Hi,
We are an enterprise that are eBGP multihoming to two ISPs. We wish to load
balance in inbound and outbound traffic thereby using our capacity as
efficiently as possible. My current feeling is that it would be crazy for us to
take a full Internet routing table from either ISP. I have read
st/inconvenience
of upgrading existing hardware.
Thanks
-Original Message-
From: Joseph Jackson [mailto:jjack...@aninetworks.net]
Sent: 31 May 2015 12:41
To: Maqbool Hashim; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: BGP Multihoming 2 providers full or partial?
Can your devices support a full ta
Thanks,
So we just need to take a decision on whether we want to pay the price for a
full routing table, whether it gives us enough value for the expenditure.
-Original Message-
From: Faisal Imtiaz [mailto:fai...@snappytelecom.net]
Sent: 31 May 2015 13:06
To: Maqbool Hashim
Cc: nanog
Just for the hardware and the planning required for migrating to new hardware
human resource etc.
-Original Message-
From: Faisal Imtiaz [mailto:fai...@snappytelecom.net]
Sent: 31 May 2015 14:01
To: Maqbool Hashim
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: BGP Multihoming 2 providers full or
First off thanks to everyone that responded to my original post, very
instructive and informational replies along with a good view of different
perspectives.
Baldur, you pointed out that for ingress it's exactly the same to take
partials, we are only affected on outbound and we can achieve a la
Hi,
I am doing some flow analysis within our network primarily for understanding
application flows to aid in network segregation activity and mainly understand
what is going on inside the network. To do this I have been using netflow
where the switches/firewalls support it. In some cases I
!
Regards,
MH
From: NANOG on behalf of Roland Dobbins
Sent: 17 June 2015 10:07
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Fkiws with destination port 0 and TCP SYN flag set
On 17 Jun 2015, at 10:44, Maqbool Hashim wrote:
> It was stated in that thread that netflow reports
collector laptop I have.
Thanks,
MH
From: Marcin Cieslak
Sent: 17 June 2015 10:30
To: Maqbool Hashim
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Fkiws with destination port 0 and TCP SYN flag set
On Wed, 17 Jun 2015, Maqbool Hashim wrote:
> It is always the sam
Hmm, no flags set in your output though?
From: Pavel Odintsov
Sent: 17 June 2015 10:44
To: Maqbool Hashim
Cc: Marcin Cieslak; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Fkiws with destination port 0 and TCP SYN flag set
Hello!
Looks like it's silly hping3 flood
RSPAN support on these switches
and no netflow :(
From: NANOG on behalf of Roland Dobbins
Sent: 17 June 2015 10:44
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Fkiws with destination port 0 and TCP SYN flag set
On 17 Jun 2015, at 11:34, Maqbool Hashim wrote:
> W
bunch of reset + ack packets being received from the destination hosts.
Regards,
MH
____
From: NANOG on behalf of Maqbool
Hashim
Sent: 17 June 2015 10:54
To: Roland Dobbins; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Fkiws with destination port 0 and TCP SYN flag set
Agre
Mark Milhollan
Sent: 17 June 2015 15:05
To: NANOG list
Subject: Re: Fkiws with destination port 0 and TCP SYN flag set
On Wed, 17 Jun 2015, Maqbool Hashim wrote:
>Finally I don't see how it could be, but be interested to hear peoples
>thoughts, no legitimate application could be
12 matches
Mail list logo
