I guess I didn't go on to say more about the router situation, but I meant an
official network presence, diverse paths to other POPs, etc. for the first
entry.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
Midwest-IX
http://www.midwest-ix.com
-
I think you are talking about different applications of remote peering.
If you connect to a remote IX via transport the routing decision is
more along the lines is this packet destined to me. Having a router
sitting in the "remote" colo is of little value. It would not help to
keep the traffic
Never has the phrase "It burns when IP" been more accurate.
On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 5:03 PM, Jon Lewis wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Aug 2017, Sean Heskett wrote:
>
> 2.4GHz is only stopped by a tree because the FCC EIRP limit for point to
>> multipoint gear is 4 watts or 36dbm. If
On 17 August 2017 at 16:11, William Herrin wrote:
> Doesn't loose mode URPF allow packets from anything that exists in the
> routing table regardless of source? Seems just about worthless. You're
> allowing the site to spoof anything in the routing table which is NOT
> BCP38.
Give me a contact and I might send enough cupcakes for most of
their engineers =D
PS: Progression pain is still progression.
-
Alain Hebertaheb...@pubnix.net
PubNIX Inc.
50 boul. St-Charles
P.O. Box 26770 Beaconsfield, Quebec H9W 6G7
Tel:
On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 7:35 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
> Strict vs. loose.
>
Hi Mike,
Doesn't loose mode URPF allow packets from anything that exists in the
routing table regardless of source? Seems just about worthless. You're
allowing the site to spoof anything in the routing
A company you have a contractual arrangement with vs. random operators of which
neither you nor the end party have any relationship with. Which one's
unreliable, again?
>From a technical perspective:
router located with IX > wave to IX > switched PtP\PtMP to IX > remote peering
service >
Strict vs. loose.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
Midwest-IX
http://www.midwest-ix.com
- Original Message -
From: "Mikael Abrahamsson"
To: "chris"
Cc: "NANOG list"
Sent:
On Thu, 17 Aug 2017, chris wrote:
Time for someone to bake them a bcp38 cake
I am all for people deploying BCP38, but from the original email this is
definitely not a cause for celebration. BCP38 should be used against
single homed customers only if you're doing it by using uRPF.
Time for someone to bake them a bcp38 cake
On Aug 16, 2017 4:04 PM, "Ben Russell" wrote:
> Could someone from Cogent contact me off-list? We are having an issue
> with one of our downstream customers who is multi-homed to another
> carrier. The end customer is
10 matches
Mail list logo