Tom Beecher wrote on 28/03/2024 18:35:
Fundamentally I've always disagreed with how sFlow aggregates flow data
with network state data.
"can aggregate" rather than "aggregates" - this is implementation
dependent and most implementations don't bother with it.
Overall, sflow has one major
Michael Thomas wrote on 18/02/2024 21:18:
So it has its own wireless? I seem to recall that there were some
economic reasons to use their CPE as little as possible to avoid rent.
Has that changed? Or can I run down and just buy a Cablelabs certified
router/modem these days?
There's no short
Michael Thomas wrote on 18/02/2024 20:56:
That's really great to hear. Of course there is still the problem with
CPE that doesn't speak v6, but that's not their fault and gives some
reason to use their CPE.
Already solved: cable modem ipv6 support is usually also excellent, both
in terms of
Michael Thomas wrote on 18/02/2024 20:28:
I do know that Cablelabs pretty early on -- around the time I
mentioned above -- has been pushing for v6. Maybe Jason Livingood can
clue us in. Getting cable operators onboard too would certainly be a
good thing,
availability of provider-side ipv6
William Herrin wrote on 22/01/2024 21:26:
At which point Centurylink chooses 40676 7489 11875 11875 11875
11875 11875 11875 11875.
[...]
You're telling me with a straight face that you think
that's*reasonable* routing?
yep, looks pretty reasonable, if you're Centurylink and 40676 is a
Jérôme Nicolle wrote on 18/01/2024 14:38:
Those I'm nearly sure I could get, if I can pool caches amongst ISPs.
The current constraints are issues to any content provider, not just for
local ISPs.
two issues here: the smaller issue is that CDNs sometimes want their own
routable IP address
Matthew Petach wrote on 13/01/2024 00:27:
In light of that, I strongly suspect that a second go-around at
developing more beneficial post-exhaustion policies might turn out
very differently than it did when many of us were naively thinking
we understood how people would behave in a
Matthew Petach wrote on 11/01/2024 21:05:
I think that's a bit of an unfair categorization--we can't look at
pre-exhaustion demand numbers and extrapolate to post-exhaustion
allocations, given the difference in allocation policies pre-exhaustion
versus post-exhaustion.
Matt,
the demand for
Christopher Hawker wrote on 11/01/2024 10:54:
Reclassifying this space, would add 10+ years onto the free pool for
each RIR
on this point: prior to RIR depletion, the annual global run-rate on /8s
measured by IANA was ~13 per annum. So that suggests that 240/4 would
provide a little more
Dave Taht wrote on 11/01/2024 09:40:
240/4 is intensely routable and actually used in routers along hops
inside multiple networkstoday, but less so as a destination.
240/4 is fine for private use, but the OP needed publicly routable IP
addresses, which 240/4 are definitely not.
Nick
Tom Beecher wrote on 10/01/2024 15:12:
( Unless people are transferring RFC1918 space these days, in which case
who wants to make me an offer for 10/8? )
I'm taking bids on 256.0.0.0/8, which is every bit as publicly routable
as 240/4.
Nick
William Herrin wrote on 02/10/2023 08:56:
All it means is that you have to keep an eye on your FIB
size as well, since it's no longer the same as your RIB size.
the point Jacob is making is is that when using FIB compression, the FIB
size depends on both RIB size and RIB complexity. I.e.
Masataka Ohta wrote on 04/09/2023 12:04:
Are you saying you thought a 100G Ethernet link actually consisting
of 4 parallel 25G links, which is an example of "equal speed multi
parallel point to point links", were relying on hashing?
this is an excellent example of what we're not talking about
Masataka Ohta wrote on 03/09/2023 14:32:
See, for example, the famous paper of "Sizing Router Buffers".
With thousands of TCP connections at the backbone recognized
by the paper, buffers with thousands of packets won't cause
packet reordering.
What you said reminds me of the old saying: in
Masataka Ohta wrote on 03/09/2023 08:59:
the proper thing to do is to use the links with round robin
fashion without hashing. Without buffer bloat, packet
reordering probability within each TCP connection is
negligible.
Can you provide some real world data to back this position up?
What you
Masataka Ohta wrote on 02/09/2023 16:04:
100 50Mbps flows are as harmful as 1 5Gbps flow.
This is quite an unusual opinion. Maybe you could explain?
Nick
Bjørn Mork wrote on 01/09/2023 10:52:
But there's obviously not been enough thought applied to realize that
optional transitive attributes must be considered evil by default. They
can only be used after extremely careful parsing.
This is the BGP version of
select * from mytable where field =
Bjørn Mork wrote on 01/09/2023 08:17:
Sounds familiar.
https://supportportal.juniper.net/s/article/BGP-Malformed-AS-4-Byte-Transitive-Attributes-Drop-BGP-Sessions?language=en_US
You'd think a lot of thought has gone into error handling for optional
transitive attributes since then, but...
A
Lyndon Nerenberg (VE7TFX/VE6BBM) wrote on 22/08/2023 01:27:
Because I've been writing yacc grammars for decades. I just wanted to
see if someone had already done it, as that would save me some time.
But if there's nothing out there I'll just roll one myself.
check out xorp and vyos - both
Lyndon Nerenberg (VE7TFX/VE6BBM) wrote on 21/08/2023 22:14:
Any chance somebody out there has a yacc grammar that will parse
a Juniper config files? My immediate interest involves v19.X on
our EX4300s, but anything in the ballpark would save me having to
write one from scratch.
No need to
Mike Hammett wrote on 15/08/2023 23:02:
I'd say it's probably the best router UI ever, but I suppose now we'll
find ourselves in a religious argument.
Whatever about the web / winbox UI, there are some fairly serious
weaknesses in the cli and api:
1. there's no atomic configuration commit +
Malte Tashiro wrote on 12/08/2023 04:50:
Looking at this I also saw that for a short time some prefixes belonging
to AS37451 were announced by AS2454388738 (see [0] and [1]).
Anybody have a smart idea which command could have caused this?
AS2454388738 == AS37451.2, in asdot format.
Nick
Mark Tinka wrote on 11/08/2023 10:33:
It is not terribly clever of Mikrotik to have two commands that do
different things be that close in syntax.
no, indeed.
That said, why are we giving the routers the ability to manually
generate AS_PATH's? On any router OS, this is simply asking for it.
Mark Tinka wrote on 11/08/2023 10:17:
So how would one fumble it to the degree where a fat-finger results in
what should be a prepend becoming an AS_PATH?
Genuine question - I have zero experience with Mikrotik in an SP role.
If your asn is 327933, then:
add chain=foo prefix=192.0.2.0/24
Mark Tinka wrote on 11/08/2023 09:43:
Did I miss the memo where vendors went from explicitly defining the AS
multiple times to determine the number of prepends, to, this :-)?
yep, sure did. Check out the "set-bgp-prepend" action on routeros -
it's right next to "set-bgp-prepend-path".
Sandoiu Mihai wrote on 18/10/2022 12:59:
We have witnessed a lot of prepending in the last days, we got a few
internet routes that have 30…200 prepends, did you face the same issue?
Not sure that this is causing an operational problem? If you don't like
it, then nothing is stopping you from
Masataka Ohta wrote on 07/08/2022 12:16:
Ethernet switches with small buffer is enough for IXes
That would not be the experience of IXP operators.
Nick
Hank Nussbacher wrote on 14/05/2022 19:15:
In the end, the reason for all this RPKI-thingy is to prevent route
spoofing by malicious actors.
a malicious actor will spoof the origin AS. The aim of RPKI to help
stop mis-origination of prefixes, and the root cause of most of this is
+ pics:
https://twitter.com/acontios_net/status/1519296590015606787
https://twitter.com/acontios_net/status/1519280710762348545
https://twitter.com/acontios_net/status/1519276453350805504
Nick
Paul Ferguson wrote on 27/04/2022 15:17:
On 4/27/22 7:08 AM, Sean Donelan wrote:
Multiple
Kenneth Finnegan wrote on 04/04/2022 21:05:
I've taken it upon myself to create
proxy registrations for all of these prefixes in ALTDB.
Please don't.
You're not doing the routing security ecosystem any favours by doing
this. Couple of reasons why: 1. this isn't your data and this is an
Bjørn Mork wrote on 27/03/2022 10:42:
Yes, for traditional mobile (i.e handsets) the picture is completely
different. Same view shows an average of 85% IPv6 on mobile access:
https://munin.fud.no/vg.no/www.vg.no/vg_ds_telenor_mobil.html
from the point of view of cgnat scaling, a more useful
nano...@mulligan.org wrote on 19/01/2022 21:57:
If you look at 5G deployments around Japan and Europe, generally they
are NOT right up next to major airports.
You might want to fact-check this claim. Most airports have cell towers
nearby, particularly international airports.
Whatever about
Mel Beckman wrote on 18/01/2022 21:25:
/The collective tech industry needs to admit that it made a huge blunder
when it urged the FCC’s clueless Ajit Pai to “blow off” the clearly
demonstrated FAA spectrum conflict. Sorry, passengers, but if you look
out your window, you’ll see that aviation
PAUL R BARFORD wrote on 18/01/2022 14:48:
So, the question is what is the cost/benefit to providers to
configure/maintain routes (that include long MPLS tunnels) that tend to
concentrate international connectivity at a relatively small number of
routers?
the cost of mpls TE is pretty low: a
Sean Donelan wrote on 18/01/2022 11:28:
The top two capabilities: 1) MLD snooping and 2) a simple way to keep
IPv6 off certain ports (i.e. ancient 10/100 devices, which don't like
it. controlling the multicast floods may also help them).
Most people don't use ipv6 multicast in anger (i.e.
PAUL R BARFORD wrote on 17/01/2022 18:02:
For example, there is a router operated by Telia (AS1299) in Chicago
that has a high concentration of such links.
this doesn't appear to match 1299's public network topology:
https://www.teliacarrier.com/our-network.html
Is ttl decrement disabled on
The log4j people have updated their security advisory to say that these
two mitigation measures are not sufficient to protect against the recent
vulnerability:
2. start java with "-D log4j2.formatMsgNoLookups=true" (v2.10+ only)
3. start java with "LOG4J_FORMAT_MSG_NO_LOOKUPS=true"
Andy Ringsmuth wrote on 11/12/2021 03:54:
The intricacies of Java are over my head, but I’ve been reading about this
Log4j issue that sounds pretty bad.
What do we know about this? What, if anything, can a network operator do to
help mitigate this? Or even an end user?
The payload can be
Ca By wrote on 09/12/2021 14:36:
Just saying, facts are on my side. Check the number of times dnssec
caused an outage. Then check the number of hacks prevented by dnssec.
Literally 0.
it serves a purpose. There are plenty of actors, both public and
private sector, who would be happy to
Jaap Akkerhuis wrote on 04/12/2021 21:13:
Similar ideas where held for MD and TM but didn'y seem to work
out. Furthermore, an indepent Bougainville mighs change the name
to something else (as Zimbabwe did).
this is not unusual: .tp became one of the shortest-lived cctlds, and
was dropped in
Joe Maimon wrote on 19/11/2021 14:30:
Its very viable, since its a local support issue only. Your ISP can
advise you that they will support you using the lowest number and you
may then use it if you canall you may need is a single
patched/upgraded router or firewall to get your additional
John Gilmore wrote on 19/11/2021 01:54:
Lowest address is in the most recent Linux and
FreeBSD kernels, but not yet in any OS distros.
lowest addresses will not be viable until widely supported on router
(including CPE) platforms. This is hard to test in the wild - ripe
atlas will only test
John Gilmore wrote on 18/11/2021 19:37:
There will be no future free-for-all that burns through 300 million
IPv4 addresses in 4 months.
this is correct not necessarily because of the reasons you state, but
because all the RIRs have changed their ipv4 allocation policies to
policies which
John Levine wrote on 18/11/2021 03:03:
The amount of work to change every computer in the world running
TCP/IP and every IP application to treat 240/4 as unicast (or to treat
some of 127/8) is not significantly less than the work to get them to
support IPv6. So it would roughly double the work,
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote on 13/11/2021 09:25:
To my mind, I simply don't understand why some people continue to use
Network Solutions, with the track record they have.
indeed.
one aspect of this is that it's unusually difficult to migrate away
compared to other registrars. Only Primary
Barry Greene wrote on 29/10/2021 13:15:
"The NCSC will try to resolve the security problem that you have
reported in a system within 60 days. Once the problem has been resolved,
we will decide in consultation whether and how details will be published.”
I would have expected you to council the
Barry Greene wrote on 29/10/2021 13:15:
That only happens if the team has the time to get the fix into the code,
tested, validated, regressed, and deployed. I would say this is a
classic example of “ego” to publish overruling established principles.
The University of Twente should explore
Randy Bush wrote on 29/10/2021 02:03:
received this vuln notice four days before these children intend to
disclose. so you can guess how inclined to embargo.
The position doesn't seem to be compatible with e.g.
Randy Bush wrote on 07/10/2021 15:26:
it was sabatoged
there was more to it than that. The grammar was too complicated to
easily describe common policies and too limited to describe complex
policies. The structure was difficult to extend when the routing became
more complicated (e.g.
Randy Bush wrote on 04/10/2021 21:15:
i was hoping that, if 3130 said it is peering with martha, artemis would
get a clue and stfu
right. This was klunked around using the export-via and import-via rpsl
constructions (draft-snijders-rpsl-via), which never quite made it to
ietf wg adoption
Randy Bush wrote on 04/10/2021 17:44:
what are others in this space doing?
not using import/export lines in their RS or router configs, for
starters. Probably you could count the number of IXPs that inspect
import/export lines on the fingers of one hand, and possibly of one finger.
Saku Ytti wrote on 29/09/2021 07:03:
Having said that, I'm not convinced anyone should use uRPF at all.
Because you should already know what IP addresses are possible behind
the port, if you do, you can do ACL, and ACL is significantly lower
cost in PPS in a typical modern lookup engine.
urpf
Valdis Klētnieks wrote on 26/09/2021 01:44:
19:17:38 0 [~] ping 2130706433
PING 2130706433 (127.0.0.1) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.126 ms
64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.075 ms
64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=0.063 ms
Randy Bush wrote on 13/09/2021 19:22:
the specs as originally RFCed by the ietf is very telling. for your
amusement, take a look at rfc 2450. it took five years of war to get
rid of the tla/sla crap. and look at the /64 religion today[0].
architectural decisions were made because of a
Sabri Berisha wrote on 19/08/2021 00:57:
- On Aug 18, 2021, at 4:03 PM, Rubens kuhlrube...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Currently RPKI can only validate origin, not paths. If/when a path
validation solution is available, then one easy way to know that
network A really means to peer with network
Jon Lewis wrote on 12/08/2021 18:09:
Arista. They call it FIB compression. They mention it's a trade-off,
more memory and CPU utilization (keeping track of things) in exchange
for being able to keep hardware that might otherwise be out of FIB space
able to cope with full tables.
it also
Adam Thompson wrote on 14/05/2021 15:44:
I did not know such a thing existed! Cool! Holy murdering your port density,
though. Ouch$$$.
oh the port wastage is completely criminal, but it can be a handy last
resort.
Nick
Adam Thompson wrote on 14/05/2021 14:30:
However, the MX 10k family still only shows as being compatible with
two QSFP cards. And yes, you can get a QSFP-SFP+ breakout cable, but
those don't let you use SFP+ CWDM/DWDM transceivers.
you can also get QSA adapters to convert from a QSFP form
Sean Donelan wrote on 15/03/2021 17:46:
Its amazing the telecommunications industry still uses or relies on
"Letter of Authorization". Its less secure than faxing a piece of paper
on "letterhead."
LOAs aren't about authorization. They're about shifting liability and
having a paper trail.
Siyuan Miao wrote on 12/03/2021 11:34:
My biggest concern is why the AS8003 was assigned to the company (GLOBAL
RESOURCE SYSTEMS, LLC) even before its existence.
GRS LLC seems to have been around since 2006.
https://opencorporates.com/companies/us_fl/M0601699
AS8003 was registered to
Shane Ronan wrote on 23/02/2021 16:59:
For use cases where DPDK matters, are you really concerned with power
consumption?
Probably yeah. Have you assessed the lifetime cost of running a
multicore CPU at 100% vs at 10%, particularly as you're likely to have
multiples of these devices in
Etienne-Victor Depasquale wrote on 23/02/2021 16:03:
"we found that a poll mode driver (PMD)
thread accounted for approximately 99.7 percent
CPU occupancy (a full core utilization)."
interrupt-driven network drivers generally can't compete with polled
mode drivers at higher throughputs on
Randy Bush wrote on 01/02/2021 18:16:
is there a list of public resolvers? e.g. 1.1.1.1, 4.4.4.4, 8.8.8.8,
etc.?
https://public-dns.info/
?
Nick
Etienne-Victor Depasquale wrote on 16/01/2021 11:34:
The term NFV is a bit of a stretch for what is really
network-function-containerization.
Like ~ everything else relating to computers, network management and
service provisioning functionality boils down to executing CPU
instructions on
Eric S. Raymond wrote on 11/01/2021 00:00:
Yes, it would. This was an astonnishingly stupid move on AWS's part;
I'm prett sure their counsel was not conmsulted.
this is quite an innovative level of speculation. Care to provide sources?
Nick
Warren Kumari wrote on 23/11/2020 16:05:
They are better than terrorbits, which is what happen when anyone in
the family says "My Internet is broken, can you fix it?"
best to approach incidents like this with gigglebits, e.g. the sort of
response that accompanies replies like "you did WHAT??
Dale W. Carder wrote on 30/10/2020 14:33:
You may also find that 100G PAM4 could work.
not at 100km. This would be outside the dispersion tolerance limits for
pam4.
Nick
Saku Ytti wrote on 15/10/2020 15:29:
But you have to think about what prefixes a customer has. If BGP you
need to generate prefix-list, if static you need to generate a static
route. As you already have to know and manage this information, what
is the incremental cost to also emit an ACL?
the
Brian Knight via NANOG wrote on 13/10/2020 23:49:
Strict mode won't work for us, because with our multi-homed transits and
IX peers, we will almost certainly drop a legitimate packet because the
best route is through another transit.
there's no "almost" about it: strict mode is unfeasible for
Chris Boyd wrote on 30/09/2020 21:24:
My old Test-Um Lanscaper died, and I was curious what people liked
these days. Don’t need throughput testing or anything like that, just
basic wire map testing, cable ID, cable length, PoE voltage, and DHCP
client.
What do y’all like?
Ryan Hamel wrote on 16/09/2020 03:01:
Install a route optimizer that constantly pings next hops
or if you want a more reliable IXP experience, don't install a route
optimiser and if you do, don't make it ping next-hops.
- you're not guaranteed that the icmp reply back to the route optimiser
Saku Ytti wrote on 15/09/2020 18:05:
You just move the encapsulation from in-order to inside-ip making
everything harder for SW and much harder for HW, the simplicity is a
lie.
to quantify this, the tunneling header increased in size from a minimum
of 4 octets to a minimum of 40 octets. If
Mark Tinka wrote on 15/09/2020 07:04:
My head hurts:-)...
yep, and you're not alone - the complexity level is pretty high, right
from the control plane to the hardware.
It's not clear that the modest net gain in functionality is worth it.
Nick
aar...@gvtc.com wrote on 14/09/2020 20:03:
Thanks Nick, I only see the following layers... I see no extension headers
behind the ipv6 header. I sent you the wireshark sniff directly so you can
see what I'm seeing.
you should see extension headers if you're doing more complex stuff?
E.g. if
aar...@gvtc.com wrote on 14/09/2020 18:57:
But rather, shows my L3VPN v4 traffic riding v6 and that’s it.
that is how SRv6 works. IPv6 + extension headers (+ a bit extra which
is incompatible with ipv6).
Let me know if I’m seeing an SRH and just don’t know it, LOL.
Check out the IPv6
Jeff Tantsura via NANOG wrote on 09/09/2020 09:03:
De-facto standards are as good as people implementing them, however in
order to enforce non ambiguous implementations, it has to be de-jure
(e.g. a standard track RFC).
While I’m sympathetic to the idea, I’m quite skeptical about its
Shawn L via NANOG wrote on 02/09/2020 12:15:
We once moved a 3u server 30 miles between data centers this way.
Plug redundant psu into a ups and 2 people carried it out and put
them in a vehicle.
hopefully none of these server moves that people have been talking about
involved spinning disks.
K. Scott Helms wrote on 26/08/2020 13:55:
To be clear, UDP port 0 is not and probably shouldn't be blocked
because some network gear and reporting tools may mistake a fragmented
UDP PDU for port 0. That's an implementation error, but one that may
be common enough to create issues for users.
do
Mark Tinka wrote on 13/08/2020 11:31:
It's great to monitor packet loss, latency, pps, e.t.c. But packet loss
at 10% link utilization is not a foreign occurrence. No amount of
bandwidth upgrades will fix that.
you could easily have 10% utilization and see packet loss due to
insufficient
Sabri Berisha wrote on 01/08/2020 20:59:
My point is that there can be operational reasons to do so, and whatever
they wish to do on their network is perfectly fine. As long as they don't
bother the rest of the world with it.
I get what you're saying, and am a big fan of personal
Sabri Berisha wrote on 01/08/2020 20:03:
but because Noction's decision to not enable NO_EXPORT by default
the primary problem is not this but that Noction reinjects prefixes into
the local ibgp mesh with the as-path stripped and then prioritises these
prefixes so that they're learned as the
Mark Tinka wrote on 01/08/2020 12:20:
The difference between us and aviation is that fundamental flaws or
mistakes that impact safety are required to be fixed and checked if you
want to keep operating in the industry. We don't have that, so...
... so once again, route optimisers were at the
Hank Nussbacher wrote on 31/07/2020 08:21:
But wait - MANRS indicates that Telia does everything right:
Not only that, Telia indicates that Telia does everything right:
https://www.teliacarrier.com/our-network/bgp-routing/routing-security-.html
"We reject RPKI Invalids on all BGP Sessions;
Mark Tinka wrote on 29/07/2020 17:06:
> Meaning the initial setup would still require the use of literal IP
> addresses?
You can't use hostnames, if that's what you're asking. FRR will also do
unnumbered BGP with auto-config.
Nick
Mark Tinka wrote on 29/07/2020 15:51:
> I'm curious to know if this is after-the-fact, as I can't think of a way
> that BGP would find hostnames to setup sessions with, outside of some
> kind of upper layer name resolution capability.
>
> The draft isn't clear on how this happens, if it is,
Mark Tinka wrote on 29/07/2020 15:09:
> Are the names based on DNS look-ups, or is there some kind of protocol
> association between the device underlay and its hostname, as it pertains
> to neighbors?
afaik, this is an implementation of draft-walton-bgp-hostname-capability.
Nick
Michael Thomas wrote on 26/07/2020 21:39:
AWS S3 infrequent access is $40/month. If it's really archival backup
AWS has glacier which is less than $20/month, but it's name gives you an
idea of what it is.
how much does a full restore cost with these options?
Nick
William Herrin wrote on 21/07/2020 20:21:
This is happening a lot in the big shops like Amazon that can afford
to employ software developers to write purpose-built network code.
IOW, it works if you have a large and homogeneous enough network with a
sufficiently narrowly product portfolio
Tom Hill wrote on 17/07/2020 16:06:
If you're a service provider, don't buy a consumer product and hope to
sell it on at a similar (or higher) SLA rate to other consumers; that
way lies ruin.
I was going to suggest that there wasn't much in the way of consumer
grade international circuits, so
Mark Tinka wrote on 13/07/2020 16:03:
Still don't know what "third world" means (of course I do...), but
Obviously he means countries like Sweden, Ireland and Switzerland.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_World#/media/File:Cold_War_alliances_mid-1975.svg
It's not clear why there's any
Colin Stanners (lists) wrote on 13/07/2020 14:41:
Looking at the Wikipedia article, it claims that Atlantis-2 “can
already be upgraded with current technology to 160Gbit/s”. Would be
interesting why that wasn’t already done on this 20-year-old cable –
assuming that the underground
Masataka Ohta wrote on 22/06/2020 13:49:
But, it should be noted that a single class B routing table entry
"a single class B routing table entry"? Did 1993 just call and ask for
its addressing back? :-)
But, it should be noted that a single class B routing table entry
often serves for an
Mark Tinka wrote on 18/06/2020 11:56:
Invalid routes being dropped creates downtime. People respond to
downtime a lot more eagerly.
humanity is a crisis-driven species.
Nick
Mark Tinka wrote on 18/06/2020 11:16:
On 17/Jun/20 21:16, Tim Warnock wrote:
How did you know? Is there some monitoring system available to let
you know or do you have your own?
The usual way - a customer complained :-).
The customer monitoring system is very reliable and often superior to
Musa Stephen Honlue wrote on 18/06/2020 03:38:
Did you face any issues with IPv6 on 6.4, I personally have participated
in deployment projects on Mikrotik for many large networks.
mikrotik ROS6 doesn't support next-hop recursion for ipv6 routes:
Baldur Norddahl wrote on 16/06/2020 07:32:
purpose in life is to be a cold spare and a lab router. Why pay someone
else for having a cold spare ready for next day replacement when you can
have it yourself?
e.g. your production deployment might be in another country, and getting
equipment in
Patrick Cole wrote on 15/06/2020 14:16:
MX204's may have gotten chaper in the last year I don't know. But YMMV.
OP needs to check the licensing package for the MX204, and work out the
N-year TCO.
Nick
Phil Bedard wrote on 11/06/2020 17:49:
Just to clarify the only routers who potentially need to inspect or
do anything with those headers are endpoints who require information
in the extension header or hops in an explicit path. In the simple
example I gave, there are no extension headers at
Mark Tinka wrote on 11/06/2020 10:48:
We are asking for LDP to extended to support IPv6. Really, how hard
is that?
Nearly impossible, apparently.
It would require a change of mindset.
Nick
Saku Ytti wrote on 11/06/2020 05:51:
Unfortunately SRv6 is somewhat easy to market with the whole 'it's
simple, just IP' spiel.
it's not "just IP": it's ipv6 with per-router push / pop operations on
ipv6 extension headers, i.e. high touch in areas which are known to be
deeply troublesome on
1 - 100 of 773 matches
Mail list logo
