> -Original Message-
> From: Christopher Morrow [mailto:morrowc.li...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 5:07 PM
> To: Paul Ferguson
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Route table prefix monitoring
>
> On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 4:59 PM, Paul Ferguson
> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Sep 4
I can tell you one reason IS-IS has been traditionally preferred over OSPFv2 is
due to it's use of TLVs, which makes IS-IS highly extensible and easy to
support new features. I remember when we first rolled out MPLS code on our
core routers at UUnet, support for traffic engineering extensions m
> -Original Message-
> From: Cord MacLeod [mailto:cordmacl...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, September 11, 2009 9:50 PM
> To: North American Network Operators Group
> Subject: Re: OSPF vs IS-IS vs PrivateAS eBGP
>
> I'd also add that ISIS supports IPv6 through the addition of TLVs
> whereas OS
This is considered a normal and accepted practice, and there are many companies
out there that do just this sort of thing. From the perpective of everyone
else outside your AS everything will be perfectly fine. The only thing you'll
need to be aware of is that your islands will not be able to
I don't know if you want to arbitrarily use local-pref and AS-Path prepend in a
one-size-fits-all approach, as under certain scenarios it might be more
beneficial to route traffic between POPs to take advantage of routes via
shortest AS Path or other constraints. Why not just extend your IGP ac
> -Original Message-
> From: Vasil Kolev [mailto:va...@ludost.net]
>
> What I need is something that can handle something like 24 10gbit ports
> - 10-12 to switches with the serving equipment (each one of them
> pushing around 8-9Gbit) and on the other side connected to a few ISPs,
> some
Donw here in Northern Virgina. GMAIL for Mobile is not working as well.
Stefan Fouant
Neustar, Inc. / Principal Engineer
46000 Center Oak Plaza Sterling, VA 20166
Office: +1.571.434.5656 ▫ Mobile: +1.202.210.2075 ▫ GPG ID: 0xB5E3803D ▫
stefan.fou...@neustar.biz
- Original Message -
Fro
Folks,
Any Global Crossing SOC folks here? We've had a simple DoS attack
targeting one of our nodes connected to Global Crossing but have
literally spent 3 hours on the phone with Global Crossing support
attempting to get someone with a clue as to how to implement a simple
ACL on their edge ro
> -Original Message-
> From: Tuc at T-B-O-H [mailto:m...@t-b-o-h.net]
> Subject: DDOS - How much is "too much"?
>
> Maybe I've been out of the running my larger Managed Server
> Hosting Company too long, but wasn't the "non-elegant" solutions
> something ISPs just "did"? Was it only
.
Principal Network Engineer
46000 Center Oak Plaza Sterling, VA 20166
[ T ] +1 571 434 5656 [ M ] +1 202 210 2075
[ E ] stefan.fou...@neustar.biz [ W ] www.neustar.biz
From: Josh Potter [mailto:joshpot...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:45 PM
To: Fouant, Stefan
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> -Original Message-
> From: J. Oquendo [mailto:s...@infiltrated.net]
> Subject: Re: Global Crossing SOC
>
> only one who has thought about this. Maybe NAP's and NSP's can
> place contact information somewhere for those with a specific
> need to contact those with direct knowledge.
I thin
> Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 4:01 PM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Global Crossing SOC
>
> On Wed, 17 Dec 2008, Fouant, Stefan wrote:
>
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: J. Oquendo [mailto:s...@infiltrated.net]
> > > Subject: Re
Is anybody still using this stuff? I would have thought most of that gear was
relegated to the junk yard, but apparently not.
Seriously though it's been a lng time, but at one point I was pretty good
configuring and designing networks with the ASX-1200s and the ASX-4000 devices.
I might ev
Any good clueful network Engineers from Equinix on-list? If so, please
contact me off-line as I noticed some oddball network behavior at some
of your peering points.
Regards,
Stefan Fouant: NeuStar, Inc.
Principal Network Engineer
46000 Center Oak Plaza Sterling, VA 20166
[ T ] +1 571 434 5656
na...@bakker.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 12:17 PM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Equinix contact
>
> * stefan.fou...@neustar.biz (Fouant, Stefan) [Wed 08 Apr 2009, 17:04
> CEST]:
> >Any good clueful network Engineers from Equinix on-list? If so,
> plea
Hi folks,
I am trying to compile data on which providers are currently supporting
BGP Flowspec at their edge, if there are any at all. The few providers
I've reached out to have indicated they do not support this and have no
intention of supporting this any time in the near future. I'm also
curi
Hi folks,
I am trying to compile data on which providers are currently supporting
BGP Flowspec at their edge, if there are any at all. The few providers
I've reached out to have indicated they do not support this and have no
intention of supporting this any time in the near future. I'm also
curi
> -Original Message-
> From: Jared Mauch [mailto:ja...@puck.nether.net]
> >> Can you name 3 major vendors who support it? I suspect more
> >> providers would
> >
> > juniper... and when they dropped the IPR stuff other vendors
> basically
> > walked away :(
>
> Causing consultations with
> -Original Message-
> From: Jack Bates [mailto:jba...@brightok.net]
>
> Given that the networks are duplicates, there's no requirement that
> one part of the AS needs to receive routes from the other part of the
> AS. For management and such of the devices, I presume there are
> separat
Hi folks,
Wondering if there is a good repository of information somewhere which
outlines the various major ISPs routing policies such as default
local-pref treatment for customers vs. peers, handling of MED, allowed
prefix-lengths from customers, etc. or would one have to contact each
ISP
> -Original Message-
> From: Eric Van Tol [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 5:56 PM
> To: Fouant, Stefan; nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: RE: Routing Policy Information
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Fouant, Stefan [mai
The problem with the Adtech and the Router Tester and other similar routing
protocol generation tools is while they are good at generating a lot of routes
and helping to test routing protocol scalability, they usually just send the
routes in the configured range in a contiguous, non-randomized f
Is there something going on In Verio's backbone this afternoon? It seems I am
getting excessive latency between two of my sites which are directly connected
through AS 2914:
rtrpxny> traceroute 140.174.21.x as-number-lookup
traceroute to 140.174.21.x (140.174.21.x), 30 hops max, 40 byte p
Topology and setup of these kinds of tests largely depend on whether you are
testing iBGP or eBGP. In my experience, eBGP testing is fairly straight forward
as you are almost always testing reconvergence of the BGP next-hop. iBGP
testing scenarios on the other hand can be quite a bit more compl
24 matches
Mail list logo
