Hello Jeremy,
Le 04/07/2017 à 01:10, Jeremy Austin a écrit :
> can certainly handle a few tens of thousands of
> routes fine (single core BGP though),
It can take multiple full views. It's also faster than an MX104.
> but I can't vouch for its ability to
> do IMIX or *flow at line rate
I would
Hello,
If anyone out there could provide some input or advice on how to best
handle our upcoming leap into IPv6, it would be much appreciated. I want to
make sure we're playing nicely and not causing anyone any unnecessary grief
before we deploy. We're currently in the planning stage and can make
60 sites? Just ask for a /32.
/kc
On Fri, Jul 07, 2017 at 01:07:54PM -0400, Oliver O'Boyle said:
>Hello,
>
>If anyone out there could provide some input or advice on how to best
>handle our upcoming leap into IPv6, it would be much appreciated. I want to
>make sure we're playing nicely
On 2017-07-07 11:07, Oliver O'Boyle wrote:
We would prefer to summarize at the /42 level, announced from our last-mile
providers. There are 3 primary last-mile providers so this strategy would
help significantly reduce the number of global routes being injected. If we
split regions evenly at /42
This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet
Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan.
The posting is sent to APOPS, NANOG, AfNOG, AusNOG, SANOG, PacNOG,
MENOG, SAFNOG, SdNOG, BJNOG, CaribNOG and the RIPE Routing WG.
Daily listings are sent to bgp-st...@lists
Thanks, Jima. I'll review the slides.
Without complicating the issue, we're trying to address a number of
challenges at the same time. There's no regional backhauling at this time.
Each site will be reachable via the internal network but will also
independently announce it's assignment to its ISP(
On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 1:07 PM, Oliver O'Boyle
wrote:
> We're an end-user org and qualify for a /40 assignment because we operate
> over 60 sites and some of those are/will be multihomed.
Hi Oliver,
I second Ken's notion. You're trying to be an ISP under the end-user rules.
However transient,
Bill,
Thanks for the input. I don't consider us an isp, though i suppose i can
see how that argument could me made. Hotels are both simple and
complicated. There is a mix of our staff and equipment, guests and their
equipment, and brands with their equipment. But really it's just one
operating ent
Oliver,
I’ll mostly second what Bill has said here. However, I encourage you to actually
consider a /48 per guest room as well as a /48 per hotel for the hotel itself.
Yes, this is excessive, but IPv6 was designed with these types of excesses in
mind.
We don’t yet know the scope and breadth of
9 matches
Mail list logo
