congratulations HE team!.
On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 9:56 PM TJ Trout wrote:
> absolutely awesome Mike!
>
> Can you put on the roadmap to enable irr based filters for customers with
> bgp communities?
>
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 9:48 PM Mike Leber via NANOG
> wrote:
>
>> I'm pleased to announce
absolutely awesome Mike!
Can you put on the roadmap to enable irr based filters for customers with
bgp communities?
On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 9:48 PM Mike Leber via NANOG
wrote:
> I'm pleased to announce Hurricane Electric has completed our RPKI
> INVALID filtering project and we now have 0 RPKI
I'm pleased to announce Hurricane Electric has completed our RPKI
INVALID filtering project and we now have 0 RPKI INVALIDs in our routing
table.
Hurricane Electric has 29021 BGP sessions with 22109 prefix filters with
7191 networks directly and 8239 networks including Internet exchanges.
We
On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 7:38 PM wrote:
>
> Ben Cannon wrote on 6/15/2020 4:11 PM:
>
> > https://downdetector.com/
> > ...you kicked out a patch cable. (Nods to BOFH)
> >
> > In all seriousness, looks major... Long-haul cut? Did we lose a pie
> > or COs?
> >
> > -Ben
> T-mobile implies routing
Ben Cannon wrote on 6/15/2020 4:11 PM:
https://downdetector.com/
...you kicked out a patch cable. (Nods to BOFH)
In all seriousness, looks major... Long-haul cut? Did we lose a pie
or COs?
-Ben
T-mobile implies routing issue:
https://twitter.com/TMobileHelp/status/1272645683263094784
https://downdetector.com/
...you kicked out a patch cable. (Nods to BOFH)
In all seriousness, looks major... Long-haul cut? Did we lose a pie or COs?
-Ben
Yes I too looked into that. And it was not near that price. Please send me
and email off list. I would like to know where I might find that.
On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 2:58 PM Forrest Christian (List Account) <
li...@packetflux.com> wrote:
> We just got a MX204 quote and it was close to 2.5x the
As someone who has used VSR (Nokia) and VMX (Juniper) I’d suggest, good luck on
your plan to use servers for this sort of routing. If you want a cheap router
to handle full tables and a couple of 10G interfaces worth of throughput I’d
suggest you would be a lot better off with Mikrotik’s latest
We just got a MX204 quote and it was close to 2.5x the price you're
quoting, with apparently the minimum license needed for full tables, and
Next Day replacement. So if it's really $11K, please shoot me an email
off list. Or if someone has a better place to get a decent quote for a
MX204, or
Dear colleagues,
On 15/Jun/20 12:13, adamv0...@netconsultings.com wrote:
> Not to mention this whole thread is focused solely on next-hop
> identification -which is just the lowest of the layers of abstraction
> in the vertical stack. We haven’t talked about other "entities" that
> need identification like:
Hi all,
LACNOG (the Latin American and Caribbean Network Operators Group) will
be a virtual meeting this year.
Looking forward to great talks from our big brother NANOG members :-)
/Carlos
LACNOG PC
Forwarded message:
From: Jorge Villa
To: Latin America and Caribbean Region Network
Patrick Cole wrote on 15/06/2020 14:16:
MX204's may have gotten chaper in the last year I don't know. But YMMV.
OP needs to check the licensing package for the MX204, and work out the
N-year TCO.
Nick
On 15/Jun/20 12:13, adamv0...@netconsultings.com wrote:
> Not to mention this whole thread is focused solely on next-hop identification
> -which is just the lowest of the layers of abstraction in the vertical stack.
> We haven’t talked about other "entities" that need identification like:
Drew,
A 6 Tbps router is a little more expensive than a 2 Tbps router, yes.
I was referring to the 7280SR range not the 7280CR.
I ended up getting our SR2k's around the same price as MX204's with the help of
our friendly Arista rep.
MX204's may have gotten chaper in the last year I don't
Yeah, as I mentioned this was a few years ago.
=)
-Original Message-
From: Saku Ytti
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2020 8:54 AM
To: Drew Weaver
Cc: William Herrin ; brad dreisbach ;
nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Partial vs Full tables
Hey Drew,
> The only time we have ever noticed any sort
Hey Drew,
> The only time we have ever noticed any sort of operational downside of using
> uRPF loose was when NTTs router in NYC thought a full table was only 500,000
> routes a few years back.
If NTT is 2914 this can no longer happen and it is difficult to see
2914 would ever go back to
We've been setting up some Arista DCS-7280CR2K-30-F lately and they have been
just OK. The pricing is not at all close to $12,000 though.
-Drew
-Original Message-
From: NANOG On Behalf Of Patrick Cole
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2020 8:42 AM
To: Colton Conor
Cc: NANOG
Subject: Re:
Colton,
We recently opted for the Arista 7280R2K for peering edge. They come in at
similar price points (maybe a little more?) to the MX204 and are a bit higher
capacity.
Worth a look in.
Cheers,
Patrick
Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 07:00:55AM -0500, Colton Conor wrote:
>For around $11,000
On 6/15/20 8:00 AM, Colton Conor wrote:
For around $11,000 right now, you can get a brand new Juniper MX204
router. Alternatively, you can get a used MX240 / MX480 with quad power
supplies, redundant quad core RE's, and 2 16X10G MIC cards for around
$12,000.
My question, is there anything
This is just my experience so do whatever you want with that.
The only time we have ever noticed any sort of operational downside of using
uRPF loose was when NTTs router in NYC thought a full table was only 500,000
routes a few years back.
That is a fairly real consideration though. =)
For around $11,000 right now, you can get a brand new Juniper MX204 router.
Alternatively, you can get a used MX240 / MX480 with quad power supplies,
redundant quad core RE's, and 2 16X10G MIC cards for around $12,000.
My question, is there anything else worth looking at in this price range /
> From: Saku Ytti
> Sent: Monday, June 15, 2020 11:02 AM
>
> On Mon, 15 Jun 2020 at 12:46, wrote:
>
> > Yes it can indeed, and that's moving towards the centre between the
> extreme cases that David laid out.
> > It's about how granular one wants to be in identifying an end-to-end path
>
On Mon, 15 Jun 2020 at 12:46, wrote:
> Yes it can indeed, and that's moving towards the centre between the extreme
> cases that David laid out.
> It's about how granular one wants to be in identifying an end-to-end path
> between a pair of edge nodes.
> I agree with you that MPLS is still
> From: Saku Ytti
> Sent: Monday, June 15, 2020 10:31 AM
>
> On Mon, 15 Jun 2020 at 12:24, wrote:
>
>
> > Yes this is where each node needs to have a label uniquely identifying
> > every LSP passing through it.
> > Saku,
> > With IP header you don't need this,
> > Consider this:
> > PE1 to
On Mon, 15 Jun 2020 at 12:24, wrote:
> Yes this is where each node needs to have a label uniquely identifying every
> LSP passing through it.
> Saku,
> With IP header you don't need this,
> Consider this:
> PE1 to PE2 via 3 P-core nodes
> With ECMP in IP, then PE1 just needs single FEC the
> David Sinn
> Sent: Friday, June 12, 2020 4:42 PM
>
> > On Jun 12, 2020, at 8:26 AM, Saku Ytti wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 12 Jun 2020 at 18:16, David Sinn wrote:
> >
> The label stack question is about the comparisons between the two
> extremes of SR that you can be in. You either label your
> From: David Sinn
> Sent: Friday, June 12, 2020 4:19 PM
>
> > On Jun 11, 2020, at 2:02 PM, Mark Tinka wrote:
> >
> > On 11/Jun/20 17:32, David Sinn wrote:
> >
> >> Respectfully, that is deployment dependent. In a traditional SP
topology
> that focuses on large do everything boxes, where the
28 matches
Mail list logo
