that cannot be solved? Fine, other people
believe those issues can be solved and are scratching their head to find
deployable solutions.
As I said before, your technical experience and feedback is the most welcome,
but let's try to focus only on the technical level.
thanks
Luigi Iannone
what seems to go on a lot, from my
observations of IETF list activity, I'll copy my reply to the list as
you have done.
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 4:08 AM, Luigi Iannone
lu...@net.t-labs.tu-berlin.de wrote:
Granted. You are the real world expert. Now can you stop repeating this in
each email
On Jul 13, 2011, at 13:03 , Luigi Iannone wrote:
Jeff,
on one point we agree, there is value in continuing this thread.
There is _no_ value.
my mistake...
Luigi
I've tried to bring the discussion back to the technical issues, but I failed.
Personally, I find your emails
On Apr 18, 2011, at 10:09 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Apr 18, 2011, at 12:18 PM, Jeff Wheeler wrote:
2011/4/18 Lukasz Bromirski luk...@bromirski.net:
LISP scales better, because with introduction of *location*
prefix, you're at the same time (or ideally you would)
withdraw the
On Apr 18, 2011, at 9:50 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
Any edges which talk to a significant number of other networks will
have to cache a significant portion of the Internet, which will
actually lead to edge boxes having to be larger than they are now.
This is not accurate. For networks with
On 11, Apr, 2011, at 17:26 , Owen DeLong wrote:
But can you explain better? Why should LISP require more IP space than
normal IPv4 deployment?
If you are a new site, you ask for an IP block. This is independent from
whether or not you will use LISP.
Sure, but, if you also need
On 11, Apr, 2011, at 23:53 , Jeff Wheeler wrote:
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
I do tend to think that any technology sufficiently confusing that I cannot
understand it well after reasonable effort is of questionable value
for wide deployment.
The
On 9, Apr, 2011, at 16:00 , Owen DeLong wrote:
Sent from my iPad
On Apr 9, 2011, at 4:31 AM, Job Snijders j...@instituut.net wrote:
Dear All,
On 8 Apr 2011, at 19:34, Lori Jakab wrote:
On 04/08/2011 06:39 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
LISP can also be a good option. Comes with
On 11, Apr, 2011, at 15:17 , Owen DeLong wrote:
[snip]
Doing IPv4 LISP on any kind of scale requires significant additional
prefixes which at this time doesn't seem so practical to me.
This is not accurate IMO. To inject prefixes in the BGP is needed only to
make non-LISP sites talk to
Hi,
I think that the best repository of documentation is lisp4.net.
I would also have a look to
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-jakab-lisp-deployment/
Luigi
On 11, Apr, 2011, at 16:49 , Christina Klam wrote:
All,
One of our ISP is planning to do a LISP deployment. (1) Does anyone
On Jan 13, 2011, at 10:49 , Owen DeLong wrote:
Most people do not know about the multi-homing feature designed into
IPv6. Most people who do, seem to agree that it may not see enough
practical use to have meaningful impact on routing table growth, which
will no longer be kept in check by a
On Dec 10, 2010, at 12:30 , Robert Bonomi wrote:
From nanog-bounces+bonomi=mail.r-bonomi@nanog.org Wed Dec 8 15:36:44
2010
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 15:34:47 -0600
From: Jack Bates jba...@brightok.net
To: David Conrad d...@virtualized.org
Subject: Re: Start accepting longer prefixes as
I recently came across NetKit that seems to offer what you are looking for...
http://wiki.netkit.org/index.php/Main_Page
L.
On Jun 28, 2010, at 12:32 , Lynchehaun, Patrick (Patrick) wrote:
You could use load sbgp/mrtd script to load route dumps. There is also
bgpsimple
In Germany was down as well, but now works fine again.
Luigi
On Feb 24, 2009, at 13:16 , Sarunas Vancevicius wrote:
The web interface is down in Ireland too.
But IMAP access is working fine.
On 12:12, Tue 24 Feb 09, Tobias Bartholdi wrote:
yup, down in switzerland too...
-Original
14 matches
Mail list logo
