Re: Reliability of Juniper MIC3-3D-1X100GE-CFP and CFP in general

Sent from my iPhone > On Jun 22, 2017, at 07:38, Eric Dugas wrote: > > Hello, > > We're planning to phase out some 10G link-aggregations in favor of 100G > interfaces. We've been looking at buying MIC3-3D-1X100GE-CFP, MPC3E and > Fiberstore CFPs. > > I've been told

Re: IPv6 traffic percentages?

On 18 June 2017 at 17:36, Radu-Adrian Feurdean < na...@radu-adrian.feurdean.net> wrote: > so for the record, business customers are much more active in > *rejecting* IPv6, either explictely (they say they want it disabled) or > implicitly (they install their own router, not configured for IPv6).

Re: PCIe adapters supporting long distance 10GB fiber?

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 11:15 AM, Baldur Norddahl wrote: > The real question here is: will my NIC support other SFP+ modules than the > few options carried by the NIC vendor? Has anyone tried changing the vendor ID of an SFP+ with one of these?

Re: Long AS Path

Mel, There was a Cisco bug many years ago that caused lots of issues. Since then we have limited max-as to 50 and it has not caused any reported issues yet. Link that does not require a CCO login to view. http://blog.ipspace.net/2009/02/oversized-as-paths-cisco-ios-bug.html Regards Steve

Re: PCIe adapters supporting long distance 10GB fiber?

I have used 3rd party Cisco coded optics in an Intel SFP card successfully, but it won't be "officially supported". Oli On 20 June 2017 at 16:15, Baldur Norddahl wrote: > The real question here is: will my NIC support other SFP+ modules than the > few options carried

Re: Long AS Path

23456 is AS_TRANS. Either your router does not support 4 byte AS or there is a bug at AS 12956 or AS 12956 is intentionally prepending 23456. Thanks, Jakob. > > Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 23:12:45 + > From: James Braunegg > To: "nanog@nanog.org"

Reliability of Juniper MIC3-3D-1X100GE-CFP and CFP in general

Hello, We're planning to phase out some 10G link-aggregations in favor of 100G interfaces. We've been looking at buying MIC3-3D-1X100GE-CFP, MPC3E and Fiberstore CFPs. I've been told that CFPs (in general) weren't that reliable. They were kinda "replaced" almost a year and a half or so after its

Re: Long AS Path

You don't have to wonder. You can call and ask them. -mel via cell > On Jun 22, 2017, at 5:47 AM, jim deleskie wrote: > > I see 5+ prepends as maybe not reason to have your "BGP driving license > revoked" but if I can continue with the concept that you have your BGP >

Re: Long AS Path

On 06/22/2017 04:27 AM, Jon Lewis wrote: > > You do have to wonder, what was the thought process that resulted in 35 > being the right number of prepends "accomplish" whatever TE they were > shooting for? > > AS path: 10026 9498 55644 55644 55644 55644 55644 55644 55644 55644 55644 > 55644 55644

Re: Long AS Path

I see 5+ prepends as maybe not reason to have your "BGP driving license revoked" but if I can continue with the concept that you have your BGP learners permit. If I think back to when I learned to code or when making ACL's, we still used line number and practice would be to give ourselves lots of

Re: Long AS Path

On Wed, 21 Jun 2017, Saku Ytti wrote: Hey, Uou're saying, you drop long AS_PATH, to improve customer observed latency? Implication being, because you dropped the long AS_PATH prefixes, you're now selecting shorter AS_PATH prefixes to the FIB? Absent of this policy, in which scenario would you

Re: IPv6 traffic percentages?

On Thu, 22 Jun 2017, Radu-Adrian Feurdean wrote: To make it short : education. And we as as small ISP we have neither the resources, nor the motivation (because $$$ on the issue is negative) to do it (the education). An ISP should be an enabler, and have a service portfolio to cover most

Re: IPv6 traffic percentages?

On Thu, Jun 22, 2017, at 08:18, Mukom Akong T. wrote: > > On 18 June 2017 at 17:36, Radu-Adrian Feurdean adrian.feurdean.net> wrote:>> so for the record, business customers are much > more active in >> *rejecting* IPv6, either explictely (they say they want it >> disabled) or>>

Re: Long AS Path

> "Mel" == Mel Beckman writes: Mel> Why not ask the operator why they are pretending this path? Perhaps Mel> they have a good explanation that you haven't thought of. Blindly Mel> limiting otherwise legal path lengths is not a defensible practice, in Mel>