It’s been a while, but attacks that take advantage of this are (or at least in the past have been) real.https://blog.sucuri.net/2014/09/website-security-compromised-website-used-to-hack-home-routers.htmlhttps://www.digitaltrends.com/web/_javascript_-malware-mobile/ I recall when this stuff first
VPLS doesn't handle loop avoidance. At least, not apart from split horizon
rules.
I assume that them properly connecting routers only and doing dynamic routing
over your service is out of the question? (Even _just_ doing this doesn't
completely solve the challenge though.)
It sounds to me like
Hi Stanislav,
I believe this is what you are looking for:
[edit]
jcluser@Lothlorien-MX1# show | compare
[edit interfaces lo0 unit 0 family inet]
address 10.0.0.0/32 { ... }
+ address 5.5.5.5/32;
[edit protocols bgp]
- export IPV4-STATIC;
+ export [ IPV4-STATIC TAG-DIRECT ];
[edi
Hi Adam,
This sounds like a use case for MPLS-TE with TWAMP-Light. TWAMP-Light handles
the latency concern and can encode your measured latency in IS-IS. Juniper
docs:
https://www.juniper.net/documentation/us/en/software/junos/is-is/topics/topic-map/enable-link-delay-advertise-in-is-is.html.
Th
>> Under block chain, an RIR would not be able to revoke number> resources, not
>> even for non-payment or fraud.
>
> Okay, this would lead to a permanent loss of resources, whereas
> cryptocurrency does not have this issue.
For what it's worth, this is quite implementation specific and leaves a
> If it's technically feasible to override or roll back
transactions, you've violated one of the central tenets of block
chain.
To be clear, I did not state such. Ownership can be transferred by smart
contract. This does not violate a core tenet of blockchains and is a key
feature of almost all
6 matches
Mail list logo
