Hi,
Anyone from NetRouting NOC (AS47869) that can contact me off list please.
Not getting anywhere resolving a routing issue with your support personnel.
--
Regards,
Chris Knipe
And for those of you who you don't recognize his name, either you
aren't old enough or you haven't read enough RFCs, though his
contributions go wayyy beyond that. It is fair to say he is very
much one of the cadre of personell who quite literally built the
internet that so many of the rest now
"or you haven't read enough RFCs" so for those of us that aren't masochists
;-)
I did get my summary last year at NANOG, though.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
Midwest Internet Exchange
The Brothers WISP
- Original Message -
From: "Wayne Bouchard"
Colleagues,
I know we’re all usually running big gear, but I’ve been tasked with building
some appliances to run in the cloud as VM’s.
Looking for someone who has built on Centos 7 using IPSec and GRE tunnels.
Having an issue with GRE tunnels and trace route. That’s pulling my hair out.
If yo
Thanks to Robert McKay for the answer that fixed it.
His explanation was
> Did you forget to add ttl 255 (or similar) to the tunnel setup? By default
> the gre packets will end up with the ttl set to the same as the inside
> payload ttl so when you traceroute they won't reach the other gateway.
Hi,
I made a drawing of those two best solutions: http://i.imgur.com/7NQVgUH.png
As much as I understand, both solutions require no special changes
from "ISP C". Only advantage of solution B over solution A, that I can
see, is that at the time when link between "ISP C" and "ISP B" is up,
the traf
Assuming that there is a PNI A<->C assumes facts not in evidence.
Owen
> On Oct 19, 2016, at 11:27 AM, Martin T wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I made a drawing of those two best solutions: http://i.imgur.com/7NQVgUH.png
>
> As much as I understand, both solutions require no special changes
> from "ISP C"
Did (Netflix) find an issue?
Velocity Online
850-205-4638
On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 12:05 PM, Dave Temkin wrote:
> We (Netflix) are investigating this now.
>
> -Dave
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 12:44 PM -0500, "Velocity Lists" <
> voli...@staff.velocityonline.net> wrote:
>
> We have seen
Hi
Solution B is what happens by default and requires no changes by any
party. A, B and C just do what they would do in any transit relation.
The default BGP shortest AS path length first algorithm will make sure
that traffic is delivered correctly.
Solution A requires that ISP A actively fi
Apparently I just remembered the big transport platforms using coherent 40G and
100G and assumed there was a cheap variant, but there isn't.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
Midwest Internet Exchange
The Brothers WISP
- Original Message -
From: "Tim Durack"
True 40 gigs is rare period. Most of the time it is bandwidth limiting on a 100
gig wave.
From: NANOG on behalf of Mike Hammett
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2016 11:46 PM
To: Tim Durack
Cc: nanog list
Subject: Re: Coherent CWDM 40G QSFP
Apparently I just reme
On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 2:44 PM, Baldur Norddahl
wrote:
> Is that a real problem? In my experience a /24 is honoured almost
> universially.
>
Here's a real-world issue I ran into with this. In this case, it isn't
that someone filtered /24s, but that they didn't have a full table (peering
route
12 matches
Mail list logo
