On (2014-09-01 21:34 +), Sriram, Kotikalapudi wrote:
Hi Sriram,
Please help me understand the argument.
Some Org. D can maliciously announce a subprefix under Org. C's prefix,
and get away with it due to the 'Loose' mode.
So C is advertising valid 192.0.2.0/24
Is D advertising valid
On Tue, 2 Sep 2014, S, Somasundaram (Somasundaram) wrote:
Members
I have few questions related to Multicast deployment in the internet today.
Inter-domain I am assuming.
1: Does all the ISP's provide Multicast Routing by default?
Probably not a majority, but it is found on research
Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
see also:
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/09/iran-3g-phones-filter-unsanitary-water.html#
restated slightly, video, the primary vehicle for porn, needs minders,
text, the primary vehicle for ideas, does not.
What about ASCII porn?
It was
On Tue, 2 Sep 2014 04:47:37 +
S, Somasundaram (Somasundaram) somasundara...@alcatel-lucent.com
wrote:
1: Does all the ISP's provide Multicast Routing by
default?
No not all and even those that do often do not do so on the same gear,
links and peers as their unicast forwarding.
2: Is
Please help me understand the argument.
Some Org. D can maliciously announce a subprefix under Org. C's
prefix, and get away with it due to the 'Loose' mode.
So C is advertising valid 192.0.2.0/24
Is D advertising valid 192.0.2.0/23?
This is unfixable problem? If D is advertising
On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 03:08:28PM +, Sriram, Kotikalapudi wrote:
The example that I gave was not that. In my example, C has legitimate
ownership of the less specific (e.g., 192.0.2.0/23). D is malicious
and attempting to hijack a subprefix (e.g., 192.0.2.0/24).
Importantly, C has a
14 years at Verizon Wireless and I despised the crop of multicast products
that seemed to pop up from time to time. Even in a fully controlled
network multicast remains at best black magic. There are ways to make it
more reliable and prevent people from ruining the setups especially for
PIM type
On (2014-09-02 14:44 +), Sriram, Kotikalapudi wrote:
Hi Sriram,
Importantly, C has a created a ROA for 192.0.2.0/23 only to protect
its address space, but currently *does not advertise* this prefix or any part
of it.
So D's more specific announcement (hijack) is 'Invalid' in this
On 09/02/2014 05:46 AM, John Kristoff wrote:
On Tue, 2 Sep 2014 04:47:37 +
S, Somasundaram (Somasundaram) somasundara...@alcatel-lucent.com
wrote:
1: Does all the ISP's provide Multicast Routing by
default?
No not all and even those that do often do not do so on the same gear,
links
On Tue, 2 Sep 2014, Corey Touchet wrote:
14 years at Verizon Wireless and I despised the crop of multicast products
that seemed to pop up from time to time. Even in a fully controlled
network multicast remains at best black magic. There are ways to make it
more reliable and prevent people
On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Job Snijders j...@instituut.net wrote:
On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 03:08:28PM +, Sriram, Kotikalapudi wrote:
The example that I gave was not that. In my example, C has legitimate
ownership of the less specific (e.g., 192.0.2.0/23). D is malicious
and
It is not the network devices per se, it is additional configuration,
security, MSDP peering, etc, i.e. OPEX
Business justification for such effort is not obvious, (most of multicast
deployments I have done in my previous life were because I loved the
technology, not because of business needs :))
On Tue, 2 Sep 2014, Octavio Alvarez wrote:
I have never used interdomain multicast but I imagine the global
m-routing table would quickly become large.
I have set up interdomain routing connecting both to a few peers and a
Tier1 transit provider. Not many non-research networks to be seen.
On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 11:53:15AM -0400, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Job Snijders j...@instituut.net wrote:
What is the real damage of hijacking a prefix which is not in use?
'not in use' ... where?
What if the 'owner' of the block has the block only routed
On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 08:43:16 -0700
Octavio Alvarez alvar...@alvarezp.ods.org wrote:
No not all and even those that do often do not do so on the same
gear, links and peers as their unicast forwarding.
Why would that be, are network devices not able to support multicast?
That was part of
Thus spake Mikael Abrahamsson (swm...@swm.pp.se) on Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at
06:05:42PM +0200:
On Tue, 2 Sep 2014, Octavio Alvarez wrote:
I have never used interdomain multicast but I imagine the global m-routing
table would quickly become large.
I have set up interdomain routing connecting
On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Job Snijders j...@instituut.net wrote:
On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 11:53:15AM -0400, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Job Snijders j...@instituut.net wrote:
What is the real damage of hijacking a prefix which is not in use?
'not in use'
On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 11:29 AM, Corey Touchet
corey.touc...@corp.totalserversolutions.com wrote:
14 years at Verizon Wireless and I despised the crop of multicast products
that seemed to pop up from time to time. [...] Content
delivery systems moving the content closer to edge customers
On Tue, 2 Sep 2014, Jeff Tantsura wrote:
It is not the network devices per se, it is additional configuration,
security, MSDP peering, etc, i.e. OPEX
Business justification for such effort is not obvious, (most of multicast
deployments I have done in my previous life were because I loved the
I'll try to be brief-ish..
Interdomain Multicast suffered from three fundamental problems:
1) Deering's original use cases are far different from what it's used for
today. His original intent was to create a broadcast domain overlay over an
L3 topology. With this came reqs which today are
Le 02/09/2014 18:05, Mikael Abrahamsson a écrit :
On Tue, 2 Sep 2014, Octavio Alvarez wrote:
I have never used interdomain multicast but I imagine the global
m-routing table would quickly become large.
I have set up interdomain routing connecting both to a few peers and a
Tier1 transit
I'm guessing that he is upset at the price of new Sandvines or whatever
they use. Maybe a ploy to bend the vendor on maintenance contract cost.
--
Joe Hamelin, W7COM, Tulalip, WA, 360-474-7474
Does anyone have recommendations for Colocation space in any of those 4 cities?
thanks
Eric
See response off list.
On 9/2/14, 5:35 PM, Eric A Louie elo...@yahoo.com wrote:
Does anyone have recommendations for Colocation space in any of those 4
cities?
thanks
Eric
On 09/02/2014 04:35 PM, Eric A Louie wrote:
Does anyone have recommendations for Colocation space in any of those 4
cities?
thanks
Eric
Co-location in Reno is a shrinking proposition. The only place I know
about, and have toured, is:
Roller Networks
Seth Mattinen, CTO
3545 Airway
25 matches
Mail list logo
