Re: Virtual or Remote Peering

2017-08-17 Thread Mike Hammett
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 -

Re: Virtual or Remote Peering

2017-08-17 Thread Jay Hanke
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

Re: For the Wireless Guys

2017-08-17 Thread James Milko
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

Re: Cogent BCP-38

2017-08-17 Thread Saku Ytti
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.

Re: Cogent BCP-38

2017-08-17 Thread Alain Hebert
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:

Re: Cogent BCP-38

2017-08-17 Thread William Herrin
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

Re: Virtual or Remote Peering

2017-08-17 Thread Mike Hammett
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 >

Re: Cogent BCP-38

2017-08-17 Thread Mike Hammett
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:

Re: Cogent BCP-38

2017-08-17 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson
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.

Re: Cogent BCP-38

2017-08-17 Thread chris
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