On 26/01/2010 00:48, Steve Bertrand wrote:
My original post was completely concerned on automating the process of
spinning traffic throughput graphs. Are there any software packages that
stand out that have the ability to differentiate throughput between
v4/v6, as opposed to the aggregate of
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 22:34:46 -0500
Christopher Morrow morrowc.li...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 7:33 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
On Jan 25, 2010, at 8:14 AM, Mathias Seiler wrote:
Ok let's summarize:
/64:
+ Sticks to the way IPv6 was designed (64 bits
With Guard appliance and 65xx module being EoL'd, and Cisco's desire
to exist the DDoS mitigation market, I'd like to get some
recommendations of what other products people are having good success with.
We are looking for something that can support 3Gbps - 10Gbps,
multi-tenancy, seamless
Arbor stuff comes to mind and works very well in our experiences
Paul
--
Paul Stewart
Senior Network Administrator
Nexicom Inc.
http://www.nexicom.net/
- Original Message -
From: Tom Sands tsa...@rackspace.com
To: nanog na...@merit.edu
Sent: Tue Jan 26
Anyone here with any experience with Jilong fusion splicers ? Our old
Fujikura has died and I have to at least consider the Jilong.
-Original Message-
From: Christopher Morrow [mailto:morrowc.li...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, January 25, 2010 22:38
To: Owen DeLong
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 8:01 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
Once you
-Original Message-
From: Mark Smith
[mailto:na...@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org]
Sent: Monday, January 25, 2010 23:07
To: TJ
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links
SNIP
I didn't realize human friendly was even a nominal design
One more for Arbor.
-Original Message-
From: David Freedman [mailto:david.freed...@uk.clara.net]
Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2010 8:17 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: DDoS mitigation recommendations
Arbor stuff comes to mind and works very well in our experiences
Arbor++
This
On 26/01/2010 13:35, TJ wrote:
The US DoD has the equivalent of a /13 ... what is the question?
In fact, they have a little less than a /18. This is still the largest
block when aggregated - France Telecom comes second with a single /19.
There was an interesting thread on this topic a few weeks back. I really liked
the Guards, it's too bad Cisco decided to pull this from the marketplace - it
was as close to a panacea as it gets.
As alternatives, I've worked with the Riorey boxes as well as Arbor gear. They
are both very good
From: Mark Smith na...@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org
Why can't IPv6 node addressing be as easy to understand and work with
as Ethernet addresses? They were designed in the early 1980s*. 28 years
or so years later, it's time for layer 3 addressing to catch up.
Becase
Owen DeLong wrote:
No, they're not impossible to exhaust, just pretty difficult.
However, If we see exhaustion coming too soon in this /3, we can always apply a
more conservative
numbering policy to the next /3. (And still have 5 /3s left to innovate and try
other alternatives).
Owen
On Jan 26, 2010, at 9:54 AM, Joe Maimon wrote:
For me, the entire debate boils down to this question.
What should the objective be, decades or centuries?
If centuries, how many planets and moons will the address space cover? (If we
as a species manages to spread beyond this world before we
The RioRey per prefix issue is fixed although the patch they released to us
had a lot of bugs. Were still waiting on a working appliance with the new
code.
IntruGuard fits the bill and is probably 1/5th the cost of Arbor pound for
pound. We use both RR and IG, each having their pros and cons.
Daniel Senie wrote:
On Jan 26, 2010, at 9:54 AM, Joe Maimon wrote:
For me, the entire debate boils down to this question.
What should the objective be, decades or centuries?
If centuries, how many planets and moons will the address space cover? (If we
as a species manages to spread
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 6:20 PM, Nathan Ward na...@daork.net wrote:
Why do you force POP infrastructure to be a /48? That allows you only 16 POPs
which is pretty restrictive IMO.
Why not simply take say 4 /48s and sparsely allocate /56s to each POP and
then grow the /56s if you require more
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 10:55 PM, Christopher Morrow
morrowc.li...@gmail.com wrote:
some of what you're saying (tim) here is that you could: (one of these)
1) go to all your remote-office ISP's and get a /48 from each
2) go to *RIR's and get /something to cover the number of remote
sites you
I have been notified this morning by several people that there is some
websites that are unreachable from Haiti: http://www.hostcentric.com,
http://www.gama.ht those are examples. It happens with different ISP. When
we change th DNS using the google one 8.8.8.8 it's ok for some but some
others
On 2010-01-26 at 10:05:29 -0500, Daniel Senie wrote:
If centuries, how many planets and moons will the address space cover? (If we
as a species manages to spread beyond this world before we destroy it). Will
separate /3's, or subdivisions of subsequent /3's, be the best approach to
It's Ok Now.
Thanks for your replies.
reynold
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 11:32 AM, Scott Berkman sc...@sberkman.net wrote:
I was able to reach both of these from where I sit in Atlanta.
-Scott
-Original Message-
From: Reynold Guerrier [mailto:rey...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday,
Chris,
Discussion of draft-kohno-ipv6-prefixlen-p2p is on the IETF 6man WG
mailing list. But please do chime in. Operator input very welcomed.
Ron
Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 7:52 AM, Mathias Seiler
mathias.sei...@mironet.ch
On 1/26/10 7:43 AM, Tim Durack wrote:
o will your remote-office's ISP's accept the /48's per site? (vz/vzb
is a standout example here)
Not too worried about VZ. Given that large content providers are
getting end-site address space, I think they will have to adjust their
stance.
However,
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Ron Bonica rbon...@juniper.net wrote:
Chris,
Discussion of draft-kohno-ipv6-prefixlen-p2p is on the IETF 6man WG
mailing list. But please do chime in. Operator input very welcomed.
oh damned it! almost as many v6 ietf mailing lists as there are v6 addresses
On 26-1-2010 1:33, Owen DeLong wrote:
- Waste of addresses
- Peer address needs to be known, impossible to guess with 2^64 addresses
Most of us use ::1 for the assigning side and ::2 for the non-assigning side of
the connection. On multipoints, such as exchanges, the popular
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 10:43 AM, Tim Durack tdur...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 10:55 PM, Christopher Morrow
morrowc.li...@gmail.com wrote:
some of what you're saying (tim) here is that you could: (one of these)
1) go to all your remote-office ISP's and get a /48 from each
2)
I am new to this mailing list - this should be a response to an already
started thread that I cannot see:
IntelliguardIT has a new class of network appliance that installs inline
(layer 2 appliance). It has no impact on current network capacity and
automatically manages flash crowds
On 1/26/10 11:56 AM, Gerald Wluka wrote:
I am new to this mailing list
We can tell.
- this should be a response to an already
started thread that I cannot see:
ad deleted
On Jan 26, 2010, at 6:54 AM, Joe Maimon wrote:
Owen DeLong wrote:
No, they're not impossible to exhaust, just pretty difficult.
However, If we see exhaustion coming too soon in this /3, we can always
apply a more conservative
numbering policy to the next /3. (And still have 5 /3s
On Jan 26, 2010, at 7:43 AM, Tim Durack wrote:
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 10:55 PM, Christopher Morrow
morrowc.li...@gmail.com wrote:
some of what you're saying (tim) here is that you could: (one of these)
1) go to all your remote-office ISP's and get a /48 from each
2) go to *RIR's and get
On Jan 26, 2010, at 9:22 AM, Grzegorz Janoszka wrote:
On 26-1-2010 1:33, Owen DeLong wrote:
- Waste of addresses
- Peer address needs to be known, impossible to guess with 2^64 addresses
Most of us use ::1 for the assigning side and ::2 for the non-assigning side
of
the connection.
Steve Bertrand wrote:
Can anyone offer up ideas on how you manage any automation in this
regard for their infrastructure gear traffic graphs? (Commercial options
welcome, off-list, but we're as small as our budget is).
By popular request, a list of the most suggested software packages. Some
Sorry but RTFM
http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2010-January/thread.html#16675
Best regards
On Tuesday 26 January 2010, Ryan Brooks wrote:
On 1/26/10 11:56 AM, Gerald Wluka wrote:
I am new to this mailing list
We can tell.
- this should be a response to an already
started thread that I cannot see:
ad deleted
Ha, that's great. When will vendors learn
Hi List,
Anyone recalls ever seeing the IOS naming convention document. In particular
I'm interested in differences between families and trains.
This is all I found:
http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/620/1.html#topic1
But im looking for something a bit more recent maybe? Can figure out
Andrey,
I could not find a good link, but let me give you some info on SG, SGA, EW
and EWA.
All these trains are for the 4500 family (including 4900). They are just
different generations.
The EW (and then EWA) were the older trains for 4500, which were replaced by
the SG trains.
If I am not too
Not sure how relevant this still is, but it explains some of the older ones.
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/sw/iosswrel/ps1818/products_tech_note09186a0080101cda.shtml
On 1/26/2010 4:21 PM, Arie Vayner wrote:
Andrey,
I could not find a good link, but let me give you some info on SG,
Have you checked out the IOS Feature Navigator?
http://tools.cisco.com/ITDIT/CFN/jsp/index.jsp
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 4:27 PM, Philip Davis pda...@i2k.com wrote:
Not sure how relevant this still is, but it explains some of the older ones.
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Reynold Guerrier rey...@gmail.com wrote:
I have been notified this morning by several people that there is some
websites that are unreachable from Haiti: http://www.hostcentric.com,
http://www.gama.ht those are examples. It happens with different ISP. When
we
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010, Matt Addison wrote:
:: You're forgetting Matthew Petach's suggestion- reserve/assign a /64 for
:: each PtP link, but only configure the first /126 (or whatever /126 you
:: need to get an amusing peer address) on the link.
Matt meant reserve/assign a /64 for each PtP link,
Igor Gashinsky wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010, Matt Addison wrote:
:: You're forgetting Matthew Petach's suggestion- reserve/assign a /64 for
:: each PtP link, but only configure the first /126 (or whatever /126 you
:: need to get an amusing peer address) on the link.
Matt meant
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 06:38:43 -0800 (PST)
David Barak thegame...@yahoo.com wrote:
From: Mark Smith na...@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org
Why can't IPv6 node addressing be as easy to understand and work with
as Ethernet addresses? They were designed in the early 1980s*. 28
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 11:13:22 -0500
Tim Durack tdur...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 11:06 PM, Mark Smith
na...@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 15:15:55 -0500
TJ trej...@gmail.com wrote:
I didn't realize human friendly was even a
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 11:53 PM, Mark Smith
na...@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org wrote:
The general intent of the /48 allocation is that it is large enough for
nearly everybody, with nearly everybody including all but the largest
'nearly everybody with a single site'
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 00:11:41 -0500
Christopher Morrow morrowc.li...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 11:53 PM, Mark Smith
na...@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org wrote:
The general intent of the /48 allocation is that it is large enough for
nearly everybody,
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010, Igor Gashinsky wrote:
Matt meant reserve/assign a /64 for each PtP link, but only configure the
first */127* of the link, as that's the only way to fully mitigate the
scanning-type attacks (with a /126, there is still the possibility of
ping-pong on a p-t-p interface) w/o
In message 20100127160401.1a963...@opy.nosense.org, Mark Smith writes:
Sure. However I think people are treating IPv6 as just IPv4 with larger
addresses, yet not even thinking about what capabilities that larger
addressing is giving them that don't or haven't existed in IPv4 for a
very long
Hello,
There is different types for the Cisco 7600 Series Ethernet Services cards.
( More expensive cards with high queue values and less expensive cards with
low queue values.)
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/routers/ps368/data_sheet_c78-549419.html
Hardware queues
ES Plus XT 40G
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 07:47:35 +0200 (EET)
Pekka Savola pek...@netcore.fi wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010, Igor Gashinsky wrote:
Matt meant reserve/assign a /64 for each PtP link, but only configure the
first */127* of the link, as that's the only way to fully mitigate the
scanning-type attacks
48 matches
Mail list logo
