On Wednesday 04 February 2009 10:10:02 am Steve Bertrand
wrote:
> I'm not ready for MPLS (but I am interested in the theory
> of it's purpose), so when I'm done what I'm doing now,
> I'll look at it.
Well, having a v6 core will prevent from you running MPLS,
as a v6 control plane for MPLS is no
On Wednesday 04 February 2009 09:51:16 am Nathan Ward wrote:
> You get the same with OSPF - you run OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 in
> parallel.
Suffice it to say that some vendors are already implementing
'draft-ietf-ospf-af-alt-06.txt', which allows OSPFv3 to
handle multiple address families, including I
On 7/02/2009, at 5:20 AM, Brad Fleming wrote:
On Feb 4, 2009, at 2:52 AM, Steve Bertrand wrote:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kumari-blackhole-urpf-02
If I understand this correctly, there will be a route entered on
each edge router for all sources that are participating in a DDoS
On Feb 4, 2009, at 2:52 AM, Steve Bertrand wrote:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kumari-blackhole-urpf-02
If I understand this correctly, there will be a route entered on each
edge router for all sources that are participating in a DDoS attack.
Is anyone worried about TCAM usage if on
Steve Bertrand wrote:
> This entire discussion went off topic, in regards to bcp and filtering.
>
> Off-list, I had someone point out:
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kumari-blackhole-urpf-02
>
> ...which is EXACTLY in line with what my end goal was originally, and by
> reading it, I feel a
> On 4/02/2009, at 2:43 PM, Steve Bertrand wrote:
>
>> Nathan Ward wrote:
>>> On 4/02/2009, at 2:33 PM, Steve Bertrand wrote:
>>>
- Currently, (as I write), I'm migrating my entire core from IPv4 to
IPv6. I've got the space, and I love to learn, so I'm just lab-ing
it up
now to
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 5:43 PM, Steve Bertrand wrote:
> What I was hoping for (even though I'm testing something that I know
> won't work) is that I can break something so I could push v4 traffic
> over a v6-only core.
>
> Is there _any_ way to do this (other than NAT/tunnel etc)?
If you can push
Skeeve Stevens wrote:
> Agreed. Keeping it separate works very well. Can be the same interface
> sure... but do it as a separate session.
Yeah, that's what I thought, and that is exactly what I've been doing
thus far.
I was hoping to have a v6-only core, but in order to get the current
project
On 4/02/2009, at 2:43 PM, Steve Bertrand wrote:
Nathan Ward wrote:
On 4/02/2009, at 2:33 PM, Steve Bertrand wrote:
- Currently, (as I write), I'm migrating my entire core from IPv4 to
IPv6. I've got the space, and I love to learn, so I'm just lab-ing
it up
now to see how things will flow w
Agreed. Keeping it separate works very well. Can be the same interface
sure... but do it as a separate session.
...Skeeve
-Original Message-
From: Nathan Ward [mailto:na...@daork.net]
Sent: Wednesday, 4 February 2009 12:40 PM
To: nanog list
Subject: Re: [Update] Re: New ISP to market
Nathan Ward wrote:
> On 4/02/2009, at 2:33 PM, Steve Bertrand wrote:
>
>> - Currently, (as I write), I'm migrating my entire core from IPv4 to
>> IPv6. I've got the space, and I love to learn, so I'm just lab-ing it up
>> now to see how things will flow with all iBGP v4 routes being
>> advertised/
On 4/02/2009, at 2:33 PM, Steve Bertrand wrote:
- Currently, (as I write), I'm migrating my entire core from IPv4 to
IPv6. I've got the space, and I love to learn, so I'm just lab-ing
it up
now to see how things will flow with all iBGP v4 routes being
advertised/routed over v6.
Don't adver
For all the kind folk who have been asking how my project is going, I'll
summarize here.
- I've enabled strict uRPF filtering on all interfaces that I am certain
what the source will be.
- I've implemented a mix of loose uRPF combined with ACL's on interfaces
that I know have multi-homed clients
Raoul Bhatia [IPAX] wrote:
> hello steve,
>
> Steve Bertrand wrote:
>> I've done much research on RPSL, BCP 38, and other basic filter methods
>> (and from a systems standpoint, I always follow an
>> allow,allow,default-deny approach) , and I am willing to follow all
>> standards and recommended
14 matches
Mail list logo
