[EMAIL PROTECTED] may have said:
> We're looking at possibly purchasing a Internap FCP500, everything
> I hear about these boxes is good. We are simultaneously trying to
You should also look at the Avaya CNA product (their Routescience
acquisition).http://tinyurl.com/d7saf
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005, Alexander Koch wrote:
> I know the changes the LINX has implemented, and I am
> curious... and this might affect other folk as well.
>
> What is better - the LINX approach (blocking the port,
> trying again in x minutes when too many MACs were seen)
> or the Equinix approach
Mike, All,
I know the changes the LINX has implemented, and I am
curious... and this might affect other folk as well.
What is better - the LINX approach (blocking the port,
trying again in x minutes when too many MACs were seen)
or the Equinix approach (we hardcode your MAC per VLAN/
per port if
On Wed, 9 Nov 2005, Randy Bush wrote:
> thanks! this approaches reassuring. why does it tolerate 100
> macs? at first blush, i would think three or four would be a
> bad enough sign.
It's a balance to avoid unduly penalising a genuine mistake, or being too
severe against some poor guy with a
> > A lot of people are deploying C76xx as peering routers ...
>
>
> ... which should be prohibited by law. Actually, C76xx should be
> prohibited by law.
>
I've done my share of Cisco bashing in the past - but I have to say
that 6500/7600 worked pretty well as peering routers at my previous
e
We're looking at possibly purchasing a Internap FCP500,
everything I hear about these boxes is good. We are simultaneously
I have no experience with OER, but I have had a FCP5000 for a while now. We
have numerous transit links, all of which have significantly more burst
capacity than we act
[ the voice of experience speaks ]
> We used to police this policy semi-manually, but now the switch vendors do
> decent hardware-based port-security/mac-locking functionality, so that
> does it for us, and actually does it pretty well.
>
> - The switch learns the first address received on the
Steven Bakker wrote:
A lot of people are deploying C76xx as peering routers ...
... which should be prohibited by law. Actually, C76xx should be
prohibited by law.
i know the current sport de jour in nanog is vendor bashing - but what
specifically do you see as faults in the c6500/7600?
On Thu, 2005-11-10 at 00:01 +, Mike Hughes wrote:
> * How do you differentiate between a switch/router and a router?
Ooh, that's easy: just look at the crap they spew towards the peering
fabric. :-)
> A lot of people are deploying C76xx as peering routers ...
... which should be prohibite
On Wed, 9 Nov 2005, Robert Kiessling wrote:
> Which rule would you suggest for the IXP? The naive "connect
> only routers" wouldn't do of course in nowaday's world of
> hybrids.
yick hybrids...
On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 11:59:38PM -, Chris Roberts wrote:
>
> I think the 'connect only routers' adage is probably a good conservative
> motto to stick to. There are situations where connecting switches and
> hybrids to IXPs is certainly more efficient and better suited, but only if
> you kn
On Wed, 9 Nov 2005, Robert Kiessling wrote:
> Which rule would you suggest for the IXP? The naive "connect
> only routers" wouldn't do of course in nowaday's world of
> hybrids.
I've been following this with interest:
* How do you differentiate between a switch/router and a router? A lot of
>
> What is the problem with this for the IXP, assuming proper
> safeguards are in place which are best practice anyway (BPDU
> filters, port security, ...)?
>
Hello Robert :)
> Which rule would you suggest for the IXP? The naive "connect
> only routers" wouldn't do of course in nowaday's worl
On Wed, 2005-11-09 at 11:55 -1000, Randy Bush wrote:
> > > [IX---SwitchA---SwitchB---Router]
> > I'm not saying that the practice is good, or recommended,
> > or without peril. But it's certainly not isolated to the
> > UK.
>
> perhaps it should be :-)
>
> as folk from all over read this list, i
We're looking at possibly purchasing a Internap FCP500,
everything I hear about these boxes is good. We are simultaneously
trying to decide if Cisco's Optimized Edge Routing solution (built into
the IOS) should be a consideration as an alternative? We're basically
just trying to find a sol
> I'm not saying that the practice is good, or recommended,
> or without peril. But it's certainly not isolated to the
> UK.
perhaps it should be :-)
as folk from all over read this list, i just could not let
discussion of how to do something that is generally broken
and quite ill-advised go wit
On 9-Nov-2005, at 16:35, Randy Bush wrote:
IX---SwitchA---SwitchB---Router
ok, i gotta ask. you folk really do this on exchanges?
I seem to think I've seen people doing this at most exchanges ISC has
installed an F-root node at. The motivation is usually the avoidance
of either expe
> IX---SwitchA---SwitchB---Router
ok, i gotta ask. you folk really do this on exchanges? i guess
so. well, if you're gonna shoot people for carrying backpacks,
i guess shooting yourselves and eachother in the foot is small
change, even if the coins are larger.
randy
Hi Simon,
so you have:
IX---SwitchA---SwitchB---Router
why not disable spanning tree? There is no redundancy here anyway so disable it
in that particular VLAN.
Steve
On Wed, 9 Nov 2005, Simon Brilus wrote:
>
> Hi ,
>
> We are unable to resolve a problem with our peering exchange connecti
On Wed, 2005-11-09 at 10:39 +, Simon Brilus wrote:
> The peering exchange has an MoU that only 1 MAC address should be visible on
> their switch. However they see 2 MAC addresses on our port.
>
> - MAC address of Peering router
> - MAC address of the port they are connected to on switch A
On Wed, 2005-11-09 at 12:29 +0100, Arnold Nipper wrote:
> no ip gratuitous-arps (general command)
>
> and
>
> no ip proxy-arp (interface subcommand)
>
>
> makes your IXP-Operator even more happier.
Depends on the IXP operator and the equipment being configured. Speaking
for my particular n
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 04:29:18PM +0100, Per Heldal wrote:
...
> ... which is why I specifically said "no intention to ever connect to,
> or communicates with nodes on, the global network". In which case
> overlaps in adressblocks are irrelevant, as are any mention of NAT and
> firewalls as there
Hello trying to contact a hotmail postmaster admin...
Can some one contact me off list or if any one has the number could you
email it to me.
All of the contact info at the below link is out of date and doesn't work. I
get peoples personal cell phone numbers and the good old disconnected number
On 09.11.2005 11:50 Ben Butler wrote
***
Your mail has been scanned by InterScan VirusWall.
***-***
Hi,
This should sort you out.
no keepalive
spanning-tree bpdufilter enable
add
no mop enabled
if your IOS also supports DECnet. Having
no ip gratu
***
Your mail has been scanned by InterScan VirusWall.
***-***
Hi,
This should sort you out.
no keepalive
spanning-tree bpdufilter enable
Kind Regards
Ben
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Simon Br
Hi ,
We are unable to resolve a problem with our peering exchange connection and
would like any assistance. Our peering setup is a follows:
- Our peering exchange connection goes into switch A
- Switch A has a dark fibre connection to switch B, which is in a different
PoP
- Our peering rou
On Tuesday 08 Nov 2005 7:25 pm, Randy Bush wrote:
> are you really an alias for fergie?
Hehe,
the great thing about this worm is when I checked my log files, we have less
attempted exploits against the vulnerabilities since the worm was released?
So not exactly a "Code Red". I don't think this
27 matches
Mail list logo
