if you have comments or feedback
- Forwarded message from "Julie N" -
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 21:34:51 +
Subject: 5350-5470 MHz
Dear Members,
As you know, we have been actively engaged in the International
Telecommunication Union's (ITU) Joint Task Group (JTG) studies to consi
Ive talked to some major peering exchanges and they refuse to take any action.
Possibly if the requests come from many peering participants it will be taken
more seriously?
> On Feb 22, 2014, at 19:23, "Peter Phaal" wrote:
>
> Brocade demonstrated how peering exchanges can selectively filter
>
On Sun, 23 Feb 2014, Chris Laffin wrote:
Ive talked to some major peering exchanges and they refuse to take any action.
Possibly if the requests come from many peering participants it will be taken
more seriously?
If only there was more focus on the BCP38 offenders who are the real root
cau
What is the business model for the IX? Unauthorized filtering of
incoming traffic risks collateral damage and outing exchange members
seems problematic.
The business model seems clearer when offering filtering as a service
to downstream networks, the effects are narrowly scoped, and members
have c
On Sun, 23 Feb 2014, Chris Laffin wrote:
> Ive talked to some major peering exchanges and they refuse to take any
> action. Possibly if the requests come from many peering participants it will
> be taken more seriously?
If only there was more focus on the BCP38 offenders who are the real root
c
> The business model seems clearer when offering filtering as a service
> to downstream networks, the effects are narrowly scoped, and members
> have control over the traffic they accept from the exchange, e.g. I
> don't want to accept NTP traffic to any destination that exceeds
> 1Gbit/s, or is so
On 23 Feb 2014, at 18:29, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
> Speaking only for myself: No. The L2 IXes I connect to should use their
> resources for packet switching, not filtering. Way too many things that
> could go wrong if we go down the filtering path…
Indeed. Most of the L2 IXes run on very “cost-
On Sun, 23 Feb 2014, Peter Phaal wrote:
What is the business model for the IX? Unauthorized filtering of
incoming traffic risks collateral damage and outing exchange members
seems problematic.
I never proposed for them to filter. I was talking about *finding out* who
are the sources of these
On Sun, 23 Feb 2014, Lukasz Bromirski wrote:
To do some additional checks would require extensive testing, platforms
capable of doing this in predictable manner (stability, performance) and
obviously - a lot more work than it costs today.
A lot of IXes already do sFlow so all the work I propo
On Feb 23, 2014, at 9:50 AM, Lukasz Bromirski wrote:
> To do some additional checks would require extensive testing, platforms
> capable of doing this in predictable manner (stability, performance)
> and obviously - a lot more work than it costs today.
What are the costs and stability impacts
Newb question ... other than retrofitting, what stands in the way of
making BCP38 a condition of peering?
Royce
On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Royce Williams wrote:
> Newb question ... other than retrofitting, what stands in the way of
> making BCP38 a condition of peering?
In other words ... if it's a problem of awareness, could upstreams
automate warning their downstreams? What about teaching RADb to
On 2/23/14, 12:11 PM, Royce Williams wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Royce Williams
> wrote:
>> Newb question ... other than retrofitting, what stands in the way of
>> making BCP38 a condition of peering?
Peering is frequently but harldy exclusively on a best effort basis,
e.g. you ag
Dear All
I released a bit of a blog article last week about filtering NTP request
traffic via packet size which might be of interest !
So far I known of an unknown tool makes a default request packet of 50 bytes in
size
ntpdos.py makes a default request packet of 60 bytes in size
ntp_monlist.py
> > What is the business model for the IX? Unauthorized filtering of
> > incoming traffic risks collateral damage and outing exchange members
> > seems problematic.
>
> I never proposed for them to filter.
What is missing is filtering at IXP not by IXP.
Most transits have blackhole communities s
> Ive talked to some major peering exchanges and they refuse to take any
> action. Possibly if the requests come from many peering participants
> it will be taken more seriously?
i have talked to fiber providers and they have refused to take action.
perhaps if requests came from hundreds of the un
On 2/21/14, 12:27 PM, Randy Carpenter wrote:
>
> OpenGear's newer stuff is Gigabit (SFP even).
>
> I've not seen any real switch made in the last decade that has a problem with
> 100Mb/s connections. Ancient cisco, maybe had issues.
>
there are a substantial number of 10Gb/s switch that cannot
17 matches
Mail list logo
