bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com writes:
or - the more modern approach is to let the node (w/ proper authorization)
do a secure dynamic update of the revserse map - so the forward and reverse
delegations match. ... a -VERY- useful technique.
I have a question. Is this an abuse problem? some
On Sat, 2009-03-28 at 03:12 -0400, Luke S Crawford wrote:
bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com writes:
or - the more modern approach is to let the node (w/ proper authorization)
do a secure dynamic update of the revserse map - so the forward and reverse
delegations match. ... a -VERY- useful
Athanasios Douitsis aduit...@gmail.com wrote:
Heard that they are somewhat picky about who they -enable. Our campus
has had native IPv6 everywhere and upwards all the way to Geant for many
years. We are thinking of applying in the hopes that it will boost IPv6
usage. Did you have any
Hi List,
We are looking to move our non infrastructure routes into iBGP to help with our
IGP scalability (OSPF). We already run full BGP tables on our core where we
connect to multiple upstream and downstream customers. Most of our aggregation
and edge routers cannot hold full tables and
Hi everyone
All NANOG mailing lists were updated to use VERP (variable envelope
return paths) at the beginning of the week. This will aid in bounce
detection and help identify the subscriber. A more detailed
description of VERP can be found here:
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 1:13 PM, tt tt tt_...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Hi List,
We are looking to move our non infrastructure routes into iBGP to help with
our IGP scalability (OSPF). We already run full BGP tables on our core where
we connect to multiple upstream and downstream customers.
Dave,
Your netblock might be a standard /19 or just a modest /30 :-) or you are just
deploying IPv6 and therefore applied for one of the most recent RIPE
assigments.
Do you have different AS private/public numbers running on your network?
filtering IGP routes part pf the OSPF design
7 matches
Mail list logo
