On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 11:57:50AM -0600, Danny McPherson wrote:
An interesting bit is that the current announcement on routeviews
directly from AS 6461 has Community 6461:5999 attached:
...
6461
64.125.0.137 from 64.125.0.137 (64.125.0.137)
Origin IGP, metric 0, localpref 100,
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 03:48:07PM +0530, Glen Kent wrote:
Do ISPs (PTA, AboveNet, etc) that unintentionally hijack someone
else IP address space, ever get penalized in *any* form?
Not usually. I remember an incident (while working at AboveNet, ironically)
back in 98/99 where 701
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 06:46:15AM -0800, David Ulevitch wrote:
The point is -- Restrictive customer filtering can also bite you in the
butt. Trying to require your providers to do a ge 19 le 25 (or
whatever your largest supernet is), rather than filters for specific
prefix sizes seems a
On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 09:57:09PM -0500, Brandon Galbraith wrote:
It appears that 365 is using the Hytec Continuous Power System [
http://hitec.pageprocessor.nl/p3.php?RubriekID=2016], which is a motor,
generator, flywheel, clutch, and Diesel engine all on the same shaft. They
don't use
On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 12:42:34PM +, James Blessing wrote:
Very simply : Would you accept traffic from a customer who insists
on sending 0 prefixes across a BGP session?
As long as I knew the src ip blocks used by the customer and could
craft an appropriate ingress filter, sure. I'm
On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 01:36:26PM +, James Blessing wrote:
Expecting the traffic is not a problem, just want some way of verifying
that the traffic isn't malicious/spoofed (e.g. by using unicast RPF or
similar)
Whether or not the customer plans on advertising prefixes via BGP,
your
On Mon, Jun 26, 2006 at 05:54:18PM -0300, MARLON BORBA wrote:
A friend of mine told me about a new breed of routers from Cisco
which have two virtual machines over the same physical hardware
You're probably referring to what Cisco now calls Secure Domain
Routers, or SDRs. You can get more
On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 02:44:20PM -0600, Pete Templin wrote:
I came up with a reasonably scalable solution using communities and
route-map continue, but:
For what value of scalable?
--Jeff
On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 05:13:27PM -0600, Pete Templin wrote:
For me, plenty, but a four-POP single-state network usually has
different constraints on scalable.
Right.
On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 06:20:39PM -0500, Deepak Jain wrote:
I think Pete is saying that as long as you aren't a
On Thu, Sep 30, 2004 at 02:15:49PM -0400, Deepak Jain wrote:
provider mistakenly advertises more routes than he should [lets say
specifics in case #1] you can flood your upstreams' routers with
specifics and potentially cause flapping or memory overflows...
In case #2, presumably the
On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 09:32:28PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hosts tend to be a faster writeoff cycle than routers in companies I've
worked at, therefore getting the benefit of moores law about 25% faster
than the routers. Turn on firewalling in the host.
If you have a choice
On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 10:55:14AM +0200, Erik Haagsman wrote:
Only very small ISPs relying on 36xx's or multilayer switching instead
of larger, more powerful might be still valid cases where ACL's are a
problem.
Interesting assertion. Care to support it?
It's not unusual for
On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 06:00:38PM +0200, Erik Haagsman wrote:
Only very small ISPs relying on 36xx's or multilayer switching instead
of larger, more powerful might be still valid cases where ACL's are a
problem.
Interesting assertion. Care to support it?
--Jeff
On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 11:07:03PM +, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
Perhaps I'm missing something having not done this myself but why arent the
customers just using private ASNs? That would also remove the 'must default'
clause.
What if you have more customers than there are private ASNs?
On Fri, Aug 15, 2003 at 05:52:49PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rubbish.
If in order to make it viable such energy needs to be subsidized then it is
not affordable.
That's a rather amusing position for someone in the IP world to take.
I seem to recall DARPA subsidizing research into
On Sat, Feb 22, 2003 at 10:32:11PM -0500, Jason Lewis wrote:
AHHH!!! But they DO! Who is in the old Hechinger building a stones throw
from Tyson's II?
Until just a couple of weeks ago it was an MFN data center.
Unfortunately, it was one of the sites we elected to close down
as part of the
On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 11:32:43AM -0800, Scott Granados wrote:
I have seen some router cpu questions. I know this is not the place for
router questions specifically could someone pass on the name of the group
for cisco users I remember there was one.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] may be the list to
On Tue, Oct 08, 2002 at 11:49:41AM -0400, Jared Mauch wrote:
Of course, this is the IP RIB and may not include all the
potential paths in the BGP Adj-RIBs-In, right? As such,
you've still got the potential for asymmetric routing to
break things.
No, this is if i have a path
On Wed, Jul 10, 2002 at 07:04:38AM -0700, nanog wrote:
Subject says it all. GBLX upgraded some edge routers to a new JunOS
release (possibly 5.3 rev 24)- and now our bgp sessions continually
reset with:
Jul 10 06:58:24 MST: %BGP-3-NOTIFICATION: sent to neighbor X.X.X.X 3/3 (update
On Wed, Jun 26, 2002 at 12:39:11PM -0400, Ralph Doncaster wrote:
While many other tier-1's have publicly listed their peering policies,
I've never seen anything for 1239. Not that I'd stand a chance, but does
anyone know what their peering requirements are?
Sprint's peering policy (and
20 matches
Mail list logo
