On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 9:53 AM Chuck Church wrote:
> for a Cisco ASA1001, there aren’t rails, but rather front and back ‘ears’
> you use to hit both front and back posts.
>
Front *and* back ears? I'm not sure what an ASA 1001 is (ASR?) but my
experience with these boxes is that they have a sing
On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 11:38 AM Nicolas Chabbey wrote:
>
> Are there any good reasons of using proprietary FHRPs like HSRP and GLBP
> over VRRP ?
HSRP has an potential advantage over VRRP in that HSRP speakers keep
track of groups (virtual gateway clusters) in which they do not
participate.
The
Lots of references to static IPs from cellular providers for OoB access in
this thread. Why? It seems like a dial-home scheme is an obvious solution
here, whether it's Opengear's Lighthouse product, openvpn, or whatever...
Do you all have a security directive that demands whitelisted IP addresses?
On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
>
> - Original Message -
> > From: "Chris Marget"
>
> > You [I] said:
> >
> > > It is OK for an enterprise wifi system to make this sort of attack
> > > *on rogue APs w
There are some unfortunate limitations in classifying incoming traffic.
It's been a while, but I think the rule is that Nexus 2000 devices can only
classify based on incoming 802.1p cos values.
It's a pretty strange and disappointing limitation for an edge device where
you're less likely to have
I recently discovered that my routers weren't generating ICMP Type 3 Code 4
(unreachable, DF-bit) messages in response to too-big IPv4 multicast
packets with DF=1.
At first, I thought this was a bug, but then learned that RFCs 1112, 1122
and 1812 all specify that ICMP unreachables not be sent in r
On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 12:37 PM, wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 12:12:16 -0400, Chris Marget said:
>
> > At first, I thought this was a bug, but then learned that RFCs 1112, 1122
> > and 1812 all specify that ICMP unreachables not be sent in response to
> > multicast packe
>> I'll probably come around, but I've not yet concluded that "screw it,
>> fragment my traffic, I don't care" is the stance that a conscientious
>> application should be taking.
>
> Don't you care, for routers, generating ICMP PTB is as burdensome
> as generating fragments?
I don't think so. If P
> > It's not as obvious to me as it is to you. I mean, v6 *requires* exactly
> > this behavior, so it can't be all that bad, can it?
>
> ICMP replies to multicast packets can cause ICMP "implosion". This is
> not a new discussion - see for instance
>
> http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2012-
On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 8:55 PM, Masataka Ohta
wrote:
> Chris Marget wrote:
>>>> I'll probably come around, but I've not yet concluded that "screw it,
>>>> fragment my traffic, I don't care" is the stance that a conscientious
>>>> a
On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 4:09 PM, Graham Johnston
wrote:
> We are planning a migration from Rapid PVST+ to Multiple Spanning Tree to
> better support a mixed vendor environment. My question today is about MST
> Instance 0. In practice do you map any VLANs there other than VLAN 1?
I'd hoped to
200.10.150.169 is reachable from AS2828 and from AS20115, but not from
AS22394 (Verizon Wireless)
On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Brandon Galbraith <
brandon.galbra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Site appears up and available, over Comcast Business fiber and Cogent from
> Chicago (using Chrome 28).
>
>
12 matches
Mail list logo
