On Monday, March 11, 2013 12:23:47 PM Reuben Farrelly wrote:
It would have been fantastic if we could run MPLS over
IPv6 transport instead as this would have been a totally
moot point then, but I don't think that's an option yet
:-(
Maybe with SR, we might.
Mark.
signature.asc
On Monday, March 11, 2013 02:18:39 PM Gordon Bryan wrote:
I think I'll stick with public IPs on the core,
aggerssive iACLs on ingress and the Internet in the
global table. This for me seems the simplest, most
supportable and widely deployed option.
Since there is also no current MPLS
On Sun, 10 Mar 2013, Gordon Bryan wrote:
Also, even in a completely private core, a PE still becomes exposed to
the outside world on its PE-to-CE interface when delivering Internet
services. Has anyone developed any proficient methods for locking down
these interfaces and making them
On (2013-03-10 21:44 +), Gordon Bryan wrote:
I like the concept of private addressing (core hiding being one) but having
never seen it deployed in anger I'm concerned that it might not be as simple
as it seems and may break other things. I've read that traceroute and PMTUD
are at risk
Hi,
On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 09:44:12PM +, Gordon Bryan wrote:
I like the concept of private addressing (core hiding being one) but having
never seen it deployed in anger I'm concerned that it might not be as simple
as it seems and may break other things. I've read that traceroute and
Bryan cisco_resou...@yahoo.co.uk; Cisco NSP
cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Sent: Sunday, 10 March 2013, 22:28
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Private IP in SP Core
How many upstream you planned? Size of you network?
--
With best regards,
Andrey 'sshd' Petrenko
xmmp\gtalk: andy.petrenko at gmail.com
skype
On 11/03/2013 8:52 PM, Gordon Bryan wrote:
Andrey/Andrew,
It will be a very small network to begin with - single P router,
single PE router and a number of switches for hosting. This will
hopefuly quickly scale to a dual-site configuration with two P
routers and two PE routers but even then it
Hi,
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 10:18:31AM +, Gordon Bryan wrote:
Can I ask what your thoughts are on core IP addressing? Do you have specified
global ranges for this purpose with matching iACLs or do you use another
method altogether.
We use a dedicated IPv4 /24 for all core links which
On 11/03/2013 9:43 PM, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 10:18:31AM +, Gordon Bryan wrote:
Can I ask what your thoughts are on core IP addressing? Do you have
specified global ranges for this purpose with matching iACLs or do
you use another method altogether.
We use a
On (2013-03-11 11:43 +0100), Gert Doering wrote:
What we're currently not so good at is protect the PE-CE link - the
We've solved this by not announcing the PE address of PE-CE. Occasionally
we need to announce the CE address, maybe for management purposes, maybe
for something else. Then we
Hi,
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 12:54:25PM +0200, Saku Ytti wrote:
On (2013-03-11 11:43 +0100), Gert Doering wrote:
What we're currently not so good at is protect the PE-CE link - the
We've solved this by not announcing the PE address of PE-CE. Occasionally
we need to announce the CE
-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Gert Doering
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 11:44 AM
To: Gordon Bryan
Cc: Gert Doering; Cisco NSP
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Private IP in SP Core
Hi,
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 10:18:31AM +, Gordon Bryan
Hi Group,
I'm heading towards the final stages of planning a new MPLS core network and
I'm currently stuck in two minds between public or private addressing for the
core.
I like the concept of private addressing (core hiding being one) but having
never seen it deployed in anger I'm
Sent from a mobile device
On 11/03/2013, at 8:44, Gordon Bryan cisco_resou...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Hi Group,
I'm heading towards the final stages of planning a new MPLS core network and
I'm currently stuck in two minds between public or private addressing for the
core.
Where do you
Hi,
The last two networks that I've build used private IP in the core -
but neither of them ran Internet in the global table (both used VRFs
for that). If you run L3vpns you should probably disable TTL
propagation to avoid confusing your customers with 'weird'
traceroutes. I also moved all the
How many upstream you planned? Size of you network?
--
With best regards,
Andrey 'sshd' Petrenko
xmmp\gtalk: andy.petrenko at gmail.com
skype: andy.petrenko
web: http://sshd.by
11.03.2013, в 1:12, Andrew Miehs and...@2sheds.de написал(а):
Sent from a mobile device
On 11/03/2013, at
16 matches
Mail list logo
