Re: Advice regarding Cisco/Juniper/HP

> > That's strange, I abhor the Cisco way of doing VLANs and love the > > HP/Procurve method. > > > > What do you find so irritating? > > It just feels ass backwards alot of the time, especially trunking. > That's more likely an "RTFM" problem, but the Cisco VLAN config has > always just seemed mo

Re: Vyatta as a BRAS

> Regardless of recommendations, people are using commodity server-grade SMP > hardware to run commodity OS's to get the job done, and given the people who > have chimed in here, apparently are doing it without lots of problems. The > increase on this and other lists of questions about Mikrotik

Re: Vyatta as a BRAS

> > I wasn't aware that the 7206 and M20 classified as software-based. > > I don't see why you could call it anything but a software router. The 7206 yes. The M20, no. Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sth...@nethelp.no

Re: Addressing plan exercise for our IPv6 course

> It is not about how many devices, it is about how many subnets, because you > may want to keep them isolated, for many reasons. > > It is not just about devices consuming lots of bandwidth, it is also about > many small sensors, actuators and so. I have no problems with giving the customer seve

AT&T routing problems towards www.worldspan.com?

We have problems reaching www.worldspan.com (216.113.132.22) from some locations. The common problem seems to be AT&T (AS 7018). Our AS path towards the 216.113.128.0/19 prefix is typically 3356 7018 17228 19631 Anybody else see problems here? I note that I can ping 216.113.132.22 from some lo

Re: AT&T routing problems towards www.worldspan.com?

> That host is not working for us either, but looks more like a host > problem rather then BGP problem. I have no problem getting to other > IP's in that range like 216.113.132.21 which is probably it's default > gateway. I can ping 216.113.132.21 from all the places I have tried too. So I agr

Re: Q-In-Q using M7i and CISCO Switch

> We have a client with the following situation: > > v1, v2, v3 > ---| Switch | --| Switch || > Switch|- JUNIPER M7i IQ2E - > > > Carrier offers only 3 vlans to the client. But he wants t

Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Prioritized Traffic?

> Will the provider unbundle the components so that it's feasible for a > niche vendor to sell me custom connection services? > > No? > > Then the provider doesn't get to decide. > > It's about control. As the customer, the guy with the green, I should > have it. A combination of decisions on th

Re: Software-based Border Router

> Just want to ask if anyone here had experience deploying software-based > routers to serve as perimeter / border router? How does it gauge with > hardware-based routers? Any past experiences will be very much appreciated. Software based routers (e.g. Cisco 7200 series) have been used as borde

Re: Where to buy Internet IP addresses

> We *want* things like IPv6 stateless autoconfig to work. It's a great > idea. We *want* a protocol simple enough that we don't have to deal > with stateful DHCP, we *want* something that is hard to screw up. You should be aware that this is by no means a universal viewpoint. IPv6 stateless aut

Re: Cogent input

> It's worth noting that being a v4 "tier1"/transit-free network doesn't > necessarily mean that they're the same in the v6 world. For instance, > Google appears to be a transit-free v6 network. It wouldn't surprise me > if the same is true for other big v6 players like Tinet and HE. Good point.

Re: spamhaus drop list

> Is there a competing droplist, that can be compared against Spamhaus's > droplist? That seems like an extraordinary claim, so I'm not satisfied > with the evidence provided. Is this not the best droplist? Obviously the Spamhaus DROP list should be evaluated - you should not use such lists unre

Re: IPv6 transits

> > For people trying to find the "list", check: > > http://www.sixxs.net/faq/connectivity/?faq=ipv6transit > > Since when has Level3 offered native IPv6? I nag our rep & SE's just > about every month on "when" and right now AFAIK it's still just tunnels. That's also our experience. We receive

Re: Point to Point Ethernet

> > 1. What's the point of increasing the max MTU from 9000 to 9012? If we > > want a higher MTU, why not just ask for one in the next standard? > > To me the only reason for this would be to lessen overhead on small > packets. Also, afaik standard payload MTU is 1500 for ethernet, anything > e

Re: Point to Point Ethernet

> My understanding is that 9000 is a standard for GigE and up but for > compatibility with earlier ethernets it's not the default. Your understanding is wrong. The only IEEE standard is 1500 bytes. Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sth...@nethelp.no

Re: Point to Point Ethernet

> Speaking from a personal interest, has the Point-to-Point Protocol > stopped being useful? > > After all, PPP over Sonet/SDH was specifically designed for just this case. Absolutely, and it still works great for that purpose. However, given a provider backbone with Ethernet being the underlyin

Re: [SPAM-HEADER] - Re: Point to Point Ethernet - Email has different SMTP TO: and MIME TO: fields in the email addresses

> The reality is that is an SDH/SONET backbone underlying most of these > Ethernet networks. That may be so (however, numbers for the national provider I work for do not tend to bear this out). But does it matter? People presumably use Ethernet because it is inexpensive, easily available, well kn

Re: Point to Point Ethernet

> Best case, you blow 12 bytes on IFG in gig, 20 bytes on fast-e/slow-e. As far as I know Gig and 10 Gig (with LAN PHY) are exactly the same as 10 and 100 Mbps in this respect, i.e. 8 bytes of preamble and 12 bytes of IFG. So you always have an overhead of 20 bytes, no matter what. 10 Gig with WA

Re: Point to Point Ethernet

> Prices of terrestrial SDH/SONET cards are very low for transport providers. > For customers I believe there is a greater divergenc between the Ethernet and > SONET/SDH costs. > > A strong hunch based on what clients tell me Cisco charges for SONET/SDH > interfaces. I doubt a lot of people

Re: Using CE Router for Internet and VPN services

> > Please describe all benefits and detriments of using more than /30 > > subnet on SP PE. > > Some good links will be very useful for me. > > Don't know all, but have you see the arp tables on a PE router? Have you > seen some of the crazy things devices other than routers can do on > ethernet

Re: Cisco 7600 (7609) as a core BGP router.

> > GSR is far better platform. > > Concur 100%. > --- > > I'm probably wrong, but aren't the 7600s 40Gbps per slot vs the GSR only > being 10Gbps per slot? and doesn't that mean that there should (fairly soon) > be a new version of the GSR coming that ups the slot width? It's called the CRS-1

Re: questionable email filtering policies?

> > BT outsources all of their mail to Yahoo. It actually works pretty well, > > either POP or web mail. > > so far btopenworld.com looks like bullet proof phishing drop boxes, based > on yahoo's cluefree response. How about writing to Bruce Schneier and explaining the problem? He's Chief Secur

Re: sat-3 cut?

> In other news, Nigerian Scams at an all time low this morning/afternoon. Unfortunately a lot of the Nigerian scams run out of Dutch coffee shops/internet cafes and thus won't be affected. Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sth...@nethelp.no

Re: Network Ring

> > I am in process of planning ring network to cover 15 POPs in City. > > Some technologies are chosen for consideration like SDH(Huawei), > > PVRST+(Cisco), RSTP(Zyxel), EAPS (extreme network) and MPLS(VPLS). > > The purpose is to provide L2 Ethernet connectivities from POPs to > > centra

Re: Network Ring

> Rod Beck wrote: > > What is EAPS? > > A joke of a "standard" and something to be avoided at all costs. I > would echo the last part about Extreme switches too. Disagree. I don't believe anybody would claim EAPS is a "standard" just because an RFC has been published. In any case, EAPS is worki

Re:

> I checked the MTUs on the 3550s and I am seeing the Fast E > interfaces are still showing 1500 bytes. Would increasing the MTU size > on the switches cause any harm? The 3550s are very limited with respect to MTU - the standard model can only do up to 1546 byte, while I believe the -12G model c

Re: Maximum devices in OSPF area 0

> > We are looking to deploy a greenfield MPLS network with OSPF as the IGP. > > I'm told > > OSPF areas don't play well with OSPF TED. For this reason, we are looking > > at using > > you said .. greenfield.. why use OSPF? I was thinking the same. If you run OSPF and want IPv6 some time in the

Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN

> > I point you to a fairly common Internet architecture artifact, > > the exchange point... dozens of routers sharing a common > > media for peering exchange. > > Bill, could you explain how or why ra or dhcp or dhcpv6 have any relevance > to an IXP? Being one of these "artefact" o

Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN

> > Like I said, if there's a bunch of routers announcing their presence > > and you want a DHCP option to provide guidance to a host as to which > > one to choose, that would be fine. But pointing to a potentially non- > > existing address in the hopes that there will magically be a router

Re: What DNS Is Not

> > When the conficker worms phones home to one of the 50,000 potential > > domains names it computes each day, there are a lot of IT folks out > > there that wish their local resolver would simply reject those DNS > > requests so that infected machines in their network fail to phone > > home. >

Re: What DNS Is Not

> > When the conficker worms phones home to one of the 50,000 potential > > domains names it computes each day, there are a lot of IT folks out > > there that wish their local resolver would simply reject those DNS > > requests so that infected machines in their network fail to phone > > home. > >

Unallocated prefix 100.10.10.0/24 in the DFZ via Cogent

Calling Cogent, Avantel (AS 6503) and Axtel (AS 14000): Axtel is announcing 100.10.10.0/24, which is within the 100.0.0.0/8 block, which is unallocated according to http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ I am seeing this from two of my transit providers, the common AS path is

Re: Estimate of satellite vs. Land-based traffic

> When I was working with Svalbard, Internet connectivity was through a > satellite link at about 2.5 degrees > elevation looking through a notch in the mountains. I don't think it > has changed It has. Svalbard now has undersea cable connection to the Norwegian mainland. See http://en.w

Re: can I ask mtu question

> That depends on the hardware. I've seen gear running as low as ~8k. I'd > have to consult standard, but I think the max is 10k (10240). There *is* no standard for jumbo MTU. IEEE has steadfastly refused to standardize anything bigger than 1500 bytes. Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sth...

Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

> > There are sometimes good reasons to do this, for instance to ensure > > uniqueness in the face of mergers and acquisitions. > > How does that help? If you are renumbering due to a merger, couldn't > you just agree on separate private space just as easily? It would ensure that you could get t

Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

> > > How does that help? If you are renumbering due to a merger, couldn't > > > you just agree on separate private space just as easily? > > > > It would ensure that you could get the networks to communicate, without > > IP address conflicts, *before* you started any renumbering. > > Can you ex

Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

> > Company A uses public IP block A internally. Company B uses public IP > > OK, so we start out with a bad network design then. No. We start with blocks A and B which are both properly allocated by the relevant addressing authorities. > > block B internally. Company A and B later merge, and co

Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

> What reason could you possibly have to use non RFC 1918 space on a > closed network? It's very bad practice - unfortunately I do see it done > sometimes There are sometimes good reasons to do this, for instance to ensure uniqueness in the face of mergers and acquisitions. Steinar Haug, Net

Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems

> The problem is that DHCP seemed like a good idea at the time but it > doesn't make any sense today. We know that parsing complex binary data > formats is asking for security problems. And parsing complex text data structures is better? > What we need is a simple, fast, efficient way to dist

Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems

> > I suppose you can individually configure every host to get itself > > temporary addresses from RA announcements. This isn't usually a > > good default configuration, but OS implementation already seems to > > be inconsistent on the default configuration here. So we're back to > > the IPv4 dar

Re: 3/11 (invalid or corrupt AS path)

> I am starting to see random BGP neighbor messages from multiple neighbors on > different boxes. > > %BGP-3-NOTIFICATION: received from neighbor X.X.X.X 3/11 (invalid or corrupt > AS path) 516 bytes Maybe because of this? 94.125.216.0/21*[BGP/170] 00:31:49, MED 22367, localpref 100

Re: IPv6 Confusion

> > Just how DO we get the message to the IETF that we need all the tools we > > have in v4 (DHCP, VRRP, etc) to work with RA turned off? > > You don't, because there isn't really a technical reason for turning off > RA. I'm glad to see that several of the big vendors seem to disagree with you.

Re: IPv6 Confusion

> > 2) Some end-node box with a IPv6 stack from "Joe's Software Emporium > > and > > Bait-n-Tackle" sees an RA packet, and concludes that since RA and > > DHCPv6 > > are mutually exclusive, to ignore any DHCPv6 packets it sees, and > > hilarity > > ensues. > > > They are not mutually exclus

Re: 23456 without AS4_PATH?

> Anyone else seeing this: > *> 91.196.186.0/24 62.237.167.25 0 3292 3549 15703 > 43531 23456 i > > http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4893.txt > 6. Transition >An OLD BGP speaker MUST NOT use AS_TRANS as its Autonomous System >number. Seeing it here too. On our 4-byte

Re: 23456 without AS4_PATH?

> Take a watch on this route: > > show route 195.128.231.0/24 detail > [..omitted..] > AS path: AS2 PA[5]: 39792 35320 AS_TRANS AS_TRANS 35748 > AS path: AS4 PA[4]: 35320 3.21 AS_TRANS 35748 > AS path: Merged[5]: 39792 35320 3.21 AS_TRANS 35748 I > [

Re: options for full routing table in 1 year?

> > Cisco 6500/7600 with SUP720-3BXL handles 1mil routes > > If I remember correctly, using certain function(s) like e.g. uRPF > halves this value (in FIB). Old Sup2, yes. Sup720 and related, no. Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sth...@nethelp.no

Re: BGP FlowSpec support on provider networks

> Now I realize that FlowSpec isn't a panacea, but it certainly meets some > of the requirements that many customers have today, and it gives us a > lot more flexibility over simply destination based filtering. Whether > it's FlowSpec or something else, what's it going to take to get the > vendors

Re: [ppml] too many variables

> > Of course, I think if the RE were an external 2RU PC that they sold > > for $5,000 (which is still highway robbery) ISP's might upgrade > > more than once every 10 years > > Sounds like an experiment. Anyone have a spare J M40? Since End of Service for M40s is later this year, you should

[NANOG] Did Youtube not pay their domain bill?

Did Youtube not pay their domain bill? % dig @a.gtld-servers.net. ns yotube.com yotube.com. 2D IN NSns1.parked.com. yotube.com. 2D IN NSns2.parked.com. Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ NAN

Re: [NANOG] Did Youtube not pay their domain bill?

> >Did Youtube not pay their domain bill? >^^ > > > >% dig @a.gtld-servers.net. ns yotube.com > ^ > Still early, Steinar? You're right, clearly insufficient amounts of coffee here... Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [NANOG] Did Youtube not pay their domain bill?

> Depends - It doesn't help if the DNS server is dead, but the front-end > is still advertising the routes. > > It came back to life for me a few moments ago (via Cogent) and it looks > like the routing did not change (there is a bunch of 10/8 stuff in the > traceroute). Looks like it's back h

Re: IPV6 network feeds

> > Verizon provides ipv6 connectivity according to their website. > > I mentioned this on another list, but if anybody has tried to actually > turn the words referred to above into service, I would be very happy > to hear about how they did it. > > > At&t most likely does as well. > > The l

Re: What DNS Is Not

> > Since people need to *explicitly* choose using the OpenDNS servers, I > > can hardly see how anybody's wishes are foisted on these people. > > > > If you don't like the answers you get from this (free) service, you > > can of course choose to use a different service - for instance your > > ISP'

Re: Alternatives to Cisco SFP-GE-S?

> Does anyone have any practical long term experience with third party > alternatives to the (must be made from solid gold) Cisco SFP-GE-S module > that they'd like to share with me? I suppose I could just use compatible > GLC-SX-MM instead, but I kind of want to have DOM support. There are plenty

Re: Juniper M120 Alternatives

> Having slightly lost track of what everybody is using for peering routers > these days, what is the consensus about the best alternative to Juniper M > series routers? Juniper MX series? Works great for us. Much nicer 10G prices than M120. Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sth...@nethelp.no

Re: Juniper M120 Alternatives

> I had looked briefly, does anybody here actually use them as peering > routers? I've seen a few implementations using them in the MPLS P and PE > router roles but never as border routers. We use MX series as peering routers. They work very well. Steinar Haug, AS 2116

Re: Juniper M120 Alternatives

> That's excellent news - any word on when Cisco will be back-porting these > truly useful features from XR to that platform which so many of us are still > running on (ie "traditional IOS")? Obviously not speaking for Cisco here - but as a significant customer we have had no indication that this

Re: Breaking the internet (hotels, guestnet style)

> This really should be a DHCP option which points to the authentification > server using ip addresses. This should be return to clients even > if they don't request it. Web browers could have a hot-spot button that > retrieves this option then connects using the value returned. Unfortunately, t

Re: Linux shaping packet loss

> Won't say I'm an expert with TC, but anytime I see packet loss on an > interface I always check the interface itself...10% packet loss is > pretty much what you would get if there was a duplex problem. I always > try to hard set my interfaces on both the Linux machines and Switches. Used to s

Re: Linux shaping packet loss

> The biggest problem with duplex had to do with 100mb. > > Cisco (and a lot of other companies) decided in their infinite wisdom > that at 100mb if auto-negotiation fails, to use half duplex as the > default. No, that wasn't those companies deciding to do so in their infinite wisdom. That was th

Re: news from Google

> If you aren't breaking the law, the government won't be looking for your > data, and won't ask Google/Yahoo/Bing/AltaVista or other search companies > for your data. That's an extremely naive view of how governments operate. To put it mildly. Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sth...@nethelp.

Re: Restrictions on Ethernet L2 circuits?

> > Or should the service provider implement port security and limit the > > number of MAC addresses on the access ports, forcing the customer to > > connect a router in both ends and segment their network? > > That would make the service less attractive, and also more complex to > set up and main

Re: Bonded SDSL

> Sorry that I'm coming into this thread late (I have just subscribed), > but since I see people discussing DSL with beefy upstream, I thought I > would be brave and ask: do you esteemed high-end network op folks think > that there may be anyone in the world who might be interested in bonded > SDSL

Re: Bonded SDSL

> >> Sorry that I'm coming into this thread late (I have just subscribed), > >> but since I see people discussing DSL with beefy upstream, I thought I > >> would be brave and ask: do you esteemed high-end network op folks think > >> that there may be anyone in the world who might be interested in b

Re: Bonded SDSL

> > It's being done by Actelis, Hatteras, and Zhone. More exactly SHDSL or > > similar variants. The market is being well-served. > ^ > > The highlighted sentence is precisely the difference between what they > are doing and what I am doing. The SHDSL folks seem to live in som

Re: qwest outage no notice

> We just had a qwest outage of about 2 mins at 1:41am pst. When I called > to report it I was told it was a 200+ emergency software upgrade due to > a security concern, and that we will get a notice later after the fact. > Normally we get notices in advance, even for software upgrades due to >

Re: New SPAM DOS

> I host scvrs.org on one of my servers, and, it does not have any outlook or > owa > services. For some reason, someone decided to try and send this message > out to various internet recipients: ... > Anyone seen this before? Any good techniques for combatting it? If you look more closely at t

Re: Regular Expression for IPv6 addresses

> > And now for the trick question. Is :::077.077.077.077 a legal > > mapped address and if it, does it match 077.077.077.077? > > :::0:0:0:0/96 should never ever be shown to a user, as it is > confusing (is it IPv6 or IPv4?) and does not make sense at all. > As such whatever one thinks o

Re: BFD over p2p transport links

> I'm being asked to look into using BFD over our P2P transport links. Is > anyone else doing this? Our transport links are all 10G Ethernet (LAN-PHY). > There's no alarming inside of LAN-PHY like there is in SONET. The transport > side should propagate a fiber break by stopping to send light on

Re: BFD over p2p transport links

> > We run it on most 10G backbone (LAN-PHY) links. > > Hmm. Backbone L2 transport, or fiber/wave type transport? I'd be > surprised to hear of people running it on dark-fiber-ish stuff. Both. For L2 transport through switches the usefulness is rather obvious. For WDM type transport because we're

Re: ISC DHCP server failover

> I am wondering if anyone has implemented the failover features of ISC DHCP? > And if so, how successful has failover been in your environment? Yes, some of us have implemented DHCP failover using ISC DHCP. However, you are much more likely to get answers to ISC DHCP questions if you ask on the

Re: ISC DHCP server failover

> With all due respect and acknowledgment of the tremendous contributions > of ISC and you yourself Mr. Hankins, I have to comment that failover in > isc-dhcp is broken by design because it requires the amount of > handholding and operator thinking in the event of a failure that you > explained

Re: New Linksys CPE, IPv6 ?

> What I heard at a recent (within the past six months) conference was > that "there is no customer demand for v6" so it isn't on the immediate > needs list. He said they had a lot of inquiries about v6, but to date > not having native v6 wasn't a deal breaker with anyone. Last time we renegotiat

Re: legacy /8

> > Do you have an actual example of a vendor, today, charging a higher > > license fee for IPv6 support? > > Juniper. If you want to run OSPFv3 on their layer 3 switches, you need > a quite expensive "advanced" licence. OSPFv2, on the other hand, is > included in the base licence. > > Our IPv6

Re: IPv6 Newbie

> > Can one subnet to include /127 for point to point connections? > > The best advice is to use a /64 unless you have read and understood > RFC 3627 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3627 RFC 3627 *and* the following Internet draft: http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-kohno-ipv6-prefixlen-p2p-01

Re: IPv6 Newbie

> > > > Can one subnet to include /127 for point to point connections? > > > > > > The best advice is to use a /64 unless you have read and understood > > > RFC 3627 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3627 > > > > RFC 3627 *and* the following Internet draft: > > > > http://tools.ietf.org/search/d

Re: IPv6 Newbie

> > You don't have to disable it. "Small, unknown" vendors like Cisco and > > Juniper > > I don't think you're correct. > > have IPv6 ND disabled on point to point links, and (at least > > for Juniper) there is no option to turn it on. I encourage people to verify this for themselves. Steinar

Re: quietly....

> It's a bit of a shame that people who've gotten into networking in the > last 10 to 15 years haven't studied or worked with anything more than > IPv4. They've missed out on seeing a variety of different ways to solve > the same types of problems and therefore been exposed to the various > benefit

Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN

> > The subject says it all... anyone with experience with a setup like > > this ? > > Unicast addresses must be located in at least a /64 subnet. No doubt > there are vendors which enforce this (perhaps even in the ASICs), so > deviating from this rule will result in some lock-in. The Juniper a

Re: quietly....

> I'm perfectly happy with an IPv6 network that only has rational people on it > while those who insist on NAT stay behind on IPv4. There's an inherent conflict between your wish here and the desire to bring IPv6 to the masses... Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sth...@nethelp.no

Re: IPv6 addressing for core network

> Is there a NANOG FAQ we can add this to? > > > 1- Use Public Ipv6 with /122 and do not advertise to Internet > > 2- Use Public Ipv6 with /127 and do not advertise to Internet > > The all zeros address is the all routers anycast address so on most non-Cisco > routers you can't use it, ruling

Re: IPv6 addressing for core network

> > A /127 mask is still the best way to handle real point-to-point links > > like SDH/SONET today, to avoid the ping-pong problem. Works fine with > > Cisco and Juniper, not tried with other vendors. > > I know it's immature, but I can't wait for some new hire at vendor C or > vendor J to reread

Re: IPv6 addressing for core network

> > Global scope addresses on router-to-router interfaces are necessary > > today for traceroute to work. Some ISPs are *requiring* working > > traceroute (without MPLS hiding of intermediate hops) in RFPs to > > transit providers. > > > > If you can get router ICMP handling changed such that the I

Re: IPv6 addressing for core network

> > A /127 mask is still the best way to handle real point-to-point links > > like SDH/SONET today, to avoid the ping-pong problem. Works fine with > > Cisco and Juniper, not tried with other vendors. > > > > Can you elaborate on this? What's the ping-pong problem? This has been well covered in

Re: Mac OS X 10.7, still no DHCPv6

> > Does anybody have anything neat to keep logs of what host gets what ipv6 > > address in an SLAAC environment? > > You'd have to correlate ND information in the router to some kind of > record of who has what MAC address at any given time. With SLAAC the host > doesn't "get" an IPv6 address,

Re: Mac OS X 10.7, still no DHCPv6

> In fairness, said device can do the same sort of inspection of SLAAC > traffic. It just looks at neighbor discovery messages instead of DHCP > messages. > > Any known (existing) or planned implementations of this? Steinar Haug, Nethelp consult

Re: Switch with 10 Gig and GRE support in hardware.

> Juniper MX80 does all this. 1. It's not a switch (so don't expect "switch pricing"). 2. It doesn't offer 12 x 10GE ports. And I believe this has been mentioned earlier in the same thread... Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sth...@nethelp.no

Re: Switch with 24x SFP PVLAN QinQ Layer 2

> > > Requirements are basically just 24/48 SFP ports, PVLAN and > > selective QinQ. > > > Most devices that fit the requirements are Layer 3, which pushes > > the cost > > > per port too high. ... > > The ME3600X might be more a more appropriate Cisco solution than the > > ME6

Re: Real World NAT64 deployments

> > 6to4 is handy as a toy or for experimenting, but it relies on a loose > > network of generous volunteers who, while generous, are neither > > generous nor numerous enough to support production traffic. > > Any ISP that is delivering IPv6 to their clients would be insane > to not run a 6to4 rel

Re: Internet Edge Router replacement - IPv6 route table sizeconsiderations

> > Or how they do vlan configurations. > > I have complained about that, too. With Cisco you add vlans to ports, > with Brocade you add ports to vlans. Subtle difference. You can't look > at the config and very easily see which vlans are on which ports, you > have to do something like: Extreme

Re: Why does abuse handling take so long ?

> > Why o why are isp's and hosters so ignorant in dealing with such issues > > and act like they do not care? > > they don't act like they do not care. they really *don't* care. no acting. Well now, I'd say this varies considerably. There are definitely ISPs that care and *do* work hard at reduc

Re: IPv6 Conventions

> 1) Is there a general convention about addresses for DNS servers? NTP > servers? dhcp servers? DNS server addresses should be short and easy to tape, as already mentioned. > 2) Are we tending to use different IPs for each service on a device? In many cases yes - because that makes it possible

Re: IPv6 Conventions

> >> No, the same Internet Protocol. > > > I believe he meant different IP addresses > > No, that can't be, he would have said "IP addresses". > > > and I highly recommend doing so. > > > If you do so, then you can move services around and name things independent > > of > > the actual host tha

Re: rwhois website

> I am trying to use http://www.rwhois.net/rwhois/prwhois.html to check > my rwhois server > > but it is not reachable now > > Do you know why the websie is not in existing? > > and how can i check it As somebody else answered on Nanog a couple of weeks ago, "rwhoisd is very old software that

Re: New vyatta-nsp list

> 1gige linerate: 1,9mpps > 10gige linerate: 19mpps > > and intel is proud to achieve 1,6mpps at 2 10gige cards? > I have seen higher values at pc hardware - but still not compareable to > asics. If you're going to specify line rate pps, please get the figures right. Line ra

Re: Cogent IPv6

> > You can actually use DHCPv6 to assign addresses to hosts dynamically > > on longer than /64 networks. > > > > However, you may have to go to some effort to add DHCPv6 support to > > those hosts first. > > Also, there is no prefix-length (or default router) option in DHCPv6, > so you have to c

Re: Cogent IPv6

> > Of course, just because you allocate a /112 (or shorter) in your > > database doesn't mean you have to use it. You could also allocate a > > /112 for a point-to-point link and use a /127 (e.g. addresses ::a and > > ::b). > > Please don't use /127: > > Use of /127 Prefix Length Between Router

Re: The stupidity of trying to "fix" DHCPv6

> >> DHCPv6 does not provide route information because this task is handled > >> by RA in IPv6. > > > Thankfully this silliness is in the process of being fixed, > > So where do I point out the stupidity of trying to fix this non-brokenness? Several large operators have said, repeatedly, that th

Re: The stupidity of trying to "fix" DHCPv6

> > Several large operators have said, repeatedly, that they want to use > > DHCPv6 without RA. I disagree that this is stupid. > > I wonder if it's just a "violation" of rule #1: stop thinking legacy! If having a significant infrastructure that supports IPv4 DHCP is legacy, yes then you could ar

<    1   2