RFC 4594 would suggest using DSCP CS2 (01xx in the TOS byte; xx is
the ECN flags). Section 3.1 discusses the issues with CS7, which is
the DSCP counterpart to the deprecated IP Precedence 7. RFCs 2474/2475
discuss the Differentiated Services Architecture and its implementation.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 12:08 AM, Fred Baker f...@cisco.com wrote:
RFC 4594 would suggest using DSCP CS2 (01xx in the TOS byte; xx is
the ECN flags). Section 3.1 discusses the issues with CS7, which is the
DSCP counterpart to the deprecated IP
Hello,
Anyone with opinions on what restrictions a service provider should and
should not impose on Ethernet L2 circuits provided to business customers
wanting to connect several offices?
The service provider's MPLS core network doesn't mind what traffic flows
through the EoMPLS tunnel, but the
- Endresen Even even.endre...@bkk.no schreef:
Hello,
Anyone with opinions on what restrictions a service provider should
and
should not impose on Ethernet L2 circuits provided to business
customers
wanting to connect several offices?
Although different in concept, but somehwat
I will be out of the office starting 12/30/2009 and will not return until
01/04/2010.
If you need immediate assistance please call TechSupport at 651-665-5000.
Hello,
Are this Blacklistservers since x-mas down. We receive in the last days many
errors from this servers...
Exemple enclosed Anonymsed.
Greeting
Xaver
Dec 31 10:12:37 linux-1ij2 named[14306]: too many timeouts resolving
'XXX.cn-kr.blackholes.us/A' (in 'cn-kr.blackholes.us'?): disabling EDNS
Hi!
Are this Blacklistservers since x-mas down. We receive in the last days many
errors from this servers...
Exemple enclosed Anonymsed.
Greeting
Xaver
Dec 31 10:12:37 linux-1ij2 named[14306]: too many timeouts resolving
'XXX.cn-kr.blackholes.us/A' (in 'cn-kr.blackholes.us'?): disabling
On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 12:28:41 +0100 (CET)
Raymond Dijkxhoorn raym...@prolocation.net wrote:
Hi!
Are this Blacklistservers since x-mas down. We receive in the last
days many errors from this servers...
Exemple enclosed Anonymsed.
Greeting
Xaver
Dec 31 10:12:37 linux-1ij2
Link up, receiving all routes but provider stops propagating your
announcement outward.
Longer AS path prepending on your secondary connection should take care of
this, eh? Might end up with asymmetric routing but better than no traffic
being returned.
Link up but unusably high packet loss
Xaver Aerni wrote:
Dec 31 10:12:37 linux-1ij2 named[14306]: too many timeouts resolving
'XXX.YYY.ZZZ/A' (in 'YYY.ZZZ'?): disabling EDNS
Do you have a firewall in front of this server that limits DNS packets
to 512 bytes?
Interesting questions. Here are a few thoughts from the perspective of
an education/research backbone operator that used to be IP only but has
also been offering L2 point-to-point circuits for a few years.
Should business customers expect to be able to connect several LANs
through an Ethernet
At the Montevideo ICANN meeting, in August, 2001, I was surprised, and
disapointed, that the ISP Constituency had reduced to ... a couple of IP
attorneys.
So, as a point of departure, were one going to advocate policy which
affects ISPs as ISPs, as opposed to ISPs as trademark portfolio
On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 1:25 PM, William Herrin
herrin-na...@dirtside.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 12:02 PM, Simon Chen simonche...@gmail.com wrote:
I have a question regarding multi-homing, mostly from stub network's
operational point of view. My big question is: what kind of failures
The obvious change RIRs could make would be to make sure the contracts
they allocate resources under give them the latitude to cancel those
contracts if certain boundaries of behavior are breached.
YES I REALIZE EASIER SAID THAN DONE.
But just as allocation of resources is not a transfer of
The MEF has a set of specs for this.
http://metroethernetforum.org/
In general, it's built as a dumb pipe virtual circuit, IE your client
BPDUs and other IEEE 802.* signaling are ignored, as they are
encapsulated, and forwarded explicitly to a given port. What you do on
the switch that gets the
Or should the service provider implement port security and limit the
number of MAC addresses on the access ports, forcing the customer to
connect a router in both ends and segment their network?
That would make the service less attractive, and also more complex to
set up and maintain.
Barry Shein wrote:
The obvious change RIRs could make would be to make sure the contracts
they allocate resources under give them the latitude to cancel those
contracts if certain boundaries of behavior are breached.
YES I REALIZE EASIER SAID THAN DONE.
But just as allocation of resources is
On Dec 31, 2009, at 11:32 AM, Paul Timmins wrote:
Cool. Then you just have to figure out how to unilaterally withdraw a
resource that doesn't have a centralized automated verification system.
Taking you out of whois doesn't automatically take you out of people's BGP
tables, after all.
See
-Original Message-
From: Simon Leinen
Sent: Thursday, December 31, 2009 8:29 AM
Subject: Re: Restrictions on Ethernet L2 circuits?
Should business customers expect to be able to connect several LANs
through an Ethernet L2 ciruit and build a layer 2 network spanning
several
(now defunct) Yipes! NAN (National Area Network) product
They don't offer this anymore?
-Original Message-
From: Endresen Even
Sent: Thursday, December 31, 2009 12:41 AM
Subject: Restrictions on Ethernet L2 circuits?
Hello,
Anyone with opinions on what restrictions a service provider should
and
should not impose on Ethernet L2 circuits provided to business
From: Paul Timmins [p...@telcodata.us]
Cool. Then you just have to figure out how to unilaterally withdraw a
resource that doesn't have a centralized automated verification system.
Taking you out of whois doesn't automatically take you out of people's
BGP tables, after all.
That's step two of the
Yipes is still offering services under the Yipes, name, at least in the NY
Metro Area.
On Dec 31, 2009, at 3:32 PM, George Bonser wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Shane Ronan
Sent: Thursday, December 31, 2009 12:24 PM
Subject: Re: Restrictions on Ethernet L2 circuits?
(now
Cool. Then you just have to figure out how to unilaterally withdraw a
resource that doesn't have a centralized automated verification system.
Taking you out of whois doesn't automatically take you out of people's
BGP tables, after all.
That's step two of the problem - enforcement. Enforcement
24 matches
Mail list logo
