Joe Abley wrote:
Hi all,
An acquaintance who runs an ISP with an M7i on its border is looking to
upgrade, because the M7i is starting to creak from all the flesh-tone
MPEGs his customers are sharing. (How times have changed. Back when I
was chasing packets, it was flesh-tone JPEGs.)
He's
BGP Update Report
Interval: 16-Jun-08 -to- 17-Jul-08 (32 days)
Observation Point: BGP Peering with AS2.0
TOP 20 Unstable Origin AS
Rank ASNUpds % Upds/PfxAS-Name
1 - AS4538 214212 2.8% 42.8 -- ERX-CERNET-BKB China Education
and Research Network Center
2
This report has been generated at Fri Jul 18 21:14:57 2008 AEST.
The report analyses the BGP Routing Table of AS2.0 router
and generates a report on aggregation potential within the table.
Check http://www.cidr-report.org for a current version of this report.
Recent Table History
Date
Force 10 is fine. I do suggest he go with the dual cam cards over the regular
cards. I am not sure what Chris is talking about but I have used Force 10 for a
long time, E, C and S series and have found it very stable. It will do
everything you want and then some. The E300 is a good bang for
I certainly agree with Keith and we are pushing a lot of traffic through our
Force10 boxes i.e. E1200's, E600's and a few E300's. As a company they are wery
responsive and easy to work with. Dual cam is definitely recommended.
- Original Message -
From: Keith O'neill [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Keith O'neill wrote:
Force 10 is fine. I do suggest he go with the dual cam cards over the regular
cards. I am not sure what Chris is talking about but I have used Force 10 for a
long time, E, C and S series and have found it very stable. It will do
everything you want and then some. The E300
I worked with many Foundry models for more than 4 years in the past and
never had any real serious issues. They used to be a bit loud but other than
that they are very easy to manage solid devices. Another great thing with
Foundry (again in my experience) is the support. Any time I ever had a real
Hi there..
I'm looking for some constructive feedback on **real world** experiences
please...
We're primarily a Cisco shop today - our core and distribution are all
Cisco driven and will continue to be (won't change that so not worth
discussing today).
My question is oriented towards two other
On your last note Cisco also offers a all-in-one with all the features you
talked about and more. They are called UC500's.
_Chris
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 10:18 AM, Paul Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hi there..
I'm looking for some constructive feedback on **real world** experiences
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 04:31:44PM -0400, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
Specifically, that rep (Bill Billings) told me that a *firware upgrade*
broke compatibility with the old GBICs, which *originally* worked, and
he ended up eating nearly 300 of them at one point.
On a related topic, I walked the
Thanks guys so far for the responses
Adtran has a 5 year warranty and support for free as of today - I'm not
aware of this changing but we've had a number of other companies change
that policy in the past couple of years after purchasing a LOT of gear
from them (Motorola, Redline come to mind
-Original Message-
From: Paul Stewart [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 11:48 AM
To: Smith, Steve B; Chris Heighway
Cc: nanog
Subject: RE: Cisco vs Adtran vs Juniper
Thanks guys so far for the responses
Adtran has a 5 year warranty and support for free as
It could be 10 years.. not 100% sure 5 or 10 still makes a dent in
Cisco's approach to be honest...
Still wondering if anyone knows how the Cisco lifetime warranty really
works...?
Thanks again,
Paul
-Original Message-
From: Eric Van Tol [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday,
-Original Message-
From: Eric Van Tol [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 11:03 AM
To: 'Keith O'neill'
Cc: nanog
Subject: RE: Force10 E300 vs. Juniper MX480
-Original Message-
From: Keith O'neill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008
Hi,
Can someone at Ubiquity or Mzima fix this routing loop:
traceroute to hg.atheme.org (72.37.225.164), 30 hops max, 40 byte
packets
1 64.62.134.193 12.402 ms 12.370 ms 12.363 ms
2 ge5-0.cr01.ord01.mzima.net (206.223.119.62) 16.003 ms 15.985 ms
15.964 ms
3
On Fri, 2008-07-18 at 13:32 -0700, Aaron Glenn wrote:
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 1:02 PM, William Pitcock
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Sadly, I don't have any contact with either one, but I do need to be
able to access that server, and it's responsible admin is no where to be
found.
IXIA makes a nice product depending on what you want to do. I have one
here with some 10G line cards.
-Sean
On Jul 10, 2008, at 3:02 PM, Frank P. Troy wrote:
I can recommend Isocore http://www.isocore.com/ (the same folks that
run the
MPLS conference). Talk to Rajiv Papneja [EMAIL
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 03:49:25PM -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
[snip]
I'm aware what side it's on. However, I didn't have contact information
for an actual human on either side of the link, so I posted on [EMAIL
PROTECTED]
[snip]
There's a lot of rolodex resources out there that can get you
I'd like to rip on Mzima as much as the next guy, but I'm not sure how
they could fix this routing loop, shy of some creative ACLs.
You should try contacting Ubiquity, as this traceroute looks like an
issue on their (Mzima's customer's) side.
Paul Wall
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 3:27 PM, William
No, a true routing loop will transit several hops and end back up at the same
routers. A bouncing route between 2 routers is usually a directly connected
route on an interface that goes down thereby pulling the route with out a
nail down route it will send unkown route back out its default
20 matches
Mail list logo
