Cisco and Arista are both able to squeeze a current full Internet table into
the base space on their Jericho boxes, using the right space partitioning.
Cisco added this in 6.1.2 without anything in the release notes, but you’ll
notice they bumped the datasheet spec on the base 5502 to 1M FIB
On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 10:11 AM, Matthew Crocker
wrote:
> I’m looking for some direction/reading list of how to properly configure
> IPv6. I’ve read to use a /64 for PtP interfaces and I’ve read use a /128
> instead.Assign all loopbacks from the same /64, use a different /64 for
> each lo
Cisco and Juniper both have working ORR implementations, although config on the
Juniper one is a bit clunky right now. One interesting thing is they also
allow feeding topology data via BGP-LS, so BGP is the only protocol you need to
run to/from it.
Phil
-Original Message-
From: NA
Hi,
> Suggest /128's for loopbacks and /124's for point to points, all from
> the same /64. This way you don't burn space needlessly, don't open
> yourself to neighbor discovery issues on point to points
I usually reserve one /64 for loopbacks, reserve a /64 per point-to-point
connection and con
Hi, a few years back some in the community got together to write this:
On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 10:11 AM, Matthew Crocker
wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I’m AS7849 and I have an IP problem.
>
> I’m running IPv4 ( /16 legacy + /20) and have enough space to last me for
> a while, multi-homed, BGP4 full tab
Oops:
http://nabcop.org/index.php/IPv6_Subnetting
On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 12:48 PM, Michael Still
wrote:
> Hi, a few years back some in the community got together to write this:
>
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 10:11 AM, Matthew Crocker <
> matt...@corp.crocker.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I’m A
On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 12:48 PM, Michael Still wrote:
> http://nabcop.org/index.php/IPv6_Subnetting
That's overall good advice. I quibble with a couple of points:
1. If you plan to use a /126 on a point to point and can't imagine how
you would use a /64 on that point to point, don't allocate a
The reason for allocating a /64 for a point to point link is due to various
denial of service attack vectors. Just do it. The numbers in IPv6 are
staggering. The generally accepted best practice is to allocate a /64 and use a
/128 within that /64 for point to point links.
Matthew Huff
I think you mean /127 since a /128 would not support 2 points on the point to
point.
Owen
> On Jan 17, 2017, at 13:07 , Matthew Huff wrote:
>
> The reason for allocating a /64 for a point to point link is due to various
> denial of service attack vectors. Just do it. The numbers in IPv6 are
On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 4:07 PM, Matthew Huff wrote:
> The reason for allocating a /64 for a point to point link is due to various
> denial of service attack vectors.
Hi Matthew,
I'm always interested in learning something new. Please explain the
DOS vectors you're referring to and how they're
On 1/17/17 1:55 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 4:07 PM, Matthew Huff wrote:
>> The reason for allocating a /64 for a point to point link is due to various
>> denial of service attack vectors.
if you mean allocating a /127, then... sure.
Neighbor discovery on point to point
Please check the nanog archives. There were some arguments that I and I assume
others felt compelling why allocating a /64 per point to point link was a good
idea. Your network, your rules. I was just responding to the argument that a
/64 is wasteful and serves little purpose.
Matthew Huf
Hi Bill,
> Op 17 jan. 2017, om 22:55 heeft William Herrin het volgende
> geschreven:
>
> I'm always interested in learning something new. Please explain the
> DOS vectors you're referring to and how they're mitigated by
> allocating a /64 to the point to point link.
One thing that comes to min
On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 2:34 PM, Robert Story wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Jan 2017 13:40:23 -0500 Martin wrote:
> MH> 2. Apply for and receive a last /22 from RIPE. EVERYONE can do this.
>
> Not quite everyone. You have to be a RIPE NCC member, which not everyone
> can do.
>
> "Who can become a Local Inter
On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 6:06 PM, Sander Steffann wrote:
> One thing that comes to mind is that it seems that some routers only have
> limited space in their routing tables for prefixes longer than a /64. If you
> would configure a /127 on the link but push the /64 to the routing table then
> yo
On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 5:13 PM, Matthew Huff wrote:
> Please check the nanog archives.
> I was just responding to the argument that a /64 is wasteful and serves
> little purpose.
Then respond. With explanation, reasoning and evidence. Telling me to
search a massive archive for nebulous discussi
So I’ve come across this on Qualys and just wondering if there’s any practical
examples out there in the wild.
I know some BIND guys are on here, so I’m sure I’m missing something from the
RFCs.
Just wanted to test this out on my play domains before putting it out in the
wild...
Sincerely,
Eri
Hi,
I have 1G Level3 ethernet dedicated internet service as one of my ISP's at my
company based in the Los Angeles (Inland Empire) area. After seeing strange
application behavior while using this circuit, I failed it out of service and
have been troubleshooting it with a directly connected mach
Greetings list,
We are exploring standardizing our Out Of Band options across our network and
various off-net locations and the question was brought up "What about carrier
hotels? What constraints might present themselves at those locations?"
Assuming each hotel we are located in can provide
Hello all!
I have been unable to find a good contact for Frontier’s NOC, so I am hoping to
have success here. I have reached out to the listed contacts in AS5650’s ARIN
record to no avail.
I am having issues reaching seemingly all IPs announced from AS5650. I am an
AT&T customer with IP block
So a quick look into this I see one potential real world example:
;; ANSWER SECTION:
google.com.129INA216.58.218.142
google.com.74411INNSns4.google.com.
google.com.74411INNSns1.google.com.
google.com.74411INNSns2.goog
On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Eric Tykwinski wrote:
> So I’ve come across this on Qualys and just wondering if there’s any
> practical examples out there in the wild.
> I know some BIND guys are on here, so I’m sure I’m missing something from the
> RFCs.
> Just wanted to test this out on my p
Hi Mark,
I'm going to throw out a guess here. By any chance, is the first octet of
your router's MAC address a 4 or a 6?
In general, modern routers do not load balance per-packet, which is what
caused out-of-order issues in days gone. Load balancing is usually done
based on a hash of the source a
Hi Mark,
I'm going to throw out a guess here. By any chance, is the first octet of
your router's MAC address a 4 or a 6?
In general, modern routers do not load balance per-packet, which is what
caused out-of-order issues in days gone. Load balancing is usually done
based on a hash of the source a
Or use up-to-date code. CAA support was added in BIND 9.8.8 (already
end of lifed), BIND 9.9.6, BIND 9.10.1 and BIND 9.11.0.
[rock:~/git/bind9] marka% dig caa google.com
;; BADCOOKIE, retrying.
; <<>> DiG 9.12.0-pre-alpha+hotspot+add-prefetch+marka <<>> caa google.com
;; global options: +cmd
;;
25 matches
Mail list logo
