Joel, Glen,
Le 24/09/2011 03:18, Joel Maslak a écrit :
> Protection against learning a bad default route through whatever
> routing protocol they are learning, since these two routes would
> be more specific than any typical default route. They probably
> got burned learning a default route.
Ha
On Sep 25, 2011, at 3:37 AM, Tom Storey wrote:
> I found I had to do this many years ago on some Cisco routers to get them to
> load balance (per packet) across two links. Adding 0.0.0.0/0 routes across
> both links just resulted in traffic routing across one link. Broke it into
> two /1's per li
I found I had to do this many years ago on some Cisco routers to get them to
load balance (per packet) across two links. Adding 0.0.0.0/0 routes across
both links just resulted in traffic routing across one link. Broke it into
two /1's per link and it worked perfectly.
On 24 September 2011 02:12,
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 8:57 PM, jim deleskie wrote:
> Wouldn't it make more sense to filter in bound default? or use a single
> static default if you where worried about that?
Yes, the aesthetics of using a "/1 route" for that purpose are very poor.
Don't implement design objectives using s
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 9:57 PM, jim deleskie wrote:
> Wouldn't it make more sense to filter in bound default? or use a single
> static default if you where worried about that?
there's lots of smarter things you COULD do :) this, it seems to me,
is a great thing for the operations bcp folks to w
Well considering that native multicast isn't enabled end to end Internet wide,
and class E address space isn't used, it's more like half your IPv4 Internet
goes one way, and ~38% goes the other way... :-b
Stefan Fouant
JNCIE-M, JNCIE-ER, JNCIE-SEC, JNCI
Technical Trainer, Juniper Networks
Follo
On Sat, 24 Sep 2011, Glen Kent wrote:
Hi,
I have seen a few operators adding static routes like:
0.0.0.0/1 some next-hop and
128.0.0.0/1 some next-hop.
It means half the IPv4 internet goes one way. Half goes the other way.
Wouldn't it make more sense to filter in bound default? or use a single
static default if you where worried about that?
-jim
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 10:18 PM, Joel Maslak wrote:
> Protection against learning a bad default route through whatever routing
> protocol they are learning, since these
Protection against learning a bad default route through whatever routing
protocol they are learning, since these two routes would be more specific than
any typical default route. They probably got burned learning a default route.
On Sep 23, 2011, at 7:12 PM, Glen Kent wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have
Hi,
I have seen a few operators adding static routes like:
0.0.0.0/1 some next-hop and
128.0.0.0/1 some next-hop.
Why would anyone want to add such static routes? What does 0.0.0.0/1
mean. Note that the netmask is 1 and not 0.
Thanks,
Glen
10 matches
Mail list logo
