Re: [c-nsp] 10g Copper Transceivers for SPF+

On 26/05/17 15:24, Nick Cutting wrote: > I got a couple of greedy replies from traseiver vendors, but nothing > from the wise old network wizards. ProLabs were very nice to me; greed isn't really the problem - these things won't be getting made at any scale yet. > The GLC-10G-T - which seems to

[c-nsp] 10g Copper Transceivers for SPF+

I brought this up in 2015 - and they were new to market then. I got a couple of greedy replies from traseiver vendors, but nothing from the wise old network wizards. The GLC-10G-T - which seems to fool the switch into thinking it is SR , so yes I agree with the naysayers it sounds like a bad

Re: [c-nsp] Best practise/security design for BGP and OSPF

On 26 May 2017 at 14:44, wrote: Hey, > Regarding OSPF unless you are using virtual-links or sham-links, then all > messages are bound to a directly connected subnet so you can safely > implement the ttl check with 254 (one hop). This is implementation specific

Re: [c-nsp] Best practise/security design for BGP and OSPF

Hi Don't use ttl check on iBGP sessions, it doesn't add any security. Regarding OSPF unless you are using virtual-links or sham-links, then all messages are bound to a directly connected subnet so you can safely implement the ttl check with 254 (one hop). Regarding securing PE-RR iBGP