Ignoring the irony, you could signup with Microsoft's spam filtering service
(formerly frontbridge) or postini (now google) and use them as outbound
relays.
They will do outbound relay, with attendant spam filtering and increases in
deliverability. That means a lot more people will accept your
On 09/28/2010 10:15 PM, Erik L wrote:
I realize that this is somewhat OT, but I'm sure that others on the list
encounter the same issues and that at least some folks might have useful
comments.
An increasingly large number of our customers are using Gmail or Google Apps
and almost all
Heath Jones hj1...@gmail.com wrote:
Out of curiosity, what led you to this conclusion?
A number of factors, actually.
Although I had started to type up a lengthy and elaborate response to
your eminently reasonable question, on second thought, I don't think
that I actually want to go into
WOW full of yourself much. Many of us use gmail and others to manage the
load of mail we received from various lists. I doubt we anyone needs
your sympathies,
Good luck getting assistance from the list in the future, but I doubt you
need it, you see to be able to do everything on your own.
Evidence strongly suggests that AS10392 together with all of the IPv4
space it is currently announcing routes for, i.e.:
192.171.64.0/19
204.137.224.0/19
205.164.0.0/20
205.164.16.0/20
205.164.32.0/20
205.164.48.0/20
have all been hijacked. I will be reporting this formally to ARIN today,
via
John Peach john-na...@johnpeach.com writes:
It is on all Linux distros:
ssmtp 465/tcp smtps # SMTP over SSL
So file bug reports.
Bjørn
Out of curiosity, what led you to this conclusion?
A number of factors, actually.
Although I had started to type up a lengthy and elaborate response to
your eminently reasonable question, on second thought, I don't think
that I actually want to go into detail on this case, as anything I
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 08:38:17AM -0300, jim deleskie wrote:
WOW full of yourself much. Many of us use gmail and others to manage the
load of mail we received from various lists. I doubt we anyone needs
your sympathies,
Good luck getting assistance from the list in the future, but I doubt
On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 14:13:51 +0200
Bjørn Mork bj...@mork.no wrote:
John Peach john-na...@johnpeach.com writes:
It is on all Linux distros:
ssmtp 465/tcp smtps # SMTP over SSL
So file bug reports.
With IANA?
It's common knowledge that 465 is smtps,
On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 14:13:51 +0200, =?utf-8?Q?Bj=C3=B8rn_Mork?= said:
John Peach john-na...@johnpeach.com writes:
It is on all Linux distros:
ssmtp 465/tcp smtps # SMTP over SSL
So file bug reports.
bug-repo...@iana.org seems to bounce.
pgpKVhunwIKfg.pgp
I have no issue with Ron's level of clue or his personal choice to block
whichever domain, or blocks of IP space he wishes. That's one of the true
beauties of the internet, we can all do as we see fit with out little corner of
if.
But it goes the same with who we choose to help or which mail
As to his decision to block Gmail (or any other freemail provider),
everyone with sufficient knowledge in the field knows that these
operations are prolific and habitual sources of spam (via multiple
vectors, not just SMTP; Google accounts for more Usenet spam hitting
my filters than all
I didn't say hardware forwarding. I said hardware. They have
appliances that run up to 3Mpps and support 8000 tunnels. This is all
information from their website. I've been running vyatta on a small
dual core supermicro shallow box for 455 days without a reboot. Except
for the
What's the real-world power consumption and heat like? 455 days shows
some pretty good reliability!
Cheers for the info Curtis
On 2010-09-29, at 12:25, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 14:13:51 +0200, =?utf-8?Q?Bj=C3=B8rn_Mork?= said:
John Peach john-na...@johnpeach.com writes:
It is on all Linux distros:
ssmtp 465/tcp smtps # SMTP over SSL
So file bug reports.
On Sep 29, 2010, at 7:26 AM, John Peach wrote:
With IANA?
It's common knowledge that 465 is smtps, whatever else IANA might say.
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4409.txt
Here's what they've had to say over time:
John Peach john-na...@johnpeach.com writes:
It's common knowledge that 465 is smtps, whatever else IANA might say.
It's common knowledge that 465 *was* smtps. A decade ago. But it has
never gone anywhere, and it is way overdue for an obsolete tag.
Everyone actually caring about SMTP over SSL
On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 15:06:02 +0200
Bjørn Mork bj...@mork.no wrote:
John Peach john-na...@johnpeach.com writes:
It's common knowledge that 465 is smtps, whatever else IANA might
say.
It's common knowledge that 465 *was* smtps. A decade ago. But it has
never gone anywhere, and it is
On Sep 29, 2010, at 6:10 AM, John Peach wrote:
On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 15:06:02 +0200
Bjørn Mork bj...@mork.no wrote:
John Peach john-na...@johnpeach.com writes:
It's common knowledge that 465 is smtps, whatever else IANA might
say.
It's common knowledge that 465 *was* smtps. A decade
On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 06:16:04 -0700
Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
On Sep 29, 2010, at 6:10 AM, John Peach wrote:
On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 15:06:02 +0200
Bjørn Mork bj...@mork.no wrote:
John Peach john-na...@johnpeach.com writes:
It's common knowledge that 465 is smtps, whatever
On 9/29/2010 8:59 AM, Heath Jones wrote:
What's the real-world power consumption and heat like? 455 days shows
some pretty good reliability!
Cheers for the info Curtis
That's a really good question. This is a small 260 watt supermicro
short depth (14) 1u system I purchased from tigerdirect.
John Peach john-na...@johnpeach.com writes:
On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 15:06:02 +0200
Bjørn Mork bj...@mork.no wrote:
It's common knowledge that 465 *was* smtps. A decade ago. But it has
never gone anywhere, and it is way overdue for an obsolete tag.
Everyone actually caring about SMTP over SSL
What's the real-world power consumption and heat like? 455 days shows
some pretty good reliability!
I reached more than 700 days - then power cycle due (planned) power
maintenance works.
On Wed, 29 Sep 2010, Bjørn Mork wrote:
It's common knowledge that 465 *was* smtps. A decade ago. But it has
never gone anywhere, and it is way overdue for an obsolete tag.
Everyone actually caring about SMTP over SSL are using STARTTLS on port
25 and 587.
Microsoft MUAs only supported
On 9/29/10 6:23 AM, Curtis Maurand wrote:
be even lower power for around $414. Its a nothing box and its not even
breathing hard. its running on a 100mbps fiber. The speed tests that
I've run show it running close to wire speed. It would probably run
even better if I were using real
Rich Kulawiec wrote (on Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 08:25:20AM -0400):
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 08:38:17AM -0300, jim deleskie wrote:
As to his decision to block Gmail (or any other freemail provider),
everyone with sufficient knowledge in the field knows that these
operations are prolific and
On 9/29/2010 12:26 PM, N. Yaakov Ziskind wrote:
I block all SMTP traffic from IPV4 servers (clients?) which have odd
numbers in the third octet. might not be a good idea for a high volume
mail server with clients, but if it's your network, go for it.
Sadly this method would on average block
-Original Message-
From: Heath Jones
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 5:16 AM
To: Ronald F. Guilmette
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: AS11296 -- Hijacked?
Let me reword...
What is stopping someone coming on the list, making a claim like you
have in an attempt to actually
We have proper A+PTR records on the edge MTAs, proper SPF records for
the originating domain, proper Return-Path and other headers, and so
on. There isn't anything that I can think of other than the content
itself which would be abnormal, and obviously the content is
repetitive and can't be
Erik L wrote:
Received-SPF: pass ...
Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass ...
So the problem is unlikely to be a SPF issue, as mentioned in my first e-mail.
http://david.woodhou.se/why-not-spf.html
The lack of SPF records should never be the reason to block an email.
It's about
Bottom line, there is more to it than someone just popping up on a list
saying something.
If you have the time to go and investigate all of that yourself, its
good to know you've thought about the metrics you would use.
Sometimes, people do this thing called 'referencing'. Its basically
where
There would be several filters for this. Is the person reporting this a known
network operator that people trust or is it some Joe Blow out of nowhere
that nobody has heard of before? That would make a huge difference. Is
the AS assigned to a company that is known to be defunct? That would
Dear Cameron,
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 3:27 AM, Cameron Byrne cb.li...@gmail.com wrote:
The fact that LISP does help in IPv6 Transition solutions (due to its
inherent AF agnostic design), is compelling. As you say, real edge 2 edge is
the goal - and LISP helps here, regardless of the AF. (you'll
Have you tried DKIM signing? All email sent from Gmail is DKIM signed,
so they probably also support checking it and a valid signature may
lower your spam score.
DKIM is definitively a must have for gmail.
At least this isn't Hotmail where mail is just silently deleted with no NDR
after it's
Thanks John. This was a common question that was asked off-list. That edge MTA
is not used and has never been used by anything/anyone other than us. No
customer mail flows or has flowed in or out via it ever.
As I mentioned in my follow-up post, the issue at this point is that the domain
has
I don't believe in SPF, which is why we don't use it to check inbound mail. I
do believe in being able to communicate with our customers irrespective of
which provider they use, and given that Hotmail in particular is extremely
unforgiving with respect to SPF, we have no choice but to publish
On 9/29/2010 11:48, Erik L wrote:
Thanks John. This was a common question that was asked off-list. That edge
MTA is not used and has never been used by anything/anyone other than us. No
customer mail flows or has flowed in or out via it ever.
As I mentioned in my follow-up post, the issue
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 8:25 AM, Rich Kulawiec r...@gsp.org wrote:
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 08:38:17AM -0300, jim deleskie wrote:
WOW full of yourself much. Many of us use gmail and others to manage the
load of mail we received from various lists. I doubt we anyone needs
your sympathies,
-Original Message-
From: Nathan Eisenberg
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 11:32 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: AS11296 -- Hijacked?
from the list.
But an email that says I'm going to deliberately withhold all of the
vital information I used to come to this conclusion,
-Original Message-
From: George Bonser [mailto:gbon...@seven.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 10:44 AM
To: Heath Jones; Ronald F. Guilmette
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: AS11296 -- Hijacked?
Is the person reporting this
a
known network operator that people trust or is
Maybe you didn't recognize the original poster, but I did, and I would take
what he had to say at least seriously enough to have a look. His followup
mail, while not giving people the information they wanted (as if it really
matters) did mention that the upstream appears to have cut them off.
On 09/29/2010 12:05 AM, Erik L wrote:
Google appears to have blacklisted our domain. From the edge MTA, I
sent three messages, differing only in the From header: 1. valid
email @klssys.com 2. valid email @caneris.com 3. abc...@caneris.com
1 not spam; 2 3 spam
Ok, so its the domain not the
Hello,
I would also recommend to implement the list unsubscribe header, because google
is supporting that kind of user feedback to senders.
http://www.list-unsubscribe.com/
Regards,
André
André Görmer
Senior Deliverability Manager
eCircle
P: +49 89 12009-762 | F: +49 89 12009-750 | E:
Thanks, this is a possibility. However, that customer IP has been dealt with
and hasn't been spamming for more than 60 hours at most (it's actually part of
a dynamic DSL pool where port 25 outbound was supposed to have been blocked).
Our problem appears to have started before the 27th.
No
- Original Message -
From: Seth Mattinen se...@rollernet.us
To: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 2:51:49 PM
Subject: Re: What must one do to avoid Gmail's retarded non-spam filtering?
On 9/29/2010 11:48, Erik L wrote:
Thanks John. This was a common question that
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 9:26 AM, N. Yaakov Ziskind aw...@ziskind.us wrote:
And, even if it *is* unreasonable, well, his network, his rules, right?
I block all SMTP traffic from IPV4 servers (clients?) which have odd
numbers in the third octet. might not be a good idea for a high volume
mail
A group of engineers and I were having a design discussion about routing
protocols including RIP and static routing and the justifications of use for
each protocol. One very interesting discussion was surrounding RIP and its
use versus a protocol like OSPF. It seems that many Network Engineers
On Sep 29, 2010, at 4:20 PM, Jesse Loggins wrote:
A group of engineers and I were having a design discussion about routing
protocols including RIP and static routing and the justifications of use for
each protocol. One very interesting discussion was surrounding RIP and its
use versus a
I would think it would depend on the complexity of the network and how the
network advertises routes to peer networks. I'm always in favor the simpler
the better but with RIP you do lose the ability to use variable bit masks
(CIDR) and faster routing algorithms like DUAL used in Cisco routers and
IPVPN arrangement with multiple sites no redundancy for each small site.
RIP to advertise networks from each site towards cloud, quick and easy.
Loss of using VLSM's is a big thing to give up.
You can go to RIPv2 and get that however. Would work for small networks to
stay under the hop-count limit as it is still distance-vector.
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 4:27 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.netwrote:
On Sep 29, 2010, at 4:20 PM,
RIPv2 is a great dynamic routing protocol for exchanging routes with
untrusted networks. RIPv2 has adjustable timers, filters, supports VLSM and
MD5 authentication. Since it's distance vector it's much easier to filter
than a protocol that uses a link state database that must be the same across
-Original Message-
From: Gary Gladney
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 1:29 PM
To: 'Jesse Loggins'; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: RIP Justification
with RIP you do lose the ability to use variable bit
masks
(CIDR) and faster routing algorithms like DUAL used in Cisco routers
On Sep 29, 2010, at 4:20 PM, Jesse Loggins wrote:
A group of engineers and I were having a design discussion about routing
protocols including RIP and static routing and the justifications of use for
each protocol. One very interesting discussion was surrounding RIP and its
use versus a
On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 16:20:48 -0400, Jesse Loggins jlogginsc...@gmail.com
wrote:
It seems that many Network Engineers consider RIP an old antiquated
protocol that should be thrown in back of a closet never to be seen or
heard from again.
That is the correct way to think about RIP. (RIPv1
On 29 Sep 2010 15:20, Jesse Loggins wrote:
A group of engineers and I were having a design discussion about routing
protocols including RIP and static routing and the justifications of use for
each protocol. One very interesting discussion was surrounding RIP and its
use versus a protocol
On Sep 29, 2010, at 1:47 PM, Ricky Beam wrote:
The 1% where it was a necessary evil... dialup networking where the
only routing protocol supported was RIP (v2) [netblazers] -- static
IP clients had to be able to land anywhere -- but RIP only lived on
the local segment, OSPF took over
Can you please not use the word retarded in a pejorative sense?
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 3:15 PM, Erik L erik_l...@caneris.com wrote:
I realize that this is somewhat OT, but I'm sure that others on the list
encounter the same issues and that at least some folks might have useful
comments.
On Sep 29, 2010, at 1:20 PM, Jesse Loggins wrote:
A group of engineers and I were having a design discussion about routing
protocols including RIP and static routing and the justifications of use for
each protocol. One very interesting discussion was surrounding RIP and its
use versus a
I am referring to RIPv2
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 1:52 PM, Heath Jones hj1...@gmail.com wrote:
Jesse - just to clarify, are you talking about v1 or v2? There is also
a proposal for v3..
In my previous post, I was assuming v2.
--
Jesse Loggins
CCIE#14661 (RS, Service Provider)
I see nothing wrong with using RIPV2 for small networks as it is more dynamic
and faster convergence.
As for RIPv1, I think we can all say, RIP!! (no pun intended) Ok yes it was
intended LOL...
I think some engineers get lost in the whatever is newer is better and you
don't need to use a
On Sep 29, 2010, at 4:08 PM, Ryan Hayes wrote:
Can you please not use the word retarded in a pejorative sense?
The word please is probably not required, since using that word in this
manner is prosecutable hate speech in some jurisdictions.
Thus spake Jesse Loggins (jlogginsc...@gmail.com) on Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at
01:20:48PM -0700:
This leads to my question. What are your views of when and
where the RIP protocol is useful?
I most often see RIPv2 used simply to avoid paying vendor license fees to run
more sophisticated things
Le mercredi 29 septembre 2010 à 16:31 -0500, Daniel Seagraves a écrit :
On Sep 29, 2010, at 4:08 PM, Ryan Hayes wrote:
Can you please not use the word retarded in a pejorative sense?
The word please is probably not required, since using that word in this
manner is prosecutable hate
morning gentle people.
i find myself in need of a multiport (8-16) 1 Gig ethernet HUB.
or a switch smart enough to do transparant port mirroring to at least
four ports.
some kind soul pointed me here, http://www.dlink.com/products/?pid=337
but its not
On 29/09/2010 22:36, Dale W. Carder wrote:
I most often see RIPv2 used simply to avoid paying vendor license fees to run
more sophisticated things such as OSPF.
The good thing about vendors who charge license fees to run more
sophisticated things such as OSPF is that there are always other
RIP is useful as an edge protocol where there is a single access - less system
overhead than OSPF.
The service provider and the customer can redistribute the routes into whatever
routing protocol they use in their own networks.
Jonathon
-Original Message-
From: Jesse Loggins
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 09:47:41PM +, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
i find myself in need of a multiport (8-16) 1 Gig ethernet HUB.
or a switch smart enough to do transparant port mirroring to at least
four ports.
some kind soul pointed me here,
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 5:47 PM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
i find myself in need of a multiport (8-16) 1 Gig ethernet HUB.
or a switch smart enough to do transparant port mirroring to at least
four ports.
Bill,
Out of curiousity, why?
Would a set of gig-e
On Sep 29, 2010, at 2:31 PM, Daniel Seagraves wrote:
On Sep 29, 2010, at 4:08 PM, Ryan Hayes wrote:
Can you please not use the word retarded in a pejorative sense?
The word please is probably not required, since using that word in
this manner is prosecutable hate speech in some
From nanog-bounces+bonomi=mail.r-bonomi@nanog.org Wed Sep 29 13:59:15
2010
From: Justin Horstman justin.horst...@gorillanation.com
To: 'George Bonser' gbon...@seven.com, Heath Jones hj1...@gmail.com,
Ronald F. Guilmette r...@tristatelogic.com
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 11:53:27
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 13:06:31 -0700
Subject: Re: AS11296 -- Hijacked?
From: Scott Howard sc...@doc.net.au
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 9:26 AM, N. Yaakov Ziskind aw...@ziskind.us wrote:
Recommendations such as that are only as credible as the source they are
coming from, and knowing that
We have a design for our wan where we use rip v2 and it works very well, we
were using ospf but it was additional config, so in our case simple was better,
and it works well..
I could discuss it more with you off-line if you like.
On Sep 29, 2010, at 4:20 PM, Jesse Loggins
where the RIP protocol is useful? Please excuse me if this is the =
incorrect
forum for such questions.
RIP has one property no modern protocol has. It works on simplex =
links (e.g. high-speed satellite downlink with low-speed terrestrial =
uplink).
Is that useful? I don't know,
Robert,
I dont think you quite get it. Don't worry, you don't seem to be alone.
The point here is simple. If someone posts making a recommendation for
every AS to filter some prefixes, not provide any references by
default, its not helpful.
When questioned about the rationale, if said person
Thanks Joe!
You just added a new term to my vocabulary!
Technical Correctness
I think I'm going to go out of my way now to use this in the office... =)
From: jgr...@ns.sol.net
Subject: Re: RIP Justification
To: patr...@ianai.net
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 18:24:59 -0500
CC:
This is why they need a 'like' button on nanog!! :)
I once had cause to write a RIP broadcast daemon while on-site with a
client; they had some specific brokenness with a Novell server and some
other gear that was fixed by a UNIX box, a C compiler, and maybe 20
or 30 minutes of programming
On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 15:35:06 -0500
Christopher Gatlin ch...@travelingtech.net wrote:
RIPv2 is a great dynamic routing protocol for exchanging routes with
untrusted networks. RIPv2 has adjustable timers, filters, supports VLSM and
MD5 authentication. Since it's distance vector it's much
This is not what the Team Cymru Bogons list for?
http://www.team-cymru.org/Services/Bogons/
List bad ASNs after proper investigation?
It then depends if you trust Team Cymru or not, like you would trust or not
Spamhaus...
- Original Message -
From: Heath Jones hj1...@gmail.com
To:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 5:04 PM, Franck Martin fra...@genius.com wrote:
This is not what the Team Cymru Bogons list for?
http://www.team-cymru.org/Services/Bogons/
List bad ASNs after proper investigation?
It then depends if you trust Team
On 9/29/2010 at 4:24 PM, Joe Greco jgr...@ns.sol.net wrote:
where the RIP protocol is useful? Please excuse me if this is the =
incorrect
forum for such questions.
RIP has one property no modern protocol has. It works on simplex =
links (e.g. high-speed satellite downlink with
This is not what the Team Cymru Bogons list for?
http://www.team-cymru.org/Services/Bogons/
I just had a very quick look at that site and it seems at first glance
to just be providing information on unallocated prefixes/ASs..
They are prefixes/ASs that spammers can and do use, but if you have a
My point here is untrusted networks, such as business partners exchanging
routes with each other. Not many hops and less than a 100 prefixes.
Using BGP to exchange routes between these types of untrusted networks is
like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. BGP was designed for unique AS's
to
Then you have:
http://www.uceprotect.net/en/rblcheck.php
Which has a level to identify IPs belonging to an ASN which has been reported
as spewing spam...
The only issue here, is that this site has listed whole countries... Yes, some
countries are behind one ASN only...
- Original Message
Anyone on the list from First Data Corporation or familar with there network?
I think you're right that everything has its' place. But you gotta
know where that is and why you choose it!
RIP(v2) is great in that there aren't neighbor relationships, so you can
shoot routes around in a semi-sane-haphazard fashion if need be.
Whatever your reality you exist in like
On Sep 29, 2010, at 1:20 PM, Jesse Loggins wrote:
A group of engineers and I were having a design discussion about routing
protocols including RIP and static routing and the justifications of use for
each protocol. One very interesting discussion was surrounding RIP and its
use versus a
I know of one large-ish provider that does it exactly like that - RIPv2 between
POP edge routers and provider-managed CPE. In addition to the simplicity, it
lets them filter routes at redistribution without having to fiddle with
inter-area OSPF (or, ghod forbid, multiple OSPF processes
On Sep 29, 2010, at 6:14 PM, Scott Morris wrote:
But anything, ask why you are using it. To exchange routes, yes... but
how many. Is sending those every 30 seconds good? Sure, tweak it. But
are you gaining anything over static routes?
For simple networks, RIP(v2, mind you) works fine.
hi, I summarize the discussion in my way. Please add or fix it.
* RIP works okay in topologies without topological loops.
I would like to elaborate the term small networks in RIP works
well in small networks.
Specifically the term small network would mean:
1) the diameter of the
On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 17:26:17 -0400
Craig cvulja...@gmail.com wrote:
We have a design for our wan where we use rip v2 and it works very well, we
were using ospf but it was additional config, so in our case simple was
better, and it works well..
I'm don't really buy the extra config
On Sep 29, 2010, at 5:31 PM, Christopher Gatlin wrote:
My point here is untrusted networks, such as business partners exchanging
routes with each other. Not many hops and less than a 100 prefixes.
Using BGP to exchange routes between these types of untrusted networks is
like using a
I confess that I find it somewhat tedious to try to answer all criticisms,
individually, on a mailing list when people start ``piling on'', so I hope
you'll all forgive me if I just try to to do this in one go.
First, as regards to the lack of detail and/or specific in my reports,
I was
On 30/09/10 13:42, Mark Smith wrote:
One of the large delays you see in OSPF is election of the designated
router on multi-access links such as ethernets. As ethernet is being
very commonly used for point-to-point non-edge links, you can eliminate
that delay and also the corresponding network
On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 19:31:26 -0500
Christopher Gatlin ch...@travelingtech.net wrote:
My point here is untrusted networks, such as business partners exchanging
routes with each other. Not many hops and less than a 100 prefixes.
Using BGP to exchange routes between these types of untrusted
On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 14:13:11 +1000
Julien Goodwin na...@studio442.com.au wrote:
On 30/09/10 13:42, Mark Smith wrote:
One of the large delays you see in OSPF is election of the designated
router on multi-access links such as ethernets. As ethernet is being
very commonly used for
96 matches
Mail list logo
