> On the other hand, if a member provides transit, he will add its
> customer prefixes to RaDB / RIPEdb with appropriate route
> objects and the ACL will be updated accordingly. Shouldn't break there.
And that's a really nice side effect.
However in case of transit providers the problem is tha
lto:n...@foobar.org]
Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2014 2:01 PM
To: Vitkovský Adam; Jérôme Nicolle; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Filter on IXP
On 02/03/2014 12:45, Vitkovský Adam wrote:
>> On the other hand, if a member provides transit, he will add its
>> customer prefixes to RaDB / RIPEdb
Hi,
> Herro91
> Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 6:19 PM
> 1) I "think" I should be seeing MIPs in my traceroute when there is a P router
> in between the two PEs, correct?
It is a L2 form of traceroute so it will record only L2 hops configured as MIPs
or MEPs.
So in a p2p PW there are going to b
> From: Dobbins, Roland [mailto:rdobb...@arbor.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 8:06 AM
> Although it's questionable whether or not it's possible to remotely absolutely
> ascertain whether the attacking machine in question was being operated by
> miscreants unbeknownst to its actual owner.
Tho
> That Upstream B is simply "accepting everything"
> their customer is sending to them without applying proper filters, or checking
> to confirm that what their customer needs to send them should come from
> them is absolutely and unacceptably shocking!
I wonder when (or if ever) we'll have such a
> How is this good for the consumer? How is this good for the market?
You are asking a wrong question all they care about is "Where's my money"TM
adam
Sure it's a different transport protocol altogether, anyways It's interesting
to see how everybody tends to separate the IPv4 and IPv6 AFs onto a different
TCP sessions and still run the plethora of other AFs on the common v4 TCP
session, maybe apart from couple of the big folks, who can afford
> > Ideally, we would have a solution where an entire MPLS infrastructure
> > could be built without v4 space, demoting
> > v4 to a legacy application inside a VRF, but the MPLS standards wg
> > seems content with status quo.
>
> There is work ongoing in the MPLS IETF WG on identifying the gaps th
> From: Mark Tinka [mailto:mark.ti...@seacom.mu]
>
> On Tuesday, May 06, 2014 11:27:09 AM Rajiv Asati (rajiva)
> wrote:
>
> > Segment routing (SR) could/would certainly work with single-stack v6
> > and enable MPLS forwarding.
>
> Certainly, but based on the Paris meeting, it was not high up on
> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Irwin, Kevin
> Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2014 4:39 PM
> I¹m really surprised that most people have not hit this limit already,
> especially
> on the 9K¹s, as it seems Cisco has some fuzzy math when it comes to the
> 512K limit.
I would ac
> -Original Message-
> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Matthew
> Petach
> Sent: Friday, July 11, 2014 3:35 AM
>
>
> So, if Netflix had to pay additional money to get direct links to Verizon,
> you'd
> be OK paying an additional 50cents/month to cover those additi
It looks great though I would not want to troubleshoot the RIB to FIB
programing errors unless there's a note somewhere saying what abbreviation to
search for in FIB.
The other think that comes to mind is that the more specifics could have
different backup next-hops programed.
adam
> From: NAN
12 matches
Mail list logo
