On Thu Jun 11, 2009, John van Oppen wrote:
> NTT (2914) and GBLX (3549) both do native v6... most everyone else on
> the tier1 list does tunnels. :(
AS5511 runs a double stack network for at least 7 years.
>
> There are some nice tier2 networks who do native v6, tiscali and he.net
> come to m
On Thu Jun 11, 2009, Alex Rubenstein wrote:
> > I'm aware of some (regular?) depeering issues. The NANOG archives have
>
> AFAIR, there has never been a black-holing, just disappearance of routes. If
> you are properly multihomed, this is irrelevant and you continue to eat your
> ice cream and
On Tue Aug 04, 2009, Jon Auer wrote:
> See: https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/outages/2009-August/001386.html
> I do not have a route to that IP (198.133.219.25) in BGP either..
Route is not longer in the routing table since (CET)
08/04 13:55:57 Withdraw 198.133.219.0/24>
German
pgpMuXvcWuWc
On Tue Aug 04, 2009, Steve Rossen wrote:
Route is back
08/04 13:55:57 Withdraw 198.133.219.0/24
08/04 16:04:53 Update 198.133.219.0/24
Times are CET.
German
> Missing route on Internap also.
>
> Netraft shows cisco.com went down right at 12:00GMT.
>
> http://uptime.netcraft.com/perf/graph?si
Hello,
If anyone from TeliaSonera is around please contact me off-list
Thanks
German
pgptdISWjhXk2.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Tue Feb 17, 2009, Michael Ulitskiy wrote:
Hello,
CSCee30718 – it removes the default value of bgp max-as from the router.
The solution is introduced in CSCeh13489
BGP shouldn't propogate an update w excessive AS Path > 255
Symptoms: A router may reset its Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) sessio
On Tue Feb 17, 2009, Mike Lewinski wrote:
> bgp max-as will NOT protect you from this exploit (but if you are not
> vulnerable it should prevent you from propogating it).
Are you trying to say that the receiving bgp speaker will drop the session
no matter what but it won't forward the update?
H
On Tue Feb 17, 2009, Ivan Pepelnjak wrote:
> According to publicly available bug toolkit, CSCee30718 did not touch the
> maxas limit.
I will double check this with Cisco
pgpeuQs06hcKd.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Tue Feb 17, 2009, Rodney Dunn wrote:
Hello Rodney,
It will be great if you can share with us your findings. It seems
like we are hitting different bugs in different platforms.
Thanks
German
> Ivan,
>
> It is confusing but from what I have tested you have it correct.
>
> The confusing part
9 matches
Mail list logo
