On 26/Jan/16 08:34, Joe Maimon wrote:
>
>
> I dont want to churn a full table any quicker then BGP timers.
You don't have to churn the whole table, you just have to churn the
(indirect) next-hop.
> And if you choose to run that ebgp loopback multihop on the same
> router, you can track rout
Mark Tinka wrote:
You may want to signal failure more quickly than BGP's own timers can
handle.
I dont want to churn a full table any quicker then BGP timers. And if
you choose to run that ebgp loopback multihop on the same router, you
can track routes and interfaces in realtime, to th
On 26/Jan/16 00:28, Brandon Butterworth wrote:
> Doesn't matter, if traffic is blackholed at an ix then it
> won't be failing over to another one. Same effect
Route servers do not participating in the forwarding plane. If they
fail, you lose routes from that exchange point which show up elsewhe
On 25/Jan/16 23:01, Joe Maimon wrote:
>
>
> Before BFD, we had keepalives right in BGP. Whats wrong with that?
You may want to signal failure more quickly than BGP's own timers can
handle.
>
> I suppose you also advocate that each provider use a phy port directly
> on the ege, no switches i
Hi Colton,
There are three ways to peer with another entity on any exchange.
1) peer via the exchange provided route-servers.
2) peer directly with other members the exchange's provided IP address.
3) peer via a private vlan service provided by the exchange.
To setup # 1, you have to ask the p
If a service provider or enterprise orders collocation at an Equinix Global
Internet Exchange Point, and orders a port on the exchange from Equinix,
then what happens? How does a provider actually peer with the peers on the
exchange?
Lets assume the SP or enterprise already has an ANS, transit fro
This is from some internal PHP thing that isn't very good (well, it's
lovely actually.. the problem is that it uses a forking method to query
everything and isn't that fast. I'm trying to rewrite it)
Throw any of these into google if you're confused about them. It should
return the correct M
Lauren Weinstein passes along that AI pioneer Minsky died Sunday night in New
York. He was 88.
Condolences to those who knew him.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/26/business/marvin-minsky-pioneer-in-artificial-intelligence-dies-at-88.html
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please exc
Actually, where I have mostly seen the biggest problems with the Cogent remote
BGP
hacks is when their forwarding decisions in between your router and their BGP
speaking router don’t actually deliver your packets to the BGP speaking router
and your traffic starts veering wildly off course to god k
Thanks all for your suggestions. I am now successfully graphing SNR for each
upstream channel.
-Original Message-
From: Yang Yu [mailto:yang.yu.l...@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 24, 2016 5:11 PM
To: Lorell Hathcock
Cc: NANOG list
Subject: Re: Cisco CMTS SNMP OID's
On Sun, Jan 2
Not to put any sort of damper on wild speculation, but at the Southern
California Linux Expo,
with native IPv4 and IPv6 dual stack support enabled on the wifi for the show,
we saw close to
50% of all traffic on IPv6.
Owen
> On Jan 24, 2016, at 07:23 , Bruce Curtis wrote:
>
>
>> On Jan 20, 20
>Any tips on 1) how to do inline boldface and 2) what to do with ASCIIart
>illustrations that are too wide for the page?
Even though there's more work the first time, your life will be a lot
easier if you write them in xml2rfc, since that's what's going to
be the canonical format in the future.
On Mon, 25 Jan 2016, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
> I know we have to have a few people on here who've written technical RFCs
> (as opposed to 1 April ones like my RFC 2100)...
>
> Any tips on 1) how to do inline boldface and 2) what to do with ASCIIart
> illustrations that are too wide for the page?
> From mark.ti...@seacom.mu Mon Jan 25 19:56:46 2016
> > On 25/Jan/16 21:28, Brandon Butterworth wrote:
> > It is but nobody worries about that, we trust route servers at IX
> > carrying way more traffic than most of these access circuits.
>
> Yes, but if those go belly-up, you have another excha
Dear colleagues,
Please find the CFP for RIPE 72 below or at
https://ripe72.ripe.net/submit-topic/cfp/.
The deadline for submissions is 13 March 2016.
Please also note that speakers do not receive any extra reduction or
funding towards the meeting fee at the RIPE Meetings.
Kind regards,
Benno
Mark Tinka wrote:
On 25/Jan/16 20:13, Joe Maimon wrote:
Maybe not for some people, but I have a hard time understanding why
one extra ebgp session is such a novel concept for all you networking
folk.
It's not that novel - I share my view of the Internet with various
industry initiatives
Brandon Butterworth wrote:
> It is but nobody worries about that, we trust route servers at IX
> carrying way more traffic than most of these access circuits.
more sessions for sure, but rarely more traffic.
The issue at hand is that multihop bgp at the isp edge is relatively
straightforward to f
I know we have to have a few people on here who've written technical RFCs
(as opposed to 1 April ones like my RFC 2100)...
Any tips on 1) how to do inline boldface and 2) what to do with ASCIIart
illustrations that are too wide for the page?
I'm using Stefan Santteson's nroffEdit (since I'm pre
On 25/Jan/16 21:28, Brandon Butterworth wrote:
> It is but nobody worries about that, we trust route servers at IX
> carrying way more traffic than most of these access circuits.
Yes, but if those go belly-up, you have another exchange point to fall
back to, a bi-lateral peering session, or an
On 25/Jan/16 20:54, Scott Weeks wrote:
>
>
> Unless BFD is able to be used.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bidirectional_Forwarding_Detection
Not many customers can support this.
And even if they did, not all implementations are executed in hardware
on either side of the BGP session.
Mark.
On 25/Jan/16 20:13, Joe Maimon wrote:
>
>
> Maybe not for some people, but I have a hard time understanding why
> one extra ebgp session is such a novel concept for all you networking
> folk.
It's not that novel - I share my view of the Internet with various
industry initiatives this way.
But
> From: Nick Hilliard
> multihop bgp means that you don't have synchronised ethernet carrier
> status between the provider and customer routers. This in turn means
> that if there's an intermediate connectivity problem, bgp will need to
> time out before it notices and reroutes. During this peri
My understanding is this was mostly legacy from devices that did not carry full
Rib and fib. There were tricks to avoid ending up on these skinny devices if
you wanted.
Life in the core has changed a lot in recent years from 6500/7600 and
foundry/brocade class devices to a more interesting set
--- n...@foobar.org wrote:
multihop bgp means that you don't have synchronised ethernet carrier
status between the provider and customer routers. This in turn means
that if there's an intermediate connectivity problem, bgp will need to
time out before it notices and reroutes. During this period
Joe Maimon wrote:
> Maybe not for some people, but I have a hard time understanding why one
> extra ebgp session is such a novel concept for all you networking folk.
multihop bgp means that you don't have synchronised ethernet carrier
status between the provider and customer routers. This in turn
Mark Tinka wrote:
On 25/Jan/16 12:15, Joe Maimon wrote:
No static routes, dedicated BGP routed loopbacks on each side from an
allocated /31, strict definitions on which routes belong to which
session. Its gone about very properly.
And all of this is simpler than having a native BGP sess
Yes, it is may be effect of microburst in our network or in link between our
ISP and TV carrier.Thank you.
> Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 18:23:54 +0200
> Subject: Re: Multicast stream monitoring tools
> From: s...@ytti.fi
> To: mkai...@outlook.com
> CC: nanog@nanog.org
>
> On 25 January 2016 at 10:48
On Sun, 24 Jan 2016, Yang Yu wrote:
Cable Modem counts of all kinds
connected / online
ranging
offline
Not there if there are OIDs for `show cable modem docsis version summary`
http://tools.cisco.com/Support/SNMP/do/BrowseOID.do?loca
On 25 January 2016 at 10:48, Murat Kaipov wrote:
Hey,
> Hello folks!We have an issue with some multicast streams. For some reason
> picture is very unstable in evening, during internet usage peak times. We
> have had monitor our links and uplinks and there wasn't any oversubscribtion.
> I loo
Flexopitix allows 3rd party vendor rebranding by buying credits for the
branding box/account.
On 25/01/16 16:49, Robert Blayzor via NANOG wrote:
On Jan 18, 2016, at 2:02 PM, Colton Conor wrote:
What options are out there for re-programmable SFP and SFP+ transceivers?
So far I have found both
h
On Jan 18, 2016, at 2:02 PM, Colton Conor wrote:
>
> What options are out there for re-programmable SFP and SFP+ transceivers?
> So far I have found both
> https://www.flexoptix.net/en/flexbox-v3-transceiver-programmer.html and
> http://solid-optics.com/tools/multi-fiber-tool/so-multi-fiber-tool-
On 25/Jan/16 12:15, Joe Maimon wrote:
>
>
> No static routes, dedicated BGP routed loopbacks on each side from an
> allocated /31, strict definitions on which routes belong to which
> session. Its gone about very properly.
And all of this is simpler than having a native BGP session that runs
ac
On Mon, 25 Jan 2016 12:48:47 +0400
Murat Kaipov wrote:
> Hello folks!We have an issue with some multicast streams. For some
> reason picture is very unstable in evening, during internet usage
> peak times. We have had monitor our links and uplinks and there
> wasn't any oversubscribtion. I lookin
On 25/Jan/16 10:48, Murat Kaipov wrote:
> Hello folks!We have an issue with some multicast streams. For some reason
> picture is very unstable in evening, during internet usage peak times. We
> have had monitor our links and uplinks and there wasn't any oversubscribtion.
> I looking for useful
I've done small runs of boards that can do this and also do the OEO part. Let
me know off list if you are interested.
Jared Mauch
> On Jan 25, 2016, at 5:36 AM, Frederik Kriewitz wrote:
>
> Or if you prefer the do-it-yourself approach using a Raspberry Pi:
> http://eoinpk.blogspot.com/2014/05
On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 11:55 PM, Colton Conor wrote:
> Freddy,
>
> So are you saying if you order enough from Fiberstore.com they will give you
> a programmer? That seems like the best solution.
Yes, the magic number seems to be 3 USD for fiberstore.
I looked into this compatibility magic s
Mark Tinka wrote:
On 22/Jan/16 22:28, Joe Maimon wrote:
I like that setup. And it never struck me as crazy. In fact, their
implementation avoids all multihop setup shortcuts and is quite purist
from a routing standpoint.
First time I've heard that...
Mark.
No static routes, dedicate
On 22/Jan/16 22:28, Joe Maimon wrote:
>
>
> I like that setup. And it never struck me as crazy. In fact, their
> implementation avoids all multihop setup shortcuts and is quite purist
> from a routing standpoint.
First time I've heard that...
Mark.
Hello folks!We have an issue with some multicast streams. For some reason
picture is very unstable in evening, during internet usage peak times. We have
had monitor our links and uplinks and there wasn't any oversubscribtion. I
looking for usefull multicast stream monitoring tool now. Any sugges
39 matches
Mail list logo
