Mark Tinka wrote:
I'd like to hear your proposals on how Layer 3 protocols can be better
designed to manage transport characteristics.
By not managing transport characteristics at all except
that links are on or off (or, if you want to guarantee QoS,
a little more than that).
L3 protocols kno
On 22/Jun/16 10:20, Masataka Ohta wrote:
>
> By not managing transport characteristics at all except
> that links are on or off (or, if you want to guarantee QoS,
> a little more than that).
But how do Layer 3 protocols manage transport characteristics today?
Unless I misunderstand your state
Email their NOC directly. I’ve had some success with that: g...@google.com /
n...@google.com
Also, sign up at https://isp.google.com/, there’s an option there to provide a
self-published geo-feed for your IP space:
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-google-self-published-geofeeds-02.html
Which ma
Mark Tinka wrote:
By not managing transport characteristics at all except
that links are on or off (or, if you want to guarantee QoS,
a little more than that).
But how do Layer 3 protocols manage transport characteristics today?
Today??? You asked "can be better designed", didn't you?
And,
On 22/Jun/16 11:58, Masataka Ohta wrote:
>
> Today??? You asked "can be better designed", didn't you?
But IP does not manage transport characteristics. If packets can't get
through, they are dropped. Fairly simple.
Typical awareness about the transport layer is not normally privy to IP.
Yes,
I know I had very sparse information. Apparently frontier was having some sort
of transport issue in Pennsylvania. This from their NOC.
Mark Tinka wrote:
Typical awareness about the transport layer is not normally privy to IP.
Yes, IPoDWDM means the visbility is there, but really, all it's doing is
cutting off a link just before the thresholds are met, to avoid packet loss.
What? "the visibility is there"?
I think you mean IP
The following servers for Alexa top 1M names incorrectly return
BADVERS to a DNS query with a EDNS option.
BADVERS is supposed to be used for EDNS version negotiation not
because you see a EDNS option. Please contact your nameserver
vendor for a fix.
This error will result in DNS validation fai
On 22/Jun/16 13:17, Masataka Ohta wrote:
>
> What? "the visibility is there"?
>
> I think you mean IPoDWDM something so much different from
> usual ways to have IP over something.
>
> Do you have any reference to it?
I said "visbility" due to what IPoDWDM can offer.
But I also said IP has no
It’s a problem with the miss-use of the RIR delegation of a legacy block.
The assumption that because a block is assigned to a particular RIR, all users
in that block have to be in that RIR’s territory, without actually running a
query against that RIR’s Whois database.
From: christopher.mor.
On 6/22/16 6:36 AM, Spurling, Shannon wrote:
It’s a problem with the miss-use of the RIR delegation of a legacy
block.
The assumption that because a block is assigned to a particular RIR,
all users in that block have to be in that RIR’s territory, without
actually running a query against that RI
NANOGers -
Each year, the ARIN community asks the potential nominees to the Board and
ARIN Advisory Council to complete a questionnaire of biographic information
as
well as other questions that might help folks better understand their
qualifications
and perspective. For example, the
Spurling, Shannon wrote:
> It’s a problem with the miss-use of the RIR delegation of a legacy
> block.
>
> The assumption that because a block is assigned to a particular RIR, all
> users in that block have to be in that RIR’s territory, without actually
> running a query against that RIR’s Whois
The IP and Transport groups are customers of each other. When I need
a wire, I ask the Transport group to deliver a wire. This is pretty
simple division of labor stuff. Transport has the intimate knowledge
of the layer 1 infrastructure and IP has intimate knowledge of
services. Sure there is in
The following might add some clarity, depending upon how you look at it:
We, as "core" engineers know better than to use some of the sources listed
below, tho, my suspicion is that when an engineer or local IT person, on an
edge network starts to see various types of attacks, they play wack-a-mole
I see your maxmind DB points to a right location as well as traceroute goes
to Austin.
Are you a member of their peering project? What you can see there?
Anyway, I still think that there are guys from google here that can be a
better help than me :)
Good luck.
Tom
2016-06-21 21:25 GMT+03:00 Ch
Mark Tinka wrote:
I think you mean IPoDWDM something so much different from
usual ways to have IP over something.
Do you have any reference to it?
I said "visbility" due to what IPoDWDM can offer.
But I also said IP has no real "awareness" about the physical
infrastructure. It just knows it
Has anyone setup two factor VPN using a Cisco ASA VPN solution?
What sort of soft client based dual factor authentication options were used for
the Cisco VPNs (e.g. Symantec VIP, Google authenticator, Azure authenticator,
RSA, etc.)
I am trying to find what infrastructure is needed to come up wit
Hello
I'm curious about the overall recommendation when selecting a small class
BGP router for IPv6 (with 1gig ports). We can see the current IPv4 routing
table is around 615k routes and the IPv6 routing table is sitting around
~31k routes.
In our case, we advertise a single /24 from our head offi
We have a single IP and optical group, but that’s not common at most larger
carriers. We have a fairly complex national dark fiber backbone as well as
complicated metro networks. You see a lot of vendors tout IP/optical
integration around optimization of resources, but the starting point is us
On 22/Jun/16 22:04, David Charlebois wrote:
> Hello
> I'm curious about the overall recommendation when selecting a small class
> BGP router for IPv6 (with 1gig ports). We can see the current IPv4 routing
> table is around 615k routes and the IPv6 routing table is sitting around
> ~31k routes.
>
If it’s 100% for redundancy, why not just ECMP defaults and not take a full
table?
That will allow you to use a MUCH cheaper router with a much simpler
configuration.
Owen
> On Jun 22, 2016, at 13:04 , David Charlebois wrote:
>
> Hello
> I'm curious about the overall recommendation when sele
On 23/Jun/16 08:07, Owen DeLong wrote:
> If it’s 100% for redundancy, why not just ECMP defaults and not take a full
> table?
Well, firstly, ring length may be different on either end. So you can't
always guarantee ECMP of traffic to/from the device (without much
difficulty such as MPLS-TE).
> On Jun 22, 2016, at 23:17 , Mark Tinka wrote:
>
>
>
> On 23/Jun/16 08:07, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>> If it’s 100% for redundancy, why not just ECMP defaults and not take a full
>> table?
>
> Well, firstly, ring length may be different on either end. So you can't
> always guarantee ECMP of tr
On 23/Jun/16 08:22, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Unless the difference is HUGE, you usually don’t really care.
Agree.
We are in that scenario, and mostly don't care as well. There is enough
link capacity
> Who said anything about a ring. He is advertising a /24 to 2 upstream
> providers.
Which is
> On Jun 22, 2016, at 23:32 , Mark Tinka wrote:
>
>
>
> On 23/Jun/16 08:22, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>> Unless the difference is HUGE, you usually don’t really care.
>
> Agree.
>
> We are in that scenario, and mostly don't care as well. There is enough
> link capacity
>
>
>> Who said anything
26 matches
Mail list logo
