Presumably nothing stops you spinning up an instance in Azure and doing
pings/traceroutes yourself.
But perhaps you could be doing this from your own IPs towards .
Have you configured your end in a manner that doesn't do MTU 1500 or that
relies on PMTUD to function?
If yes, well perhaps start ther
Even if you don’t meet the port speed requirements for a PNI, there is
likely something that could work via an IX.
On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 12:57 PM Tim Burke wrote:
> We reached out some time ago using the contact on PeeringDB and had no
> issue, but the amount of transit consumed to get to 1650
On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 1:36 PM John Levine wrote:
> If anyone has contacts at either I would appreciate it.
https://developer.amazon.com/support/amazonbot
probably returned as a result of searching "amazonbot" on your favourite
search engine.
On Sun, Dec 10, 2023 at 7:09 PM Christopher Hawker
wrote:
> How big would a network need to get, in order to come close to
> exhausing RFC1918 address space? There are a total of 17,891,328 IP
> addresses between the 10/8 prefix, 172.16/12 space and 192.168/16 space. If
> one was to allocate 10 a
>
> > As someone who has been involved in the deployment of network gear
> > into class E space (extensively, for our own internal reasons, which
> > doesn't preclude public use of class E), "largely supported" !=
> > "universally supported".
> >
> > There remains hardware devices that blackhole cl
On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 11:20 AM Joe Maimon wrote:
> Indeed that is exactly what has been happening since the initial
> proposals regarding 240/4. To the extent that it is now largely
> supported or available across a wide variety of gear, much of it not
> even modern in any way.
>
As someone wh
>
> If I was running an edge device with a limited FIB, perhaps I might drop
> it to save memory. If I had beefier devices, perhaps I would just depref
> it.
>
Note that if said prefix either existed elsewhere with fewer prepends that
meant it 'won' bgp best-path selection, then it would not resul
On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 11:58 AM James Bensley
wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Jul 2022 at 15:34, Lawrence Wobker wrote:
> > This is the parallelism part. I can take multiple instances of these
> memory/logic pipelines, and run them in parallel to increase the throughput.
> ...
> > I work on/with a chip th
On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 8:22 AM Kelly Littlepage via NANOG
wrote:
> Hi all, a nanog thread started on November 23, 2018 discussed the
> challenges of getting Amazon peering sessions turned up. Has anyone had
> luck since/does anyone have a contact they could refer me to — off-list or
> otherwise?
On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 1:21 PM John Gilmore wrote:
> We have found no ASIC IP implementations that
> hardwire in assumptions about specific IP address ranges. If you know
> of any, please let us know, otherwise, let's let that strawman rest.
>
There's at least one. Marvell PresteriaCX (its eit
>
> You have to keep in mind there are two pools of memory on the router.
There's actually three.
1. Prefix (path) via BGP: "show ip bgp ". BGP will select the
'best' BGP path (can be multiple if ECMP) and send that through to the RIB.
2. RIB. "show ip route ". routing table will show the pat
On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 4:41 PM, Peter Kranz wrote:
> Curious if you have any thoughts on the longevity of the 7500R and
> 7280R survival's with IPv4 full tables? How full are you seeing the TCAM
> getting today (I'm assuming they are doing some form of selective
> download)? And if we ar
>
> > High Touch / Low Touch
>
> High touch means very general purpose NPU, with off-chip memory. Low
> touch means usually ASIC or otherwise simplified pipeline and on-chip
> memory. Granted Jericho can support off-chip memory too.
>
> L3 switches are canonical example of low touch. EZchip, Trio,
Yes. We also have 1M+ FIB support day one too - hence the letter 'R'
denoting the evolution with 3rd generation of its evolution to internet
edge/router use cases.
Not sure what other vendors are doing but I doubt others are yet shipping
large table support.
(there's more to it than just the under
l build version: 4.6.4-434606.EOS464
>
> ** **
>
> Sure, we can discuss it.
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* lincoln dale [mailto:l...@interlink.com.au]
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 09, 2012 1:13 PM
> *To:* George Bonser
> *Cc:* Leigh Porter; nanog list
> *Subject:* Re
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 7:24 AM, George Bonser wrote:
> It's pretty good gear. The only problem I've had with it is the
> limitation of IGMP not working on mLAG VLANs.
>
IGMP should work just fine with MLAG. IGMP state is sync'd between the
MLAG pair. Happy to talk about this more off-list if
> There is an emerging need to distribute highly accurate time
> information over IP and over MPLS packet switched networks (PSNs).
good of you to ask. it exists today.
http://ieee1588.nist.gov/
cheers,
lincoln.
> I'm looking for input on the best practices for sending large files over
> a long fat pipe between facilities (gigabit private circuit, ~20ms RTT).
providing you have RFC1323 type extensions enabled on a semi-decent OS, a 4MB
TCP window should be more than sufficient to fill a GbE pipe over 30m
> I asked this question to a couple of folks:
>
> "at the current churn rate/ration, at what size doe the FIB need to
> be before it will not converge?"
>
> and got these answers:
>
> - jabber log -
> a fine question, has been asked many times, and afaik noone h
19 matches
Mail list logo
