Hello:
On 4/7/09 6:47 PM, Joe Provo nanog-...@rsuc.gweep.net wrote:
Heya,
There have been periodic inquiries for network-based experiments
on the NANOG conference network. While there is a serious benefit
to be gained by experimenters exposing their projects to the NANOG
attendees,
On Apr 7, 2009, at 8:12 PM, Gadi Evron wrote:
Is it possible to form a basic policy to preface thread moderation?
Example would be:
1. Email mailing list on the thread, asking for people to respond
only if there is an operational content they wish to share, or
refrain from doing so.
On Tuesday 07 April 2009 22:10:24 Charles Wyble wrote:
Been troubleshooting a very strange problem for a couple of weeks now.
I have a few hundred systems deployed throughout the United States
utilizing EVDO connectivity with Verizon as a carrier. They are stationary.
Over the past few weeks
On 8/04/2009, at 10:27 PM, Alexander Harrowell wrote:
Do they maintain a continuous data link in normal operation (like,
say,
connectivity for a LAN, or backhaul for a camera or some such), or
do they
request the data link when they need to send [whatever] (like a
discrete SCADA
system)? My
Any good clueful network Engineers from Equinix on-list? If so, please
contact me off-line as I noticed some oddball network behavior at some
of your peering points.
Regards,
Stefan Fouant: NeuStar, Inc.
Principal Network Engineer
46000 Center Oak Plaza Sterling, VA 20166
[ T ] +1 571 434 5656
* stefan.fou...@neustar.biz (Fouant, Stefan) [Wed 08 Apr 2009, 17:04 CEST]:
Any good clueful network Engineers from Equinix on-list? If so, please
contact me off-line as I noticed some oddball network behavior at some
of your peering points.
You do realise that the people who run an Internet
Niels - this was an issue with the internet exchange netblock being
leaked out to upstream providers and causing peering adjacencies to be
established through indirect paths. It wasn't an issue with the router
and it wasn't an issue with a peer.
Thanks for your concern though... I think we got
www.iquate.com http://www.iquate.com/ audit large network
infrastructure; Cisco plus others; very flexible as you can drive your
own queries across thousands of devices;
Any views expressed in this message are the sender's own, and do not represent
the views of iQuate except where the
Hi All,
Is it possible to create L2 Etherchannel at one end and L3 etherchannel at
another end?
For Example:
SW-1
interface GigabitEthernet1/1
channel-group 1 mode desirable
channel-protocol pagp
!
interface GigabitEthernet1/2
channel-group 1 mode desirable
channel-protocol pagp
!
Alexander Harrowell wrote:
On Tuesday 07 April 2009 22:10:24 Charles Wyble wrote:
Been troubleshooting a very strange problem for a couple of weeks now.
I have a few hundred systems deployed throughout the United States
utilizing EVDO connectivity with Verizon as a carrier. They are
Yes.
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 9:03 PM, Amolak amolak.si...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi All,
Is it possible to create L2 Etherchannel at one end and L3 etherchannel at
another end?
For Example:
SW-1
interface GigabitEthernet1/1
channel-group 1 mode desirable
channel-protocol pagp
!
Do they maintain a continuous data link in normal operation (like, say,
connectivity for a LAN, or backhaul for a camera or some such), or do they
request the data link when they need to send [whatever] (like a discrete SCADA
system)? My (user only) experience is that cellular data
Update...
First, thank you to all who replied off list. The general summary of the
offlist replies, is that a PRL update may be needed. This of course
doesn't appear doable via Linux, and our vendor (IRG) swore up and down
this wouldn't be required.
We had the tech remove the USB dongle
Take a look at the BRIX active measurement instrumentation product which is now
owned by EXFO. Many carriers use the BRIX probes to produce empirical data
representing SLA values such as jitter, packet loss and round trip times for
their network links. BRIX also has other more sophisticated
Some people replied me about my questions. thanks for reply.
However, what I want to know ultimately is something like technical proof or
standard or experimentation information
they can logically support SLA values in provider's IP network.
For example, regarding packet loss, I found
I was chatting with someone the other day and we were trying to build
a complete list of all units which can handle full routing tables 1
year from now, assuming current 4k/month growth (nevermind de-
aggregation)
Juniper M/T-series units could handle 600k before, now 1mil with I-
chip
Cisco 6500/7600 you replace SUP32 or SUP720 with SUP720-3BXL
...if I understand it, no other cards need replaced?
(note that this disagrees with my understanding of how their FIB/CEF
works so I'm curious about this)
If you have linecard DFCs they would need to be XLs also.
Tim:
On Wed, 8 Apr 2009, Jo Rhett wrote:
Cisco 6500/7600 with SUP720-3BXL handles 1mil routes
Keep in mind, on that platform, IPv4 and IPv6 routes share (rob from each
other) space. 1mil IPv4 routes assumes you're not doing IPv6 at all.
More realistic is some kind of split. i.e.
L3
Jo Rhett wrote:
Cisco 6500/7600 with SUP720-3BXL handles 1mil routes
Sounds great on paper but a sup720 can barely handle full tables today.
Depending on how many full tables you take and what else you are doing
with it, cpu resources are unreasonably tight. Having many vlans with
vrrp and
19 matches
Mail list logo
