Yep,
http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog56/presentations/Monday/mon.lightning.siegel.pdf
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 6:03 AM, Christopher J. Pilkington wrote:
> Overnight BGPmon reports that 3356 was adjacent to our AS, but it is
> not. Only plausible situation I can think of is Level(3) absorbing
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 1:45 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> I fully expect them to develop an HDCP-or-equivalent enabled protocol to run
> over IP Multicast.
>
> Do you have any reason you believe that won't happen?
>
> Owen
I'm pretty sure it's already in place for IPTV solutions.
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 8:01 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> But suppose you had a TCP protocol that wasn't statically bound to the
> IP address by the application layer. Suppose each side of the
> connection referenced each other by name, TCP expected to spread
> packets across multiple local and rem
2012/2/16 Masataka Ohta :
> Andreas Echavez wrote:
>> *How NAT breaks end-to-end connectivity (fun one..., took me
>> hours to explain to an old boss why doing NAT at the ISP level
>> was horrendously wrong)
>
> That's another misconception.
>
> While NAT breaks the end to end connectivity, it ca
I've seen this discussion show up in a number of venues lately. I'm
not at all surprised about the trend as I've been using Steam for a
few years now. I expect they will take a similar path and continue to
sell physical medium with keys to tie the game to an account, and do
staged downloads using e
I certainly agree they have very different applications, and hopefully
that will help those looking for this kind of insight.
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 3:54 PM, Saku Ytti wrote:
> On (2012-01-20 09:50 -0700), PC wrote:
>
>> Juniper has some very aggressive pricing on mx80 bundles license-locked to
I would also be interested in peoples experiences with the MX80
platform. Currently considering the MX40 license level of MX80
platform for a project. We have had good experiences with the ASR1002
but want to keep our options open.
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 2:45 PM, PC wrote:
> Which specific model
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 2:21 PM, Steve Clark wrote:
> On 06/10/2011 09:37 AM, Ray Soucy wrote:
>>
>> You really didn't just write an entire post saying that RA is bad
>> because if a moron of a network engineer plugs an incorrectly
>> configured device into a production network it may cause proble
In all honesty control over the Internet doesn't sound like the issue
here. The US Government regulates entities functioning with in it's
boarders. This would be no different if I being in the US were
restricted access to a site in any other country due to their
regulations.
I'll preface this that I'm more of an end user then a network
administrator, but I do feel I have a good enough understanding of the
protocols and
network administration to submit my two cents.
The issue I see with this level of NAT, is the fact that I don't
expect that UPNP be implemented at that
21 matches
Mail list logo
