On (2015-02-19 11:06 -0500), Tim Durack wrote:
What is the chance of getting working code this decade? I would quite like
to play with this new fangled IPv6 widget...
(Okay, I'd like to stop using IPv4 for infrastructure. LDP is the last
piece for me.)
Is there 4PE implementation to drive
On Fri, 20 Feb 2015, Saku Ytti wrote:
Correct solution is not to use some so called 'strict' ipv6 filters,
which break Internet, by not allowing discontinuous pops having
connectivity.
Before, the practical level of de-agg was at /24 for IPv4. This meant only
larger organisations could do
On 20/02/15 12:42, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
I don't like where this is headed. There are millions of entities that
are justifiable to announce a /48 into DFZ. Do we want this to happen?
rfc6115 have good overview and recommendation. IPv6 clearly need
separation of identification of endpoints
On 20/Feb/15 02:36, George, Wes wrote:
The document has come out the other side of the IETF sausage grinder now:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7439
Unfortunately, it's just a list of the gaps.
It is worth leaning on your vendors of choice to ensure that they have
people focused on
From: Saku Ytti s...@ytti.fi
Is deaggregation inherently undesirable?
I'd say yes when the only limit to deaggregation is /48.
Given the opportunity people will do whatever they see
fit at everyone elses expense
What is the correct solution here? Deaggregate or allocate space you don't
On (2015-02-20 12:07 +0900), Randy Bush wrote:
Hey,
in a discussion with some fellow researchers, the subject of ipv6
deaggregation arose; will it be less or more than we see in ipv4?
Is deaggregation inherently undesirable? In some RIR LIR will not get new
allocation, just because LIR lacks
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 6:39 AM, Saku Ytti s...@ytti.fi wrote:
On (2015-02-19 11:06 -0500), Tim Durack wrote:
What is the chance of getting working code this decade? I would quite
like
to play with this new fangled IPv6 widget...
(Okay, I'd like to stop using IPv4 for infrastructure.
BTW: This scenario's combination has another portion for us like as below.
High Availability Server Clustering without ILB(Internal Load Balancer)
(MEMO)
http://slidesha.re/1vld6uB
--
Naoto MATSUMOTO
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 12:23 PM, NAOTO MATSUMOTO naoto...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi Dan and ken.
On 20/Feb/15 13:39, Saku Ytti wrote:
Is there 4PE implementation to drive IPv4 edges, shouldn't be hard to accept
IPv6 next-hop in BGP LU, but probably does not work out-of-the-box?
Isn't Segment Routing implementation day1 IPV4+IPV6 in XR?
The last time I checked, MPLS support in SR for
For L2VPN if you could make it work - go with EVPN day 1, it solves most of the
issues present in both LDP and BGP VPLS implementations.
Be aware of differences in PBB vs plain EVPN and platform support.
EVPN, specifically multhoming/split horizon/some other stuff as well as
presence of L3
Sent a note off-list.
- Jason
On 2/20/15, 1:38 PM, Mark Stevens mana...@monmouth.com wrote:
If a DNS Admin at Comcast could contact me offline it would be great.
This is concerning your IPV6 configured mail servers.
Thanks,
Mark
On (2015-02-17 06:11 +0530), Glen Kent wrote:
I think the hardware used was Broadcom. They have a few chipsets which
do
MD5 and (possibly) SHA in hardware for BFD -- which i have been told is
pretty much useless when you start scaling.
While I don¹t fully understand the context of this
From market prospective v6 SR is definitely lower priority. Comcast and few
more are looking into native rather than v6 with MPLS encap.
Wrt v4 - 2 weeks ago at EANTC in Berlin we have tested 3 implementations of
ISIS SR v4 MPLS with L3VPN and 6VPE over SR tunnels. Worked very well, very few
On (2015-02-20 09:00 -0500), Tim Durack wrote:
Hey Tim,
I also need some flavor of L2VPN (eVPN) and L3VPN (VPNv4/VPNv6) working
over IPv6.
L3VPN uses BGP exclusively for VPN label signalling, no need for LDP.
For L2VPN only Martini uses LDP, but if you have choice, why wouldn't you
choose
This report has been generated at Fri Feb 20 21:14:25 2015 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/2.0 for a current version of this report.
Recent Table History
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 6:02 PM, Adam Vitkovsky adam.vitkov...@gamma.co.uk
wrote:
Alright so would you mind sharing the business drivers that would make
you migrate your current production infrastructure to this new unproven
possibly buggy LDPv6 and 4PE/4VPE setup please?
adam
Hi all,
We're currently a UK based managed service provider looking to open up in the
New York area. Part of our service model involves buying quite a lot of L2
ethernet tails from customer prems back to our DCs, usually 100Mb and 1Gb, but
sometimes smaller 10-50Mb services for backups. I was
All,
We have a rather strange situation (well, strange to me, at least).
We have an email reputation accreditation applicant, who otherwise looks clean,
however there is a very strange and somewhat concerning domain being pointed to
one of the applicant's IP addresses Let's call the domain
On 2/20/2015 4:13 AM, Nikolay Shopik wrote:
rfc6115 have good overview and recommendation. IPv6 clearly need
separation of identification of endpoints and routing information to
that endpoint.
I'm not overly familiar, but I'm always good for new things if one
process is supported.
deagg
Hi,
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 12:08 PM, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq.
amitch...@isipp.com wrote:
All,
We have a rather strange situation (well, strange to me, at least).
We have an email reputation accreditation applicant, who otherwise looks
clean, however there is a very strange and somewhat
BGP Update Report
Interval: 12-Feb-15 -to- 19-Feb-15 (7 days)
Observation Point: BGP Peering with AS131072
TOP 20 Unstable Origin AS
Rank ASNUpds % Upds/PfxAS-Name
1 - AS61894 367710 7.2% 122570.0 -- FreeBSD Brasil LTDA,BR
2 - AS23752 271684 5.3%
On 2/20/2015 11:08 AM, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. wrote:
a) just not worry about it and keep an eye on it
If they have held the netblock for awhile and are already using the IP
Address in question, this is fine. I presume that the servers don't
actually respond for that domain (name-based web or
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 11:33 AM, Adam Vitkovsky adam.vitkov...@gamma.co.uk
wrote:
Of Tim Durack
Sent: 20 February 2015 14:00
IPv6 control plane this decade may yet be optimistic.
And most importantly it's not actually needed it's just a whim of network
operators.
adam
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 12:08 PM, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq.
amitch...@isipp.com wrote:
We have an email reputation accreditation applicant, who otherwise
looks clean, however there is a very strange and somewhat
concerning domain being pointed to one of the applicant's IP
addresses Let's call
This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet
Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan.
The posting is sent to APOPS, NANOG, AfNOG, AusNOG, SANOG, PacNOG,
CaribNOG and the RIPE Routing Working Group.
Daily listings are sent to bgp-st...@lists.apnic.net
For
If a DNS Admin at Comcast could contact me offline it would be great.
This is concerning your IPV6 configured mail servers.
Thanks,
Mark
26 matches
Mail list logo
