* Baldur Norddahl
> What is best practice regarding choosing MTU on transit links?
>
> Until now we have used the default of 1500 bytes. I now have a
> project were we peer directly with another small ISP. However we need
> a backup so we figured a GRE tunnel on a common IP transit carrier
> woul
RFC 6177:
This document obsoletes RFC 3177, updating its recommendations in the
following ways:
1) It is no longer recommended that /128s be given out. While
there may be some cases where assigning only a single address
may be justified, a site, by definition, impli
On 23 July 2016 at 10:28, Tore Anderson wrote:
> * Baldur Norddahl
>
> > What is best practice regarding choosing MTU on transit links?
> >
> > Until now we have used the default of 1500 bytes. I now have a
> > project were we peer directly with another small ISP. However we need
> > a backup so
* Baldur Norddahl
> I did not say we were doing internet peering...
Uhm. When you say that you peer with another ISP (and keep in mind what
the "I" in ISP stands for), while giving no further details, then folks
are going to assume that you're talking about a standard eBGP peering
with inet/inet6
On 23/Jul/16 13:32, Tore Anderson wrote:
>
> That said, I've never tried extending our MPLS backbone outside of
> our own administrative domain or autonomous system. That sounds like a
> really scary prospect to me, but I'll admit I've never given serious
> consideration to such an arrangement b
I was hoping someone can help me confirm my research. I am correct that
domains are now limited to 67 characters in length including the extension?
Cheers
Ryan
I would consult RFC1035 for the label sizes, but the total length can include
multiple labels up to 255 in length. Check section 2.3.4
Jared Mauch
> On Jul 23, 2016, at 8:31 AM, Ryan Finnesey wrote:
>
> I was hoping someone can help me confirm my research. I am correct that
> domains are now
On Sat, Jul 23, 2016 at 08:35:57AM -0400,
Jared Mauch wrote
a message of 12 lines which said:
> I would consult RFC1035 for the label sizes, but the total length
> can include multiple labels up to 255 in length. Check section 2.3.4
On another mailing list, Marc Blanchet noticed the limit in
On Sat, Jul 23, 2016 at 7:31 AM, Ryan Finnesey wrote:
> I was hoping someone can help me confirm my research. I am correct that
> domains are now limited to 67 characters in length including the extension?
>
RFC1035; A hostname / FQDN cannot exceed 255 octets in totality.
This includes all the
On Sat, Jul 23, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
> In addition, the string component of each DNS label is limited to 63 octets.
This is a hard limit in the DNS packet format. In the packet, the dots
are replaced by either:
1 byte whose high two bits are 0 and whose low six bits are the length
On 23 July 2016 at 14:31, Ryan Finnesey wrote:
> I was hoping someone can help me confirm my research. I am correct that
> domains are now limited to 67 characters in length including the extension?
>
63 octets per label (the bits between the period separators) , 255 octets
per domain name. In
On 07/23/2016 07:07 AM, Matthew Pounsett wrote:
On 23 July 2016 at 14:31, Ryan Finnesey wrote:
I was hoping someone can help me confirm my research. I am correct that
domains are now limited to 67 characters in length including the extension?
63 octets per label (the bits between the perio
> On Jul 22, 2016, at 1:37 PM, Grzegorz Janoszka wrote:
>
> On 2016-07-22 15:57, William Herrin wrote:
>> On a link containing only routers, you can safely increase the MTU to
>> any mutually agreed value with these caveats:
>
> What I noticed a few years ago was that BGP convergence time was f
The number of wire octets is <= 255.
The number of presentation characters <= 1008 (63*4*3 + 62*4 + 4)
In message <5793c61b.4080...@dougbarton.us>, Doug Barton writes:
> On 07/23/2016 07:07 AM, Matthew Pounsett wrote:
> > On 23 July 2016 at 14:31, Ryan Finnesey wrote:
> >
> >> I was hoping someo
14 matches
Mail list logo
