I would agree.Not sure if other vendors have something similar, but in Juniper land you could use traffic engineering with container lsp to go a step further than just plain rsvp-te.Kind regards Karsten
Assuming that the reasons for the low bandwidth and use of radio is due to
physical constraints - distances, inhospitable terrain between nodes, etc.
In this case, some good 'ol MPLS traffic engineering using LSP's with
bandwidth reservations may be the way to influence how traffic is routed.
Hah, no not your client . Their existing network is actually surprisingly
stable, but it is bandwidth-constrained. As well as the various other replies
I've seen here and off-list (THANKS!), the only commercial product I've found
so far that might have a hope of handling this is HPE/Aruba's
On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 10:30 AM Adam Thompson wrote:
> Has anyone come across any product or technology that can handle the
> multi-path-ness and the private-network-ness like a regular router, but also
> provides the intelligent per-flow path steering based on e.g. latency, like
> an SD-WAN
A NANOG 83 Attendees' Guide to Minneapolis
Get ready to feel welcomed in the industrial landmark city, known as the
birthplace of iconic musicians, incredible museums, + the "Minnesota nice"
A NANOG 83 Attendees' Guide to Minneapolis
Get ready to feel welcomed in the industrial landmark city, known as the
birthplace of iconic musicians, incredible museums, + the "Minnesota nice"
Ok folks,
Thanks for the info about uunet. But that doesn't address:
3. The intermittent, high delays (factor of 10) jump out (also, when
running ping tests, there seem to be intermittent periods of long
sequences of timeouts)
or, that, for about 4 years now, gamers seem to be reporting
On 10/13/21 07:34, Masataka Ohta wrote:
But, I certainly mean that CDN operators should not request
peering directly to access/retail ISPs merely because they have
their own transit, because the transit is not at all neutral.
I'm not sure that I understand this. Peering is rarely if ever
On 10/13/21 19:59, Fletcher Kittredge wrote:
Hey! From the description it must be one of our clients!
Just beware if you go this route, a network that is probably already
unstable and unreliable will become at least an order of magnitude
worse. You can't fix ten lbs of stuff into a 4 lb
Hey! From the description it must be one of our clients!
Just beware if you go this route, a network that is probably already
unstable and unreliable will become at least an order of magnitude worse.
You can't fix ten lbs of stuff into a 4 lb stuff bag. The internet
protocols do not tolerate
Looking for recommendtions or suggestions...
I've got a downstream customer asking for help; they have a private internal
network that I've taken to calling the "partial-mesh network from hell": it's
got two partially-overlapping radio networks, mixed with islands of isolated
fiber
On 10/13/21 17:24, Masataka Ohta wrote:
The problem is that, unlike neutral transit providers, "the bits"
is biased by the CDN provider.
Then, access/retail ISPs who also want to supply their own contents,
even though they must be neutral to contents provided by neutral
transit providers,
Tom Beecher wrote:
But, I certainly mean that CDN operators should not request
peering directly to access/retail ISPs merely because they have
their own transit, because the transit is not at all neutral.
I'm still confused.
Let's say I have a CDN network, with a datacenter somewhere, an
On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 10:56 AM Tom Beecher wrote:
> But, I certainly mean that CDN operators should not request
>> peering directly to access/retail ISPs merely because they have
>> their own transit, because the transit is not at all neutral.
>>
>
> I'm still confused.
>
> Let's say I have a
>
> But, I certainly mean that CDN operators should not request
> peering directly to access/retail ISPs merely because they have
> their own transit, because the transit is not at all neutral.
>
I'm still confused.
Let's say I have a CDN network, with a datacenter somewhere, an edge site
Tom Beecher wrote:
For network neutrality, backbone providers *MUST* be neutral
for contents they carry.
However, CDN providers having their own backbone are using
their backbone for contents they prefer, which is *NOT*
neutral at all.
As such, access/retail providers may pay for peering with
>
> For network neutrality, backbone providers *MUST* be neutral
> for contents they carry.
>
> However, CDN providers having their own backbone are using
> their backbone for contents they prefer, which is *NOT*
> neutral at all.
>
> As such, access/retail providers may pay for peering with
>
I agree with you generally.
It's not impossible, but probably unlikely for an individual to be sued for
contents of cookie data or similar small fragments like that.
I do believe it's orders of more magnitude more likely for the 'average'
residential consumer to attract a suit from the
Matthew Petach wrote:
With an anycast setup using the same IP addresses in every
location, returning SERVFAIL doesn't have the same effect,
however, because failing over from anycast address 1 to
anycast address 2 is likely to be routed to the same pop
location, where the same result will
19 matches
Mail list logo
