> In many environments RA is a catastrophic disaster. Some operators need
> to be able to do everything with RA turned off on routers, disabled on
> hosts and filtered on switches.
While in some environments, typically with small number of devices,
its indispensable. Small businesses may not want
Aha, it looks that our Quebecer friends from Hostlogistic (AS46609) have again
been advertising their now famous funny aggregate with their mad Brocade
router, since yesterday 10pm UTC (that is 5pm in Quebec)...
Same route to 206.125.164.0/22, same AGGREGATOR attribute full of 0.
At least I can
I am trying to set up BGP peering with a route-server, concurrently dual-stack.
BGP 4 over an IPv4 connection works fine. A separate BGP 6 over IPv6 fails:
with an "[Error] No common capability".
I am using quagga 0.99.20 on ubuntu 10.04.03. I don't know what the
route-server is.
I have t
On 12/21/2011 11:28 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 1:27 AM, Ravi Duggal wrote:
>> We thus have draft-droms-dhc-dhcpv6-default-router-00 that extends
>> DHCPv6 to do what RA does. And now, we have
>> draft-bcd-6man-ntp-server-ra-opt-00.txt that extends RA to advertise
>> the NT
On 12/21/2011 3:22 PM, David Swafford wrote:
> In my position within the enterprise vertical, backdating to the
> expiration (not the payment date) seems to be the norm. Cisco does
> this on SmartNet, as does SolarWinds and a number of other vendors
> I've worked with. We don't typically slip on
This particular product is often used by the SMB types. This changes
things a bit. While I disagree with paying for signature updates you
didn't use (It's a service, and I don't care about their fixed costs, I
went into it knowing I'd have a license for the signatures as they were
expired), I do
Olivier,
Thanks!
We've done our best to provide the fix ASAP.
Regards,
Jeff
-Original Message-
From: Olivier Benghozi [mailto:olivier.bengh...@wifirst.fr]
Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2011 5:20 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Cc: Alexandre Snarskii; Jeff Tantsura
Subject: Re: bgp update destroyin
In a message written on Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 12:26:56PM -0600, PC wrote:
> This particular product is often used by the SMB types. This changes
> things a bit. While I disagree with paying for signature updates you
> didn't use (It's a service, and I don't care about their fixed costs, I
> went i
On 12/22/2011 10:47 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
In a message written on Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 12:26:56PM -0600, PC wrote:
This particular product is often used by the SMB types. This changes
things a bit. While I disagree with paying for signature updates you
didn't use (It's a service, and I don't
In a message written on Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 10:54:55AM -0800, Michael Thomas
wrote:
> At that point why should they sell iron at all? Seems like you get
> all of the downside of owning the iron, and all of the downside of
> paying for a cloud based service. Either you own what you own,
> or you p
On Thu, 22 Dec 2011, Michael Thomas wrote:
At that point why should they sell iron at all? Seems like you get
all of the downside of owning the iron, and all of the downside of
paying for a cloud based service. Either you own what you own,
or you pay for service that somebody else provides. This
On 12/22/2011 11:07 AM, Jon Lewis wrote:
On Thu, 22 Dec 2011, Michael Thomas wrote:
At that point why should they sell iron at all? Seems like you get
all of the downside of owning the iron, and all of the downside of
paying for a cloud based service. Either you own what you own,
or you pay for
The goal of what I am doing is to test some network convergence impact
in a lab with two PCs with windows (Can't run Linux, it would be
easier if I could) and switches and/or routers in between.
So, I thought there must be some simple utility out there that can
just start spewing out UDP packets t
d-itg works very well.
http://www.grid.unina.it/software/ITG/index.php you can create
reports of loss/jitter etc. windows and qos don't work so don't try
setting qos values as they will just be reset to 0 by the windows
tcp/ip stack.
james
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 10:28 PM, Jay Nakamura wrote:
> The goal of what I am doing is to test some network convergence impact
> in a lab with two PCs with windows (Can't run Linux, it would be
> easier if I could) and switches and/or routers in between.
>
> So, I thought there must be some simpl
iperf might be able to do what you need and there are Windows builds available,
but I'm not sure if it has a mode where it's not flooding the network trying to
test maximum speed. Is there a reason that standard ICMP pings aren't
appropriate if you just want packet loss info? Obviously every p
Hi,
On 12/21/11 9:40 PM, Ray Soucy wrote:
> I'm afraid you're about 10 years too late for this opinion to make
> much difference. ;-)
My opinion is that there is never too late to make thinks easier to
implement and operate, specially in situation when things are
unnecessary complicated. I do not
Hi,
On 12/22/11 12:04 AM, Michael Sinatra wrote:
> On 12/21/11 12:40, Ray Soucy wrote:
>> I'm afraid you're about 10 years too late for this opinion to make
>> much difference. ;-)
>>
>> We have been running IPv6 in production for several years (2008) as
>> well (answering this email over IPv6 now
My IPv4 and IPv6 BGP connections now get prefixes.
My thanks to those who answered on and off the list.
My revised config is like:
---
router bgp MYAS
no bgp enforce-first-as
no bgp default ipv4-unicast
network MYIPv4NET route-map SetAttr
neighbor PEERIPv6 remote-as RSAS
I can imagine plenty of circumstances where someone might want
by-protocol indications of service, rather than the relatively basic
link-test that ICMP provides.
Another vote for iperf
Mark.
On 23/12/11 08:36, Sean Harlow wrote:
> iperf might be able to do what you need and there are Windo
On 12/22/2011 02:36 PM, Sean Harlow wrote:
iperf might be able to do what you need and there are Windows builds available,
but I'm not sure if it has a mode where it's not flooding the network trying to
test maximum speed. Is there a reason that standard ICMP pings aren't
appropriate if you j
On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 21:04:42 +0100, Tomas Podermanski said:
> Well, then how many devices do you have in the network that uses IPv6?
1,300+ wireless access points, 1,100+ switches, 30k+ users, around 55%
doing at least some IPv6 traffic (mostly when they hit Google).
> Do you have implemented fi
Hi,
On 12/22/11 12:18 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> The long answer is:
>>
>> I completely disagree with opinion that both DHCPv6 and RA (SLAAC)
>> should be supported. It is easy to say that both have place but it has
>> some consequences. I and my colleagues have been working on deploying
>> IPv6 fo
On 12/22/2011 04:48, Glen Kent wrote:
>> In many environments RA is a catastrophic disaster. Some operators need
>> to be able to do everything with RA turned off on routers, disabled on
>> hosts and filtered on switches.
>
> While in some environments, typically with small number of devices,
> it
On 22 December 2011 14:07, Jon Lewis wrote:
> Presumably, Barracuda's hardware is i386/i686 compatible commodity parts.
> It's probably not at all "useless". Just attach a USB DVD drive or USB
> flash drive, wipe the disk(s) and install your favorite Linux distro.
> It may take some doing to get
The vmware image is more expensive than the midrange hardware. (and you pay for
how many processors it will use, ram, features like multi domain support,
etc...)
__
Eric Esslinger
Information Services Manager - Fayetteville Public Utilities
http://www.fpu-tn.com/
(931)43
If anyone needs a per-compiled iPerf.exe, no need for cygwin libraries,
lemme know.
It's a great tool!
Ryan Pavely
Director Research And Development
Net Access Corporation
http://www.nac.net/
On 12/22/2011 3:20 PM, Larry Blunk wrote:
On 12/22/2011 02:36 PM, Sean Harlow wrote:
iper
Marshall Eubanks wrote:
Does your Mom call you up every time she gets a dialog box complaining
about an invalid certificate ?
If she has been conditioned just to click "OK" when that happens, then
she probably can't.
Everyone I have observed clicks "ok" or "confirm exception" (if I
remember t
Glen Kent wrote:
> While in some environments, typically with small number of devices,
> its indispensable. Small businesses may not want the complexity of
> setting up a central server (for DHCP) - SLAAC works very well in such
> environments.
IPv6 routers are the central servers for SLAAC with
On Dec 22, 2011, at 7:04 PM, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
> Marshall Eubanks wrote:
>> Does your Mom call you up every time she gets a dialog box complaining
>> about an invalid certificate ?
>> If she has been conditioned just to click "OK" when that happens, then
>> she probably can't.
>
> Everyone
Sent from my iPad
On Dec 23, 2011, at 3:46 AM, Tomas Podermanski wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 12/22/11 12:18 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> The long answer is:
>>>
>>> I completely disagree with opinion that both DHCPv6 and RA (SLAAC)
>>> should be supported. It is easy to say that both have place but it
On Wed, 21 Dec 2011, Tomas Podermanski wrote:
Hi,
from my perspective the short answer for this never-ending story is:
- SLAAC/RA is totally useless, does not bring any benefit at all
and should be removed from IPv6 specs
- DHCPv6 should be extended by route options as proposed in
http://
On Thu, 22 Dec 2011, Tomas Podermanski wrote:
Hi,
On 12/22/11 12:04 AM, Michael Sinatra wrote:
On 12/21/11 12:40, Ray Soucy wrote:
I'm afraid you're about 10 years too late for this opinion to make
much difference. ;-)
We have been running IPv6 in production for several years (2008) as
we
On Thu, 22 Dec 2011, Tomas Podermanski wrote:
Hi,
On 12/21/11 9:40 PM, Ray Soucy wrote:
I'm afraid you're about 10 years too late for this opinion to make
much difference. ;-)
My opinion is that there is never too late to make thinks easier to
implement and operate, specially in situation
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
Leveraging a superior bargaining position to achieve more revenue from a
kind of high-risk customer doesn't sound "dishonest" it sounds
rational.
Why would an agreement be denominated as "1 year maintenance" if it could
simply be reins
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 3:04 PM, Tomas Podermanski wrote:
> Well, then how many devices do you have in the network that uses IPv6?
Good question, and I applaud you for wanting to verify that people
talking about IPv6 have legitimate experience deploying it.
I dug into the database I log all IPv
36 matches
Mail list logo
