> However, a good engineer would know there are drawbacks to next-hop-self,
> in particular it slows convergence in a number of situations.
> There are networks where fast convergence is more important than route
> scaling, and thus the traditional design of BGP next-hops being edge
interfaces,
> But hey, I get why ISP's don't want to offer 9K MTU clean paths end to
end.
> Customers could then buy a VPN appliance and manage their own VPN's
> with no vendor lock-in. MPLS VPN revenues would tumble, and customers
> would move more fluidly between providers. That's terrible if you're an
> Actually, it would be nice if someone who writes security software
> like NOD32 or Malwarebytes, or spybot, adaware, etc, would
> integrate it into their test suite. Then you get the thousands of
> users from them added to the results.
I have just sent an email to ESET promoting participatio
So is it recommended now to go over all the NGN core routers and restore them
to default with: no lawful-intercept disable cmd? :)
adam
>"CMP" this is what we need.
+1000
> Run MPLS over these four boxes and build L2 pseudowires across
Using link bundling and one router at each end has faster convergence and
it's cheaper, you can do l2tpv3 if you can't have mpls
adam
And for fun you can also do:
Ethernet over PBB to VPLS
Ethernet over PBB over VPLS -that's actually called EVPN
adam
-Original Message-
From: Fabien Delmotte [mailto:fdelmot...@mac.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 4:07 PM
To: Scott Helms
Cc: NANOG; Abzal Sembay
Subject: Re: Metro E
Can't find any statement whether the nifty proclaimed 400G wavelength is indeed
a single 100GHz channel or just a bundled supper channel
The only hint is the total capacity of a fiber of 17.6 Tbps with 44 wavelengths
which is roughly the whole 100GHz spaced grid
adam
-Original Message-
> > to watch the latest Quad-HD movie
>"Multicast"
-I'm afraid it has to be unicast so that people can pause/resume anytime
they need to go... well you know what I mean
adam
> Works fine too with multicast, for instance with FuzzyCast:
Well yes but you need to make some compromises on behalf of user experience.
And 30sec delay is unacceptable.
You can use 10 cheaper VOD servers closer to eyeballs making it 1000
customers abusing the particular portion of the local ac
>The only time real-time per se matters is if you're playing the same content
>on multiple screens and *synchronization* matters.
And there's the HFT where "real-time" really does matter :)
adam
I don't see a need for multicast to work in Internet scale, ever.
adam
-Original Message-
From: Saku Ytti [mailto:s...@ytti.fi]
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2013 6:02 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: The 100 Gbit/s problem in your network
On (2013-02-08 14:15 +), Aled Morris wrote:
> Multicast is dead. Feel free to disagree. :-)
>
> Tim:>
>
Multicast will never be dead.
With ever raising bandwidth needs we'll always welcome a distribution method
that allows us to pass the same data least times over the least number of
links.
We all remember the spikes in BW demands when th
> From my point of view, outages are caused by:
> 1) operator
> 2) software defect
> 3) hardware defect
>From my experience now days the likelihood of an outage as a result of 3) is
magnitude less than 2) and same goes for 2) to 1) ratio.
In other words the vast majority of the outages are caused
Hi
1) control plane (route reflectors )
- you can either run a separate control plane infrastructure for inet vrf or
you can use common RRs that depends on your hardware capabilities (or you
can run a separate BGP process for reflecting inet vrf).
- no need to worry about data-plane as VPN rout
There's some fundamental misunderstanding here.
By default with vpnv4 and vpnv6 address-familie there's next hop self set by
the PE.
Local-Repair and label-retention was around many years before PIC came
along.
It worked nicely with eibgp multipath and allowed the primary PE to work
around the
>Indeed, in many cases, why aren't these things an external, separately rack
mountable box with simply an interconnect to speak to the control plane?
You mean like CRS multi-chassis systems?
adam
> If you are doing strict BGP prefix-filter, it's either very easy to
generate ACL while at it
Yes and that is exactly what needs to become a habit for all the operators.
We all do care what our neighbors advertise to us or what prefixes we accept
from them.
But only a few really do care whether
ss") maybe comfortability of operators.
adam
-Original Message-
From: wher...@gmail.com [mailto:wher...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of William
Herrin
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 2:43 PM
To: Adam Vitkovsky
Cc: Saku Ytti; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: BCP38 - Internet Death Penalty
On Thu,
> If the best route you pick for the customer's advertisement goes to your
upstream instead of your customer, you won't advertise it to your peer.
> And if your customer sets a BGP community defined to mean "don't advertise
to peers" then you won't advertise it to the peer.
> Yet they may well tr
First of all I agree with Leo that not advertising IX prefixes permanently
causes more problems than it solves.
> Even if the exchange does not advertise the exchange LAN, it's probably
the case that it is in the IGP (or at least IBGP) of everyone connected to
it
Well if I would peer with such
> The older school of thought was to put all of the edge interfaces into the
IGP, and then carry all of the external routes in BGP.
I thought people where doing it because IGP converged faster than iBGP and
in case of an external link failure the ingress PE was informed via IGP that
it has to find
Well CFM and Ethernet LMI is great help in L2VPN services to pin point the
failed portion of the L2 circuit.
For L3VPN services I rather relay on BFD over PE-CE link and BGP PIC Edge in
the backbone to achieve fast convergence.
adam
-Original Message-
From: Nick Hilliard [mailto:n...@foobar.org]
Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 8:21 PM
> From a deployment point of view, there's a pretty big gap between poking
around with rpki and actually dropping prefixes on your routers. I don't
see that the rpki data will be good enoug
Maybe we should try poetry,
Human, you tied the soul,
You will not behold joy if you break down that wall,
So why the leaving beam is calling you,
Brick by brick, slowly one by one, ...
hoping to at least catch a glimpse of ray.
Translated from:
Kingmaker
(Life ... in a nest of copper)
By:
CBT Nuggets is just a quick overview of what you need to read and lab
through in order to know your stuff
adam
-Original Message-
From: Ryan Burtch [mailto:rburt...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 3:21 PM
To: Jonathan Rogers
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: CBT Nuggets streaming
Right the :::: sounds familiar
I guess there was also an option that the P router would just label switch
the packet towards the exit PE and the PE would than originate the ICMP back
to source
Or you can turn off TTL propagation across the core -so the ICMP could only
time out at the PEs
adam
No, not ever shorter under-see cables no. NEUTRINOS -shooting information
at speed of light right through the earth (not around it)
Should there be any high speed traders in here this is what you should
invest all your money in to gain advantage against your competition
First it was cold war time
I'm wondering what would be the sane default MAC limit per VPLS domain as
well as per port assuming the RSP can hold up to 512K MAC addresses please?
I believe the answer would partly depend on the business model (like I can
start with 2 MACs per port and 50 per domain and have customers to pay ext
>Does anyone make a cheaper OC3 circuit emulation module or box?
Maybe Cisco ME 3600X 24CX Switch or Cisco ASR 903 Router
adam
Hi
Are there any best common practices for the CFM levels use
Since my pure Ethernet aggregation layers are small I believe I only need
two CFM levels
I plan on using Level 5 between CPEs managed by us and Level 4 between
Aggregation devices -that's where MPLS PWs kicks in
So leaving Level 7 and L
Y.1731
performance management?
Jonathon
> -----Original Message-
> From: Adam Vitkovsky [mailto:adam.vitkov...@swan.sk]
> Sent: Wednesday, 26 September 2012 9:29 p.m.
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Ethernet OAM BCPs Please are there any yet???
>
> Hi
> Are there any
I was wondering whether you have some experience with setting of the next
hop tracking delay value for BGP to 0 for critical changes please
There's gonna be only a few prefixes registered with BGP so far, around 150+
adam
It might be some T1 muxing issue
adam
-Original Message-
From: Mikeal Clark [mailto:mikeal.cl...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2012 8:35 PM
To: Jared Mauch
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: MPLS acceptable latency?
The location in question is 7 T1s. They were not willing to giv
>From the latest csco prime presentation it appears it offers similar
functionality in one of the modules that one can buy to it so that providers
can have a sneak peak on these type of data in order to sell them to third
parties
Though I wouldn't even know whom to sell such information
Nor have I
For some providers this might be an interesting revenue stream in these days
where we need to build ever faster backbones to carry more and more video
traffic for users that want to pay less and less for high-speed internet
connectivity
adam
-Original Message-
From: Adam Vitkovsky
Hey!
New message, please read <http://widegrins.com/children.php?p2s>
adam vitkovsky
>Happily, none of the companies listed are transport networks:
I believe it's logical that government turned to biggest US based ISPs with
request to help monitoring communication channels after 2001 events, as back in
those days facebook was not around and google was not as prevalent.
But to b
> How would you tap a few TBit/s so that you can filter it down to where you
can look it at layer 7 in ASICs, and filter out something to a more
manageable data rate?
Well "lawful-intercept" is on by default.
And you don't get to worry about the L7 and filtering/parsing -that's done
by the black b
> neighbor a.b.c.d allowas-in route-map SAFETY
Wow this would be so cool, I'll definitely mention this to our SE.
I was wondering if the internet service is realized as MPLS VRF than the ISP
could do as-override which is pretty standard for VPN services.
What I'm curious about is the percentage
> route reflectors should be in the data plane, ...
I believe in modern networks data-plane and control-plane(s) should be
separated as it provides for great scalability and versatility the drawback
of course is a more complex system to manage.
adam
-Original Message-
From: Randy Bush [mailto:ra...@psg.com]
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2013 2:32 PM
To: Adam Vitkovsky
Cc: 'John van Oppen'; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Multihop eBGP peering or VPN based eBGP peering
>>> route reflectors should be in the data plane,
42 matches
Mail list logo
