MRP and STP are configured under VLAN, same physical interface tagged
with different VLANs can participate both MRP and STP in different
VLAN, if you are asking MRP and STP under the same VLAN, that is not a
valid configuration, think about it, what if MRP wants to block an
interface but STP wants
Theoretically if both WAEs are placed inline on MPLS uplink, then it
should work -- unless WAAS code can only recognize IP/Ethernet but not
IP/MPLS/Ethernet traffic. I don't think WAAS is VRF aware and can
maintain a multi-VRF routing table.
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 8:04 AM, Frank Ho wrote:
> Hi t
What do you mean hijack? Google is peering with Moratel, if Google does not
want Moratel to advertise its routes to Moratel's peers/upstreams, then
Google should've set the correct BGP attributes in the first place.
On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 3:35 AM, Anurag Bhatia wrote:
> Another case of route hij
te:
> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 11:48 PM, Jian Gu wrote:
> > What do you mean hijack? Google is peering with Moratel, if Google does
> not
> > want Moratel to advertise its routes to Moratel's peers/upstreams, then
> > Google should've set the correct BGP attributes
lity for a
Moratel customers announce all those prefixes?
On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 9:02 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> On Nov 06, 2012, at 23:48 , Jian Gu wrote:
>
> > What do you mean hijack? Google is peering with Moratel, if Google does
> not
> > want Moratel to advertis
wrote:
> On Nov 07, 2012, at 00:07 , Jian Gu wrote:
>
> > Where did you get the idea that a Moratel customer announced a
> google-owned
> > prefix to Moratel and Moratel did not have the proper filters in place?
> > according to the blog, all google's 4 authori
18, localpref 100
AS path: 4436 3491 23947 15169 I
> to 69.22.153.1 via ge-1/0/9.0
On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 9:33 PM, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
> At 21:21 06/11/2012 -0800, Jian Gu wrote:
>
> If Google announces 8.8.8.0/24 to you and you in turn star
u when you claimed that it was a hijacking.
On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 9:45 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> On Nov 07, 2012, at 00:35 , Jian Gu wrote:
>
> > Hmm, look at this screen shot from the blog, 8.8.8.0/24 was orignated
> from
> > Google.
>
> Everyone who posted in this
You don't need
ip prefix-list NETZ seq 1000 deny 0.0.0.0/0 le 32
You can use RFC1918 space address for iBGP peering.
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 11:37 AM, Jeff Harper
wrote:
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Jared Mauch [mailto:ja...@puck.nether.net]
>> Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 1:29 PM
Wouldn't SNMP walk/get gives you what you need?
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 4:05 PM, Thomas Magill
wrote:
> I had to come up with a way to monitor average packet size on an
> interface so I wrote the following script (cisco devices). I don't know
> if anyone finds it useful, but here it is if so. A
Wouldn't simply configure source NAT on firewall 2.2.2.1 resolve the
problem gracefully? when connection requests coming in through ISP2,
source NAT the incoming traffic's source IP with IPs on firewall
inside interface, that way when server replies, firewall 2.2.2.1 will
guarantee to receive the A
>
> Regards,
>
> Ken
>
> On 27 May 2010 23:46, Jian Gu wrote:
>>
>> Wouldn't simply configure source NAT on firewall 2.2.2.1 resolve the
>> problem gracefully? when connection requests coming in through ISP2,
>> source NAT the incoming traffic's
You can run L2TPv3 (available on IOS routers) between sites, not sure
about the throughput though.
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 2:01 AM, wrote:
>
>
> On second thoughts, thinking about this I am probably looking for some
> kind of Layer2 encryption devices. This will make things a lot easier
> for
13 matches
Mail list logo
