On 9/21/20 6:16 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
yes, privacy is one aspect of security. and, as mpls vns are not
private sans encryption, they are not secure.
randy
As my backyard is not surrounded by a cement enclosure with acoustic
baffling and white noise generators inside, it's not really
- On Sep 21, 2020, at 6:03 PM, Bryan Fields br...@bryanfields.net wrote:
Hi,
> What's happening here is a subscription comes in from a valid email bot using
> gmail or $BIGHOST (google doesn't give af)
I'm old enough to remember the Usenet Death Penalty. That used to be pretty
effective
in
NANOGers -
ARIN 46 Registration is now open! Note that we will have the Public Policy
consultations on 14-15 October (before NANOG) and the ARIN Member Meeting
afterwards on 23 October.
Please register asap for the ARIN meeting if you will be participating!
Thanks!
/John
John Curran
On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 07:58:42AM -0500, J. Hellenthal via NANOG wrote:
> geeks@nanog works just fine
Yes, it works just fine for *that* purpose. However, *this* has a
different purpose:
Shining a light on ambulance chasers - Noction
Lol
I was thinking that if I ever need to know about *anything*, I can now just
google "srv6 nanog"
- Aaron
geeks@nanog works just fine
--
J. Hellenthal
The fact that there's a highway to Hell but only a stairway to Heaven says a
lot about anticipated traffic volume.
> On Sep 22, 2020, at 07:53, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 06:30:24PM -0600, Grant Taylor via NANOG wrote:
On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 06:30:24PM -0600, Grant Taylor via NANOG wrote:
> Is this simply being aggregated by a NANOG member / subscriber and thus
> something unofficial?
That's exactly right. Whether NANOG itself ever wants to do anything
with the results is entirely up to them.
---rsk
> On Sep 22, 2020, at 4:46 AM, Andy Davidson wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Douglas Fisher wrote:
>> B) There is any other alternative to that?
>
> Don't connect to IXPs with very very large and complicated topologies.
> Connect to local IXPs where the design makes a forwarding plane failure that
>
Hi,
Douglas Fisher wrote:
> B) There is any other alternative to that?
Don't connect to IXPs with very very large and complicated topologies. Connect
to local IXPs where the design makes a forwarding plane failure that causes the
problem you describe less likely.
Andy
On 22/Sep/20 00:06, Greg Shepherd wrote:
Call me old, but I miss the days when this thread was still on the SRv6 rails.
Can we get back the proper bashing to match this thread title?
Probably not off-topic, since vendors may push SRv6 as a(n) (MPLS) VPN
replacement and new money-maker
10 matches
Mail list logo
