are actually interested in, it may not even be too inefficient.
--
Simon Leinen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
SWITCH http://www.switch.ch/misc/leinen/
Computers hate being anthropomorphized.
On Wed, 4 Sep 2002 05:30:46 -0400 (EDT), jeffrey.arnold [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Foundry makes a very good, very stable bgp speaker. I've had them in
my network alongside cisco's and juniper's for a couple of years
now, and i've never run into any bgp implementation problems that i
would
For the sake of completeness, Sun just announced a new Crypto
accelerator board with GigE interfaces that does SSL and IPSec VPNs,
and claims 800 Mb/s bulk 3DES encryption:
http://www.sun.com/products/networking/sslaccel/suncryptoaccel4000/index.html
--
Simon.
Deepak Jain writes:
[a response with excellent pieces of advice on CWDM vs. DWDM.]
If you are planning more than just 1 DF run, you could buy the less
expensive solution and just swap it out when you need something more and use
the CWDM solution somewhere else.
Yes. What we often do
Frank Louwers writes:
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 04:12:13PM -0500, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
Filtering on a /20 or whatever (up to /24) is a bad thing because
RIPE (and maybe APNIC) actually gives out /24 PI space, that comes
out of RIPE's /8's, not your upstream's /20 or /16 or /whatever...
these IP addresses should actually be
blocked.
I'd recommend against it, due to collateral damage and more general
end-to-end arguments.
--
Simon Leinen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
SWITCH http://www.switch.ch/misc/leinen/
Computers
We use OSPFv3 on our backbone (OSPFv2 for IPv4, separate routing
processes but largely identical metric/timeout configuration) using
mostly 12.2(17d)SXB on Catalyst 6500/7600 OSRs and various 12.3T
(pre-)releases on 7200/7500. Works fine.
--
Simon.
Priscilla,
Questions arose while trying to explain proposed TCP fixes to my
students. Can y'all help me with these?
We were going over the Transmission Control Protocol security
considerations draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpsecure-00.txt document here when
the questions arose:
Mikael Abrahamsson writes:
Tier 1 operators do not do best effort really, at least not in
their cores (and they have the SLAs to back it up). They buy hugely
expensive top notch gear (Cisco 12000 (and now CRS:s) and Junipers)
to get the big packet buffers, the fast reroutes and the full
Peter Lothberg writes:
[...]
Optics type: VSR2000-3R2 (2km)
Clock source: line (actual) line (configured)
Optical Power Monitoring (accuracy: +/- 1dB)
Rx power = 1562.3280 mW, 31.9 dBm
Ouch!
Some amplifiers you have there...
Tx power = 15.4640 mW, 11.9
Michael Dillon writes:
In the paper
http://klamath.stanford.edu/~keslassy/download/tr04_hpng_060800_sizing.pdf
That's also in the (shorter) SIGCOMM'04 version of the paper.
they state as follows:
-
While we have evidence that buffers
can be made smaller, we haven't
Mikael Abrahamsson writes:
On Mon, 6 Sep 2004, Simon Leinen wrote:
Rather than over-dimensioning the backbone for two or three users
(the Petabyte crowd), I'd prefer making them happy with a special
TCP.
Tune your max window size so it won't be able to use more than say
60% of the total
Robert Mathews writes:
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004, Alexei Roudnev wrote:
Hmm - just introduce some jitter into your network, and add random
delay to the short packets - and no VoIP in your company -:).
Alexei:
How exactly then would anyone implement this, without screwing-up the
overall
Daniel Roesen writes:
On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 05:19:36PM +0100, Simon Leinen wrote:
On Solaris, you would use the token option (see the extract from
man ifconfig output below). You can simply put token ::1234:5678
into /etc/hostname6.bge0. I assume that other sane OSes have similar
Daniel Roesen writes:
Well, it boils down that if you have enough customers, you seem to
get away with about any antisocial behaviour on the net.
You don't need to have many customers, it's just more fun if you have
a larger space that you can deaggregate. Since everybody stopped
filtering
Jay,
Is anyone else experiencing DNS timeout errors. I've tried using
multiple name resolvers, and tested multiple domain names using
different name servers, and I keep getting name not found errors.
Trying the same domain name a second time, and it resolves ok. This
all started a few
Arife Vural writes:
[in response to Florian Frotzler [EMAIL PROTECTED]:]
To my knowledge, the myas-tool/-service from RIPE NCC is kind of
doing what you like to achive.
MyASN is working on user-based. To get the alarm for unexpected
routing patterns, you should set it up an account
Drew Weaver writes:
Also the other question I had was are there any very good either
open source or fairly affordable netflow analyzer software packages
out there right now?
Making a recommendation is difficult, because there is such a wide
variety of requirements, depending on context
Christopher L Morrow writes:
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
And I'm sure Sprint and Verio (MCI/Worldcom/UUNET too? I have a
I know verio does, Sprint I believe also does, and UUNET
does... everyone has restrictions on the service though (native or
tunnel'd type
[CC'ing Stanislav Shalunov, who does the Internet2 weekly reports.]
Marshall Eubanks writes, in response to Jordi's 8% IPv6 anecdote:
These estimates seem way high and need support. Here is a counter-example.
While I'm also skeptical about the representativeness of Jordi's
estimates, this is a
Kevin Loch writes:
Does anyone have reachability data for c-root during this episode?
The RIPE NCC DNSMON service has some:
http://dnsmon.ripe.net/dns-servmon/server/plot?server=c.root-servers.nettype=dropststart=1128246543tstop=1128972253
According to BGPlay for that particular prefix from
Daniel Roesen writes:
On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 10:45:33PM -0400, Todd Vierling wrote:
Maybe to start -- but again, what kind of 6to4 traffic level are we
expecting yet?
Peak or average? Think twice before answering. :-)
I'm told there are 6to4 relays seeing in excess of 100mbps. Not
Robert E Seastrom writes:
Yes and no. CEF is {src, dst} hash IIRC, and per-flow usually
means {src, srcport, dst, dstport, [proto, tos]} hash in my
experience.
Correct.
The Catalyst 6500/7600 OSR with Sup2/Sup32/Sup720 can be configured to
hash based on L4 ports in addition to the IP
Gunther Stammwitz writes:
== Which tools (under linux) are you using in order to measure your
own network ore on of your upstreams in terms of gameability or
voip-usage?
My favorite tool for assessing delay distribution and loss over time
is Tobi Oetiker's (of MRTG fame) SmokePing
Jeroen Massar writes:
The answer to your question: RFC4255
Using DNS to Securely Publish Secure Shell (SSH) Key Fingerprints
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4255.txt
Yes, that's cool if your SSH client supports it (recent OpenSSH's do).
You will only need to stuff the FP's into SSHFP DNS RR's
Miguel,
We have had some problems of being beaten back. Our space, being
annocunced by AS 16592, is 190.5.128.0/19
I only see 190.5.128.0/21, and because it is our policy to ignore
more-specifics from PA space (including anything more specific than
/21 from 190.0.0.0/8 and the other LACNIC
Marshall Eubanks writes:
In a typical flight Europe / China I believe that there would be
order 10-15 satellite transponder / ground station changes. The
satellite footprints count for more that the geography.
What I remember from the Connexion presentations is that they used
only four ground
Vince Fuller writes:
On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 12:32:57PM +0200, Oliver Bartels wrote:
Ceterum censeo: Nevertheless this moving-clients application shows
some demand for a true-location-independend IP-addresses
announcement feature (provider independend roaming) in IPv6, as
in v4 (even thru
cidr-report writes:
Recent Table History
Date PrefixesCIDR Agg
03-11-06199409 129843
[...]
10-11-06 134555024 129854
Growth of the global routing table really picked up pace this week!
(But maybe I'm just hallucinating for having heard the
Lionel Elie Mamane writes:
On Mon, Dec 25, 2006 at 12:44:37AM +, Jeroen Massar wrote:
That said ISP's should simply have a package saying 50GiB/month
costs XX euros, 100GiB/month costs double etc. As that covers what
their transits are charging them, nothing more, nothing less.
I
Alexander Harrowell writes:
For example: France Telecom's consumer ISP in France (Wanadoo) is
pushing out lots and lots of WLAN boxes to its subs, which it brands
Liveboxes. As well as the router, they also carry their carrier-VoIP
and IPTV STB functions. [...]
Right, and the French ADSL
Andre Oppermann gave the best advice so far IMHO.
I'll add a few points.
To quickly sum up the facts and to dispell some misinformation:
- TCP is limited the delay bandwidth product and the socket buffer
sizes.
Hm... what about: The TCP socket buffer size limits the achievable
Ah, large MTUs. Like many other academic backbones, we implemented
large (9192 bytes) MTUs on our backbone and 9000 bytes on some hosts.
See [1] for an illustration. Here are *my* current thoughts on
increasing the Internet MTU beyond its current value, 1500. (On the
topic, see also [2] - a
Steven M Bellovin writes:
Jim Shankland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(2) Getting this kind of throughput seems to depend on a fast
physical layer, plus some link-layer help (jumbo packets), plus
careful TCP tuning to deal with the large bandwidth-delay product.
The IP layer sits between the
Tony Li writes:
On Apr 25, 2007, at 2:55 PM, Simon Leinen wrote:
Routing table lookups(*) are what's most relevant here, [...]
Actually, what's most relevant here is the ability to get end-hosts
to run at rate. Packet forwarding at line rate has been
demonstrated for quite awhile now
Jason Frisvold writes:
I'm working on a system to alert when a bandwidth augmentation is
needed. I've looked at using both true averages and 95th percentile
calculations. I'm wondering what everyone else uses for this
purpose?
We use a secret formula, aka rules of thumb, based on perceived
Leo Bicknell writes:
However, if you put 15G down your 20G path, you have no
redundancy. In a cut, dropping 5G on the floor, causing 33% packet
loss is not up, it might as well be down.
Sorry, it doesn't work like that either. 33% packet loss is an upper
limit, but not what you'd see in
Frank Bulk writes:
Except if the cable companies want to get rid of the 5% of heavy
users, they can't raise the prices for that 5% and recover their
costs. The MSOs want it win-win: they'll bring prices for metered
access slightly lower than unlimited access, making it attractive
for a
Stupid typo in my last message, sorry.
While I think this is basically a sound approach, I'm skeptical that
*slightly* lowering prices will be sufficient to convert 80% of the
user base from flat to unmetered pricing. [...]
METERED pricing, of course.
--
Simon.
Iljitsch van Beijnum writes:
Well, if they had problems like this in the past, then I wouldn't
trust them to get it right. Which means that it's probably a good
idea if EVERYONE starts filtering what they allow in their tables
from PCCW. Obviously that makes it very hard for PCCW to start
Martin A Brown writes:
Late last night, after poring through our data, I posted a detailed
chronology of the hijack as seen from our many peering sessions. I
would add to this that the speed of YouTube's response to this
subprefix hijack impressed me.
For a Sunday afternoon, yes, not bad.
Rick Astley writes:
Anything more specific than a /24 would get blocked by many filters,
so some of the high target sites may want to announce their
mission critical IP space as /24 and avoid using prepends.
Good idea. But only the high target sites, please. If you're an
unimportant site
42 matches
Mail list logo
