I have witnessed this issue first hand for several years. Four for sure,
maybe five or six. The very first one I remember is a customer doing
Usenet downloads and using what he called an "internet download manager"
which I assumed was screwing with TCP ACKs. I believe he was a 4Mbps
user at the
(caution! I don't really think arin is evil!)
On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 1:16 PM, John Curran wrote:
> On Sep 14, 2016, at 4:59 PM, Christopher Morrow
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 4:04 PM, Bryan Fields
> wrote:
> >
> >> On 9/14/16 3:09 AM, Scott Weeks wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Yes, RPKI. Th
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/06/08/is_win_10_ignoring_sysadmins_qos_settings/
This explains the recent situations (well, not really an explanation, but a bit
more information from other people). Not so much for the ones going back a year
or two.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Compu
On Mon, 19 Sep 2016, Mike Hammett wrote:
The principal complaint is that upstream of whatever is doing the rate
limiting for a given customer there is significantly more capacity being
utilized than the customer has purchased. This could happen briefly as
TCP adjusts to the capacity limitation
Hi Jason,
The following reply which I sent to the IDR mailing list might also be
helpful for you to understand the way most of these designs currently
work - as well as some of the problems we encounter with the existing
RFC1997 communities:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/idr/current/msg162
In a previous $dayjob at a different ASN I was customers of a large-ish
regional Canadian carrier (at 100M), and also of a small local guy (at 8M)
with only Cogent upstream. I would prepend out the local guy 3x, and then I
also tagged 174:3003 to have cogent prepend 3x more. This worked somewhat
OK
> On Sep 19, 2016, at 1:34 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
>
> These situations effectively shut out all other Internet traffic to that
> customer or even portion of the network for low capacity NLOS areas
I think the growing gap between those with high speed links and so-called
slower links will be
* Rich Kulawiec:
> On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 03:56:30PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> * Rich Kulawiec:
>>
>> > For example: if the average number of outbound SSH connections
>> > established per hour per host across all hosts behind CGNAT is 3.2,
>> > and you see a host making 1100/hour: that's a
On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 03:56:30PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Rich Kulawiec:
>
> > For example: if the average number of outbound SSH connections
> > established per hour per host across all hosts behind CGNAT is 3.2,
> > and you see a host making 1100/hour: that's a problem. It might be
>
I participate on a few other mailing lists focused on eyeball networks. For a
couple years I've been hearing complaints from this CDN or that CDN was
behaving badly. It's been severely ramping up the past few months. There have
been some wild allegations, but I would like to develop a bit more s
On Sep 14, 2016, at 4:59 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 4:04 PM, Bryan Fields wrote:
>
>> On 9/14/16 3:09 AM, Scott Weeks wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes, RPKI. That's what I was waiting for. Now we can get to
>>> a real discussion
>> ...
>> sure as heck not going to sign a leg
Hi,
Consider the following scenario:
- Customer A is a customer of SP A
- SP A is a customer of SP B
- SP B has a traffic engineering community implementation
With regards to using BGP communities for TE:
- Does SP A write their own community implementation that maps to (some portion
of) the
12 matches
Mail list logo