On Jan 18, 2011, at 4:54 PM, Robert Bonomi wrote:
>
>> Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 01:50:40 -0800
>> From: Randy Bush
>> Subject: Re: Routing Suggestions
>>
>> i'm with jon and the static crew. brutal but simple.
>>
>> if you want no leakage,
> Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 01:50:40 -0800
> From: Randy Bush
> Subject: Re: Routing Suggestions
>
> i'm with jon and the static crew. brutal but simple.
>
> if you want no leakage, A can filter the prefix from it's upstreams, both
> can low-pref blackhole
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 8:20 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
> i'm with jon and the static crew. brutal but simple.
Depending on how the interconnect is built, using the "permanent"
keyword along with the static route may be worth investigating also if
you want the static route to stay in place, if you wi
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 8:54 AM, Dorn Hetzel wrote:
>>
>> Randy, I know my solution was right. I don't need your blessing.
>>
>> Go fuck yourself.
>>
>>
>
> It's nice to see we've really elevated the level of discourse around here :)
yea... back to the coffee urn for me!
(sometimes folks have h
On 1/14/2011 7:49 AM, Jon Lewis wrote:
My boss calls NANOG the Masters of the Universe conference.
Beats "Unruly kids with toys" conference. ;)
Jack
> My name is Joe, not jon, Randy.
congrats. but i was speaking of jon lewis.
randy
>
> Randy, I know my solution was right. I don't need your blessing.
>
> Go fuck yourself.
>
>
It's nice to see we've really elevated the level of discourse around here :)
-dorn
On Fri, 14 Jan 2011, Joe Hamelin wrote:
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 1:50 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
i'm with jon and the static crew. brutal but simple.
My name is Joe, not jon, Randy.
But what can I expect from a man that used the phrase "tell him to go
fuck himself" when I put my hand out in gre
- Original Message -
> From: "Joe Hamelin"
> To: "Randy Bush" , "NANOG list"
> Sent: Friday, January 14, 2011 6:50:05 AM
> Subject: Re: Routing Suggestions
> On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 1:50 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
> > i'm with jon and
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 1:50 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
> i'm with jon and the static crew. brutal but simple.
My name is Joe, not jon, Randy.
But what can I expect from a man that used the phrase "tell him to go
fuck himself" when I put my hand out in greeting back at Atlanta NANOG
in 2001, when y
i'm with jon and the static crew. brutal but simple.
if you want no leakage, A can filter the prefix from it's upstreams,
both can low-pref blackhole it, ...
randy
What Joe Said.
Static with 1918 space. If they NEED global space, explain 1918
space will work and tell them to use it.
-jim
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 9:02 PM, Joe Hamelin wrote:
>>> There are two companies, Company A and Company B, that are planning to
>>> continuously exchange a large amount
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011, Jon Lewis wrote:
> >Unless you'd like to ensure the sensitive traffic doesn't cross an
> >"unsafer" default rout path if the XC is down.
>
> BGP would have that same issue since B is default routing to their
> provider.
>
> [config for B]
> ip route
> ip route null0 2
>> There are two companies, Company A and Company B, that are planning to
>> continuously exchange a large amount of sensitive data and are located in a
>> mutual datacenter. They decide to order a cross connect and peer privately
>> for the obvious reasons.
Second NIC on a secure server at "A" wi
On Thu, 13 Jan 2011, Adrian Chadd wrote:
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011, Jon Lewis wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jan 2011, Jared Mauch wrote:
I suggest using one of the reserved/private BGP asns for this purpose.
ASNumber: 64512 - 65535
It sounds to me like Company B isn't doing BGP (probably has no exper
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 07:13:53PM -0500, Lars Carter wrote:
[snip]
> There are two companies, Company A and Company B, that are planning to
> continuously exchange a large amount of sensitive data and are located in a
> mutual datacenter. They decide to order a cross connect and peer privately
> f
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 07:13:53PM -0500, Lars Carter wrote:
> From an technical, operational, and security standpoint what would be the
> preferred way to route traffic between these two networks?
Static routing - at least "on" the direct link. For extra "security", you
might want to make sure th
Since it sounds like there is no alternate path, it sounds like the most
secure, simplest to operate would be static routes. It's not sexy, but no need
to toss in a routing protocol if it's such a static setup.
--Original Message--
From: Lars Carter
To: NANOG@NANOG.org
Subjec
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011, Jon Lewis wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2011, Jared Mauch wrote:
>
> >I suggest using one of the reserved/private BGP asns for this purpose.
> >
> >ASNumber: 64512 - 65535
>
> It sounds to me like Company B isn't doing BGP (probably has no experience
> with it) and if there
On 1/12/2011 4:13 PM, Lars Carter wrote:
Hi NANOG list,
I have a simple, hypothetical question regarding preferred connectivity
methods for you guys that I would like to get the hive mind opinion about.
There are two companies, Company A and Company B, that are planning to
continuously exchan
On Wed, 12 Jan 2011, Jared Mauch wrote:
I suggest using one of the reserved/private BGP asns for this purpose.
ASNumber: 64512 - 65535
It sounds to me like Company B isn't doing BGP (probably has no experience
with it) and if there's only a single prefix per side of the cross
connect,
On Jan 12, 2011, at 7:13 PM, Lars Carter wrote:
> Hi NANOG list,
>
> I have a simple, hypothetical question regarding preferred connectivity
> methods for you guys that I would like to get the hive mind opinion about.
>
>
> There are two companies, Company A and Company B ... [ trimmed, but th
Hi NANOG list,
I have a simple, hypothetical question regarding preferred connectivity
methods for you guys that I would like to get the hive mind opinion about.
There are two companies, Company A and Company B, that are planning to
continuously exchange a large amount of sensitive data and are
23 matches
Mail list logo
