On 7/17/12, Karl Auer ka...@biplane.com.au wrote:
[snip
I'm not sure I follow the logic there. If the anycast router changes the
packet will be resent to the new subnet anycast router eventually
(assuming some layer cares enough about the packet to resend it). The
last known hardware address
On Jul 16, 2012, at 9:40 PM, Karl Auer wrote:
On Mon, 2012-07-16 at 23:38 -0400, Matt Addison wrote:
Oliver oli...@8.c.9.b.0.7.4.0.1.0.0.2.ip6.arpa wrote:
Additionally, as an alternative to RAs, you can simply point default
at the all-routers anycast address.
Wouldn't this result in
On Jul 16, 2012, at 10:20 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 21:31:42 -0700, Owen DeLong said:
Think HA pairs in Pittsburgh, Dallas, and San Jose.
Now imagine each has different upstream connectivity and the backbone
network connecting all the corporate sites lives
On Jul 16, 2012, at 10:36 PM, Seth Mos wrote:
Hi,
Op 16 jul 2012, om 18:34 heeft valdis.kletni...@vt.edu het volgende
geschreven:
On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 11:09:28 -0500, -Hammer- said:
---That is clearly a matter of opinion. NAT64 and NAT66 wouldn't be
there
if there weren't enough
On Jul 16, 2012, at 11:16 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
On 7/17/12, Karl Auer ka...@biplane.com.au wrote:
[snip
I'm not sure I follow the logic there. If the anycast router changes the
packet will be resent to the new subnet anycast router eventually
(assuming some layer cares enough about the
On Mon, 2012-07-16 at 23:44 -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
The whole concept of gratuitous arp is strictly IPv4.
Isn't an unsolicited neighbour advertisement pretty much the same thing?
Regards, K.
--
~~~
Karl Auer
Op 17-7-2012 8:43, Owen DeLong schreef:
On Jul 16, 2012, at 10:36 PM, Seth Mos wrote:
Hi,
Op 16 jul 2012, om 18:34 heeft valdis.kletni...@vt.edu het volgende geschreven:
To highlight what the current NAT66 is useful for, it's a RFC for Network
Prefix translation. It has nothing do with
On Mon, 2012-07-16 at 23:36 -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
Reread the spec... [the subnet router anycast address] gets the packet
to one or more of the routers and it may well lead to packet
duplication. There may or may not be coordination between the
routers. It isn't in the spec.
Which spec?
On 7/16/12, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
In message
CAD8GWsswFwnPKTfxt=squumzofs3_-yrihy8o4gt3w9+x6f...@mail.gmail.com, Lee
writes:
On 7/16/12, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
Why would you want NAT66? ICK!!! One of the best benefits of IPv6 is
being
able to eliminate NAT. NAT
On 7/16/12, Grant Ridder shortdudey...@gmail.com wrote:
If you are running an HA pair, why would you care which box it went back
through?
You wouldn't. But if you've got an HA pair at site A and another HA
pair at site B..
Lee
-Grant
On Monday, July 16, 2012, Mark Andrews wrote:
In
Hello ,
For those who provide l2vpn services to customers over MPLS , what
kind of tools do you use for monitoring the circuits and what kind of
values do you proactively monitor
I have tools in place to monitor these circuits but i want to know
based on group members experiences in order to
Hello everyone.
I am having some very bad time due to my ISP's poor last mile (in India).
DSL is loosing sync. consistently and this time problem seems quite
interesting so I though to ask how ISPs across world managing it. Problem
is high attenuation low SNR because of lot of free pairs in
On Jul 17, 2012, at 3:15, Karl Auer ka...@biplane.com.au wrote:
Reading it with a squint: The phrase packets [...] will be delivered to
one router on the subnet does not specifically exclude the possibility
that packets will be delivered to more than one router on the subnet.
Still, I do
Hello,
For example, cpwVcOperStatus for Cisco devices. Look at proprietary mibs
On 07/17/2012 02:14 PM, Peter Ehiwe wrote:
Hello ,
For those who provide l2vpn services to customers over MPLS , what
kind of tools do you use for monitoring the circuits and what kind of
values do you
I have almost one hundred FWs. Some physical. Some virtual. Various
vendors. Your point is spot on.
-Hammer-
I was a normal American nerd
-Jack Herer
On 7/16/2012 8:55 PM, Lee wrote:
On 7/16/12, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
Why would you want NAT66? ICK!!! One of the best benefits of
-Hammer-
I was a normal American nerd
-Jack Herer
On 7/16/2012 11:18 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
On 7/16/12, -Hammer- bhmc...@gmail.com wrote:
hurdles. Example? HSRP IPv6 global addressing on Cisco ASR platform. If
HSRP is a legacy proprietary protocol; try VRRP. Stateless
autoconfig and
I wonder who really believes there is no usage case for NAT66. Have these
people seen non-trivial corporate networks?
I'm sure many people in this list finance part of their lives with renumber
projects costing MUSDs. For many companies just finding out where addresses
have been punched in (your
There's are routing and switching people and there are security people.
And they look at things different. That, IMHO, is the root of the
emotion on this thread. No one is actually wrong except me for stirring
the pot as the OP. :)
-Hammer-
I was a normal American nerd
-Jack Herer
On
With all due respect to Owen, I don't share the view that everyone
should be jumping into BGP or getting an allocation from ARIN, but
that's been a long-standing debate between us.
NPT allows you to get prefixes from multiple ISPs without having to
get an allocation to coordinate routing; or in
We deploy NIDs to the customer premise. You just can't get enough alarm data
be looking only at your router/switch on your side of an Ethernet NNI to give
you a proper indication of whether the service is functional, and it also
happens to be quite handy to have when a performance
Hello Anurag.
I have not heard of this problem before, but I imagine that the
non-terminated pairs could be acting like antennas and picking up noise.
Have you considered grounding one end (or both) of the free pairs? Perhaps
this would reduce the amount of noise they pick up.
Regards,
John
On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 09:15:59 -0500, John Souvestre said:
Have you considered grounding one end (or both) of the free pairs? Perhaps
this would reduce the amount of noise they pick up.
Grounding both ends will probably result in hilarity ensues. And I suspect
that Anurag
can't ground the
Yeah, grounding both ends will result in some current traversing across
the pairs all the time because of differences in ground potential over
long-ish distances.
Ken Matlock
Network Analyst
303-467-4671
matlo...@exempla.org
-Original Message-
From: valdis.kletni...@vt.edu
Yes, but would this result in more or less noise than an open end acting
like an antenna? And would the ground loop noise be in the DSL spectrum?
John
John Souvestre - New Orleans LA - (504) 454-0899
-Original Message-
From: Matlock, Kenneth L [mailto:matlo...@exempla.org]
Sent:
James Braunegg writes:
In the end I did real life testing comparing each platform
Great, thanks for sharing your results!
(It would be nice if you could tell us a little bit about the
configuration, i.e. what kind of sampling you used.)
[...]
That being said both netflow and sflow both under
On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 10:16:17 -0500, John Souvestre said:
Yes, but would this result in more or less noise than an open end acting
like an antenna? And would the ground loop noise be in the DSL spectrum?
No, it will be strictly a DC current, with the amperage easily calculated from
the voltage
On 17/07/2012 16:32, Simon Leinen wrote:
That's one reason, but another reason would be that at least in Netflow
(but sFlow may be similar depending on how you use it), the reported
byte counts only include the sizes of the L3 packets, i.e. starting at
the IP header, while the SNMP interface
On Monday 16 July 2012 21:11:18 you wrote:
The disadvantage to this is the high probability of packet duplication. For
someone worried about ICMP spam on the subnet, I'm surprised you're not
worried about what happens when 2 or more routers copy the same packet
and route both copies on to the
In the case of sFlow, the collector determines how to report bytes.
The sFlow agent reports the size of the sampled layer 2 frame (along
with the first 128 bytes of the frame) and the collector can choose
whether to report L2 bytes, L3 bytes, L4 bytes etc. by subtracting the
sizes of the headers.
-Original Message-
From: valdis.kletni...@vt.edu [mailto:valdis.kletni...@vt.edu]
No, it will be strictly a DC current, with the amperage easily
calculated from the voltage difference between the two ends and the
resistance of
however many cable-feet of wire is involved. Not usually
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 7/17/2012 12:15 AM, Karl Auer wrote:
But I do not have an encylopaedic knowledge of all the RFCs, so
perhaps this has been superseded, obsoleted or updated...
This gets a lot easier if you use the tools site:
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 11:16:07AM -0600, Matlock, Kenneth L wrote:
That brings up an interesting question. I assumed the ground potential
stays the same between 2 points, but have there been any studies to see
if it's actually DC, or if there's an AC component to it?
Thaat's not a safe
On 7/17/2012 5:47 AM, Saku Ytti wrote:
I wonder who really believes there is no usage case for NAT66. Have these
people seen non-trivial corporate networks?
I'm sure many people in this list finance part of their lives with renumber
projects costing MUSDs. For many companies just finding out
You could ground then via some small capacitors. This would block DC and
the low frequency power line trash and even act somewhat as a fuse should
there be a lightning strike.
John
John Souvestre - New Orleans LA - (504) 454-0899
-Original Message-
From: Mike Andrews
On 7/13/12 7:38 AM, -Hammer- wrote:
OK. I'm pretty sure I'm gonna get some flak for this but I'll share this
question and it's background anyway. Please be gentle.
In the past, with IPv4, we have used reserved or non-routable space
Internally in production for segments that won't be seen
On 2012-07-18 00:21, Seth Mattinen wrote:
[..]
Don't, because there's already a /10 defined for such things. It's
called ULA (unique local address) aka RFC 4193. ULAs are not globally
routable.
Here's a calculator that will generate a random one for you:
http://bitace.com/ipv6calc/
A
On 7/17/12 3:34 PM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
On 2012-07-18 00:21, Seth Mattinen wrote:
[..]
Don't, because there's already a /10 defined for such things. It's
called ULA (unique local address) aka RFC 4193. ULAs are not globally
routable.
Here's a calculator that will generate a random one for
On 2012-07-18 00:47, Seth Mattinen wrote:
[..]
Here's a calculator that will generate a random one for you:
http://bitace.com/ipv6calc/
A random one indeed, because the javascript for it is just:
[..]
does not follow RFC4193 in any way at all. A such do not use it.
The original real
On 2012-07-18 00:57, Jeroen Massar wrote:
On 2012-07-18 00:47, Seth Mattinen wrote:
[..]
Here's a calculator that will generate a random one for you:
http://bitace.com/ipv6calc/
[..]
Yes, it is a shame that the bitace thing references RFC4193 and then
does not use it. Lets Bcc: them and see
On 7/17/12 3:57 PM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
I am wondering what you meaning with 'squat', note that what I reference
above is real full RFC4193 calculated ULA.
By squat I meant take a random chunk of IPv6 space and use it as
private address space. He said:
On 7/13/12 7:38 AM, -Hammer- wrote:
I'd like to speak to someone who's had deployment experience around the
Adtran NetVanta product line that has used it's firewalling and/or VPN
functionality. Feel free to reply off-list. I'm trying to get an idea of
real-world performance expectations.
--
Brandon Ross
FYI http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r27324698-LTE-access-early-
So much for next generation technology ...
CB
In message 5005e87d.6060...@unfix.org, Jeroen Massar writes:
On 2012-07-18 00:21, Seth Mattinen wrote:
[..]
Don't, because there's already a /10 defined for such things. It's
called ULA (unique local address) aka RFC 4193. ULAs are not globally
routable.
Here's a calculator that will
On Jul 17, 2012 7:54 PM, Cameron Byrne cb.li...@gmail.com wrote:
FYI http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r27324698-LTE-access-early-
So much for next generation technology ...
No IPv6, and using duplicate IPv4 space. #sigh #fail
/TJ
On Tue, 17 Jul 2012, Cameron Byrne wrote:
FYI http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r27324698-LTE-access-early-
Short-sighted and foolish. Shame on you, Sprint.
jms
45 matches
Mail list logo
