Using BGP (Quagga) in containers is a great way to build a simulation of
your actual network. You can then test configuration changes in the
simulation before you make them in production.
You can even build this up into an automated test pipeline where new
configurations are tested in simulation b
On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 7:24 AM, Ray Soucy wrote:
> What we really need is a new method of sending data. The fact that I
> will never be able to send something from Maine to California in less
> than 15 ms is not acceptable.
>
> The speed of light is such a drag.
I propose that everyone on this
by Mike O'Dell, Scott
Bradner, and Brad Templeton. I re-read them today and was impressed
at how they have stood the test of time.
More about the book here:
http://rfchumor.com/
Order it on Amazon here:
http://www.amazon.com/o/ASIN/1573980420/tomontime-20
Tom Limoncelli
--
h
My biggest fear is that statements like this will take on a life of their own:
" I can dual stack, then I am not out of IPv4 addresses, and thus I
have no need for IPv6. If I'm out of IPv4 then I need IPv6 and I can't
dual stack." http://forum.ubnt.com/showthread.php?p=355722
Not true but it cer
Have there been studies on how much latency CGN adds to a typical
internet user? I'd also be interested in anecdotes.
I've seen theoretical predictions but by now we should have
measurements from early-world deployments.
Thanks,
Tom
--
Speaking at MacTech Conference 2012. http://mactech.com/c
On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 5:27 AM, Daniel Roesen wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 07, 2012 at 03:18:56PM -0700, Cameron Byrne wrote:
>> On Oct 7, 2012 1:48 PM, "Tom Limoncelli" wrote:
>> >
>> > Have there been studies on how much latency CGN adds to a typical
>> &
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 4:17 PM, William Pitcock
wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-07-24 at 15:50 -0400, Steven King wrote:
>> I am very curious to see how this would play with networks that
>> wouldn't support such a technology. How would you ensure communication
>> between a network that supported 33-Bit ad
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> I think you'll be in for a surprise here, too. The 4G transition is already
> underway. For the vendors where 4G means LTE, IPv6 is the native protocol and
> IPv4 requires a certain amount of hackery to operate.
>
I'm writing an article wher
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 8:29 PM, Tom Limoncelli wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> I think you'll be in for a surprise here, too. The 4G transition is already
>> underway. For the vendors where 4G means LTE, IPv6 is the native protocol
&g
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 10:51 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> There is no need for NAT in order to multiple-home. BGP is every bit as
> effective and much simpler.
>
I know a lot of small businesses with one FiOS link and one Comcast
link and I don't think they're going to be able to do BGP. Their
provi
10 matches
Mail list logo
