Thanks for the response. It really doesn't bear directly on my situation,
but it does have references to what I need in RFC 8365.
Now that I know the terminology for these features, "Split Horizon" and
"Local Bias" (neither of which seems to fit very well to me), it's easier
to find more info.
I
On 11/17/22 19:55, Joe Maimon wrote:
You could instead use a /31.
We could, but many of our DIA customers have all manner of CPE's that
may or may not support this. Having unique designs per customer does not
scale well.
Or private/enterprise-private
Yeah, don't like that,
The effective date will be determined later, after publication in the
Federal Register and OMB review under PRA.
November 17, 2022—The Federal Communications Commission today
unveiled new rules that will for the first time require broadband
providers to display easy-tounderstand labels to
hey,
"The EVPN split-horizon procedure ensures that the BUM traffic
originated by the multi-homed PE and sent from the non-DF to the DF, is
not replicated back to the CE (echoed packets on the CE). To avoid these
echoed packets, the non-DF (PE1) sends all the BUM packets to the DF
(PE2) with
My google-fu and attempts to dig through all of the standards is failing
me. I am trying to understand the mechanism to prevent an ESI designated
forwarder from looping BUM traffic.
The scenario I am imagining is BUM traffic coming into the fabric on an ESI
link on a non-designated member of the
Mark Tinka wrote:
For our DIA/Enterprise business, we offer customers a /30 for p2p
link, and a /29 as initial standard for onward assignment within their
LAN.
You could instead use a /31. Or private/enterprise-private or unnumbered
and route them the single /32 to use for their NAT on
That is the understanding I got when discussing the situation with our
engineering contact there.
thanks,
-Randy
- On Nov 17, 2022, at 12:12 PM, Eric Tykwinski eric-l...@truenet.com wrote:
> As a side note, will the email to text gateways be subject to the FCC's A2P
> 10DLC registration
As a side note, will the email to text gateways be subject to the FCC's A2P
10DLC registration requirements?
I'm wondering if that's part of the reason for not officially supporting email
to text.
Sincerely,
Eric Tykwinski
TrueNet, Inc.
P: 610-429-8300
> -Original Message-
> From:
We did a few months back and were told that they are no longer officially
supporting it. It may have to do with the volume that is being sent,
particularly from a single IP address.
We moved to using Twilio's API and it has been much more solid.
thanks,
-Randy
- On Nov 17, 2022, at
Anyone else seeing massive delays in Verizon's email to SMS gateway
lately? I'm seeing delays on emails to @vtext and @vzwpix addresses at
anywhere form 45 minutes to 12 hours.
Justin H.
On 11/16/22 16:39, Dave Taht wrote:
I am kind of curious as to the distribution of connections to smaller
companies and other entities that need more than one ipv4 address, but
don't run BGP. So, for as an ISP or infrastructure provider, what is
the typical percentage nowadays of /32s /31s
11 matches
Mail list logo
