On Saturday, September 25, 2021 21:55 Chris Adams wrote:
> More than once, I've had to explain why zero-filling octets, like
> 127.000.000.001 (which still works) or 008.008.008.008 (which does not),
> is broken.
Zero filling IPv4 is just evil. How about this party trick?
> % ping -c 1
I can install an entire 384lb 21U core router in 30 minutes.
Most of that time is removing every module to lighten the chassis, then
re-installing every module.
We can build an entire POP in a day with a crew of 3, so I’m not sure there’s
worthwhile savings to be had here. Also consider
Valdis Klētnieks wrote on 26/09/2021 01:44:
19:17:38 0 [~] ping 2130706433
PING 2130706433 (127.0.0.1) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.126 ms
64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.075 ms
64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=0.063 ms
Originally, textual IPv4 addresses were maintained centrally
by ISI as a file format of HOSTS.TXT, when there was no DNS
and users are required to download the current most HOSTS.TXT
from ISI through ftp.
At that time, there can be, because of consistent central
management, just one way to
> We operate over 1000 switches in our data centers, and hardware failures that
> require a switch swap are common enough where the speed of swap starts to
> matter to some extent. We probably swap a switch or two a month.
having operated a network of over 2000 switches, where we would see
5 matches
Mail list logo
