On Sun, 27 Mar 2022 at 18:31, Jon Lewis wrote:
> Is prepending used for any purpose other than TE? The point I think Joe
> was trying to make was prepending once or even a few times has uses.
> Prepending more than a few times is unlikely to accomplish anything a few
> prepends didn't get done.
On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 at 17:32, Joe Provo wrote:
> That said, prepending pretty much anything more than your current view
> of the Internet's diameter in ASNs is useless in practice.
>
That is one way of viewing it. But prepending can also be used for traffic
engineering. I could prepend 1 to my
On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 at 19:08, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
>
> Unfortunately, when the board did change the terms, it was made quite
> clear that the only way to terminate the LRSA was to surrender my resources
> in the process.
>
You could transfer the resources to RIPE... :-)
On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 at 23:48, Shane Ronan wrote:
> Please provide details on public transit systems that are controlled via
> Wifi, I find that very interesting.
>
This should give a good overview:
https://backend.orbit.dtu.dk/ws/files/128950142/COMST2661384.pdf
It is in fact quite
tir. 30. nov. 2021 23.19 skrev Tom Beecher :
> In my view there is no practical difference. The owner has full control of
>> his warehouse and it would be very illegal for any outside party to install
>> any device at all including unauthorised wifi devices.
>>
>
> Nothing illegal about someone
tir. 30. nov. 2021 22.09 skrev Shane Ronan :
> Happy, no, but it wouldn't be illegal. And if they are building their
> warehouse automation based on wifi, it would surely be a problem if someone
> was competing for bandwidth.
>
In my view there is no practical difference. The owner has full
man. 29. nov. 2021 02.12 skrev Masataka Ohta <
mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>:
>
>
> > The only way to truly reduce Opex at scale is automation.
>
> Automation by what? DNS?
>
> Masataka Ohta
>
Most of our customers are provisioned by Radius.
søn. 28. nov. 2021 13.59 skrev Masataka Ohta <
mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>:
>
> But, with manually configured IP addresses, it is trivially easy
> to have a rule to assign lower part of IP addresses within a subnet
> for hosts and upper part for routers, which is enough to troubleshoot
>
On Wed, 24 Nov 2021 at 08:16, Masataka Ohta <
mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote:
> So, as modifying end systems is inevitable, there is
> no reason not to support full end to end multihoming
> including modifications to support multiple addresses
> by TCP and some applications.
>
>
On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 at 19:20, Kain, Becki (.) wrote:
> The thing is, who is in office to care? Oh wait, guess equipment *is*
> important
>
>
For how long did you keep up with the evacuation of the equipment? :-)
On Mon, 18 Oct 2021 at 09:51, Masataka Ohta <
mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote:
> But, with settlement free peering between tier 1 ISPs, tier 2
> ISPs having transit/paid peering with a tier 1 ISP will receive
> routes from peers of the tier 1 ISP. There is transit traffic
> exchanged
søn. 17. okt. 2021 11.16 skrev Masataka Ohta <
mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>:
> Jay Hennigan wrote:
>
> >> Access/retail ISPs have no problem by peering with neutral
> >> backbone providers.
> >
> > Neutral backbone providers don't peer with access/retail ISPs. They
> > sell transit to them.
man. 4. okt. 2021 23.33 skrev Bill Woodcock :
>
>
> > On Oct 4, 2021, at 11:21 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >> On Oct 4, 2021, at 11:10 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
> >>
> >> They’re starting to pick themselves back up off the floor in the last
> two or three minutes. A few answers
t; "Never to get lost, is not living" - Rebecca Solnit
>
> Sent with ProtonMail <https://protonmail.com/> Secure Email.
>
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> On Monday, October 4th, 2021 at 4:12 PM, Baldur Norddahl <
> baldur.nordd...@gmail.com> wrote:
&g
On Mon, 4 Oct 2021 at 21:58, Michael Thomas wrote:
>
> On 10/4/21 11:48 AM, Luke Guillory wrote:
>
>
> I believe the original change was 'automatic' (as in configuration done
> via a web interface). However, now that connection to the outside world is
> down, remote access to those tools don't
I got a mail that Facebook was leaving NLIX. Maybe someone botched the
script so they took down all BGP sessions instead of just NLIX and now they
can't access the equipment to put it back... :-)
man. 4. okt. 2021 20.31 skrev Billy Croan :
> I know what this is. They forgot to update the
On Wed, 29 Sept 2021 at 22:07, Jean St-Laurent via NANOG
wrote:
> Thanks a lot for sharing.
>
> So 100 Gbps at line rate with 80B frames is about ~150 Mpps.
>
> 100 Gbps at line rate with 208B frames is about ~60 Mpps.
>
> It's a significant penalty.
>
Full rate small packets would be an attack
On Sat, 25 Sept 2021 at 21:26, Owen DeLong via NANOG
wrote:
> So the fact that:
>
> 2001:db8:0:1::5
> 2001:db8::1:0:0:0:5
>
> Are two different ways of representing the same address isn’t
> of any concern unless you’re making the mistake of trying to
> string wise compare them in
The "niceness" of equipment does factor in but it might be invisible. For
example if you like junipers cli environment, you will look at their stuff
first even if you do not have it explicitly in your requirement list.
Better rack rails will make slightly more people prefer your gear, although
it
On Sat, 25 Sept 2021 at 11:10, wrote:
> Because IPv4 loopback is 127.0.0.1/8 and its usefull?
>
I am not sure why it is useful but nothing stops you from adding more
loopback addresses:
root@jump2:~# ip addr add ::2/128 dev lo
root@jump2:~# ping6 ::2
PING ::2(::2) 56 data bytes
64 bytes from
On Thu, 23 Sept 2021 at 21:48, Christopher Morrow
wrote:
> This sounds like very naive nat state management behavior.
> Ideally, you'd be able to maintain state of:
> original-src/dst/ports/proto -> in-interface/external ip/port/proto
>
What you describe is called symmetric NAT and is the kind
tor. 23. sep. 2021 01.39 skrev Colton Conor :
> Where does this "You can only have about 200-300 subscribers per IPv4
> address on a CGN." limit come from? I have seen several apartment
> complexes run on a single static IPv4 address using a Mikrotik with
> NAT.
>
It is our observation as the
On Wed, 22 Sept 2021 at 16:48, Masataka Ohta <
mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote:
> Today, as /24 can afford hundreds of thousands of subscribers
> by NAT, only very large retail ISPs need more than one
> announcement for IPv4.
>
You can only have about 200-300 subscribers per IPv4 address
ons. 15. sep. 2021 19.37 skrev Owen DeLong via NANOG :
>
>
> > On Sep 15, 2021, at 09:31 , Masataka Ohta <
> mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote:
> >
> > Baldur Norddahl wrote:
> >
> >>>> But in fact with loc
On Wed, 15 Sept 2021 at 06:38, Masataka Ohta <
mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote:
> Shane Ronan wrote:
>
> > But in fact with local number portability, you cannot rely on the county
> > code to tell you where to route a telephone call anymore.
>
> Not. With geographical aggregation, you may
On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 8:22 PM Randy Bush wrote:
> real compatibility with ipv4 was disdained. the transition plan was
> dual stack and v4 would go away in a handful of years. the 93
> transition mechanisms were desperate add-ons when v4 did not go away.
> and dual stack does not scale, as it
A nearby datacenter once lost power delayed because someone hit the switch
to transfer from city power to generator power and then failed to notice.
The power went out the day after when there was no fuel left.
On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 9:24 PM Matthew Huff wrote:
> Since we are telling power
On Mon, Sep 6, 2021 at 2:55 PM Bjørn Mork wrote:
> And cellular providers give you a single /64. Not even useful as IPv6
> access for anything larger than a single handset. Extending that /64 to
> something you can use is non-trivial. How many providers have actually
> done that?
>
I am
On Sat, Aug 28, 2021 at 1:07 AM Bill Woodcock wrote:
> > On Aug 28, 2021, at 12:48 AM, Baldur Norddahl
> wrote:
> > just to point out it is not just one guy but a whole region doing
> business like that.
>
> You’re saying a whole region consists of parties who don’t rout
On Sat, Aug 28, 2021 at 12:13 AM Bill Woodcock wrote:
> Well, I hope not _many_ other parties. I guess we’re not talking about “a
> completely different case” after all, then? Bear in mind that this guy is
> in _no way_ part of the Internet ecosystem. He is _solely_ extracting rent
> by
Hello
I know nothing about this case although it sounds like this guy needs to be
stopped. However, let's pretend that I am talking about a completely
different case.
A guy sometime in the past acquired some large blocks of IP addresses. He
was not completely honest at the time so he got more
On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 10:53 PM Amir Herzberg wrote:
>
> I think it isn't the same.
>
I am still not sure but maybe I misunderstood what you originally said. It
is probably not important.
> I think that the NANOG (or in general, operators) community may do well to
> state the `/24 rule'
On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 3:54 AM Amir Herzberg wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 12, 2021 at 4:32 PM Baldur Norddahl
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 12, 2021 at 7:39 PM Amir Herzberg
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Bill, I beg to respectfully differ, knowing that I'm just
On Thu, Aug 12, 2021 at 7:39 PM Amir Herzberg wrote:
> Bill, I beg to respectfully differ, knowing that I'm just a researcher and
> working `for real' like you guys, so pls take no offence.
>
> I don't think A would be right to filter these packets to 10.0.1.0/24; A
> has announced 10.0.0.0/16
man. 9. aug. 2021 22.13 skrev Grzegorz Janoszka :
> On 2021-08-09 17:47, Billy Croan wrote:
> > How does the community feel about using /24 originations in BGP as a
> > tactical advantage against potential bgp hijackers?
>
> RPKI is more effective than a competing /24. Unless they hijack you ASn
On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 11:29 PM Randy Bush wrote:
>
> https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-cuts-self-off-from-global-internet-tests-defenses-rbc-2021-7
> says "Russia disconnected itself from the rest of the internet, a test
> of its new defense from cyber warfare, report says"
>
Would that
IP
a.b.c.1 to be London, a.b.c.2 Frankfurt, a.b.c.3 Ireland. Then if London
receives traffic to a.b.c.2 you would have a tunnel to send the traffic to
Frankfurt.
Regards,
Baldur
On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 11:07 AM Baldur Norddahl
wrote:
>
>
>> > On Jul 27, 2021, at 17:20, Vimal wr
>
> > On Jul 27, 2021, at 17:20, Vimal wrote:
> > Yes, this makes sense as the destination can be anywhere around the
> world, and that routing is asymmetric as others mentioned. However, if the
> destination service is "close" (in the routing metric sense) to the
> initiating host, anycast
You could also enable FEC on the link. This will remove any errors until
the link quality is really far gone.
Regards
Baldur
man. 19. jul. 2021 20.06 skrev Graham Johnston :
> Thank you all for the consensus. What I hear from you is that 100G takes
> more care to operate error free, as
We had a line card that would drop any IPv6 packet with bit #65 in the
destination address set to 1. Turns out that only a few hosts have this bit
set to 1 in the address, so nobody noticed until some debian mirrors
started to become unreachable. Also webbrowser are very good at switching
to IPv4
søn. 4. jul. 2021 12.45 skrev Mark Tinka :
>
>
> On 7/4/21 05:51, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> > Linux did this quite some time ago. I guess BSD is just now catching up.
>
> Been nearly 14 years since I last operated a Linux machine.
>
Some Juniper gear is Linux hypervisor :-)
tor. 1. jul. 2021 21.06 skrev William Herrin :
>
>
> From what I understand of EVPN, it's about creating something
> equivalent to VLANs across a distributed virtual server
> infrastructure. Basically like what Amazon does under the hood for its
> virtual private cloud. Since you're trying to get
On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 8:04 PM Douglas Fischer
wrote:
> I friend Suggested that EVPN could help-me, but I must confess that is a
> hard topic to me.
> Unless it can be used depending exclusively on software (no special
> hardware required), it won't fit.
>
>
Linux has EVPN support. Or you could
fre. 25. jun. 2021 21.33 skrev Aaron C. de Bruyn via NANOG :
> On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 10:43 AM Tom Beecher wrote:
>
>> Incompetent insurance companies combined with incompetent IT staff and
>>> under-funded IT departments are the nexus of the problem.
>>>
>>
>> Nah, it's even simpler. It's just
If you enable MLD snooping on your switches, the switch will block
multicast going out irrelevant ports. The idea is to reduce broadcast in a
broadcast domain.
On Fri, Jun 4, 2021 at 11:03 PM William Herrin wrote:
> Howdy,
>
> Question for those more versed in IPv6 than I: Is there any harm
On Fri, Jun 4, 2021 at 1:49 PM Mike Hammett wrote:
> Assuming you were able to get the maximum capacity (you don't for a
> variety of reasons), the maximum capacity of a given access point is 1.2
> gigabit/s. On a 2:1 ratio, that's about 800 megs down and 400 megs up.
>
>
Here is a graph of
On Fri, Jun 4, 2021 at 2:53 AM Masataka Ohta <
mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote:
> Baldur Norddahl wrote:
>
> > Sorry but that claim is completely wrong. Cabling cost scales linearly
> with
> > the number of cores.
>
My apology to Masataka Ohta for my too
On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 11:46 PM Mike Hammett wrote:
> 2.4 gigabit per channel, but only 1.2 gigabit from a given access point.
>
> Most often, WISPs choose down\up ratios between 85/15 and 66/34 and then
> sell plans appropriately. If we're now required to have a symmetric 100
> megs, you'll be
On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 2:40 PM Forrest Christian (List Account) <
li...@packetflux.com> wrote:
> I think you're really out of touch with what is going on in the WISP space.
>
> See the following product as an example:
>
>
>
On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 5:41 PM Masataka Ohta <
mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote:
> As cabling cost is mostly independent of the number of cores in a
> cable, as long as enough number of cores for single star are provided,
> which means core cost is mostly cabling cost divided by number of
On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 10:44 AM Masataka Ohta <
mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote:
> Jim Troutman wrote:
>
> Private fiber operators are strongly motivated to deploy PON
> because PON is designed to make competitions impossible even
> if regulators forces the operators to do so, which is
On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 12:47 AM Seth Mattinen wrote:
> UBNT's AirMax line is not "wifi". Their LTU line isn't either.
>
> Mike and Josh are actual WISP operators. You've stated you have no WISP
> experience. Listen to them.
>
Neither will listen to me when it comes to FTTH so nah :-)
uting Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
> Midwest-IX
> http://www.midwest-ix.com
>
> --
> *From: *"Baldur Norddahl"
> *To: *"NANOG"
> *Sent: *Wednesday, June 2, 2021 11:07:45 AM
> *Subject: *Re: New minimum speed for US br
On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 7:05 PM Josh Luthman
wrote:
> WISP is not symmetrical. Wireless isn't symmetrical. Nor is cable/dsl.
>
DSL splits the available frequencies into downstream and upstream, such
that usually much more frequencies are allocated downstream. Wifi on the
other hand does no
tir. 1. jun. 2021 23.57 skrev Mike Hammett :
>
> Requiring a 100 meg upload really changes up the dynamics of the WISP
> capabilities, resulting in fiber-only at a cost increase of 20x - 40x...
> for something that isn't needed.
>
I will admit to zero WISP experience but wifi is symmetrical
On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 2:27 AM Mike Hammett wrote:
> No one's paying me anything except 15 years of practical experience
> building last mile networks for myself and my clients. I'd imagine that
> while a larger percentage than most venues, a minority of the people on
> this list build last mile
On 31.05.2021 06.52, Mark Tinka wrote:
On 5/29/21 00:38, Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE wrote:
8 billion fiber drops for 8 billion people.
Technically speaking, 8 billion people is not 8 billion households :-).
But the bigger problem is getting fibre to every family in the world
søn. 30. maj 2021 15.29 skrev Mike Hammett :
> What can you do with 100 megs that you can't do with 25 megs and why
> should anyone care?
>
That is really the wrong question. People want 100 Mbps over 25 Mbps and
therefore it becomes a need for rural communities. Doesn't matter that
someone
2021, at 7:48 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
> >
> > Need vs. want.
> >
> >
> >
> > -
> > Mike Hammett
> > Intelligent Computing Solutions
> > http://www.ics-il.com
> >
> > Midwest-IX
> > http://www.midwest-ix.com
> >
> > From
I am in Europe / Denmark. The EU has defined broadband to be 100 Mbps
download with nothing specified for upload. The goal is for everyone to
have access to broadband by 2025.
Such definitions do help those in rural areas. In fact this is precisely
useful for those that do not currently have
Hello
First one needs to remember that it is always the sender that ultimately
decides which path to use. You can use route-map or import policy to
override local pref for each matched received prefix to steer exactly which
ISP you want to use on a per prefix basis. But so can everyone else.
Say
Hello
We got attacked by a group that calls themselves "Fancy Lazarus". They want
payment in BC to not attack us again. The attack was a volume attack to our
DNS and URL fetch from our webserver.
I am interested in any experience in fighting back against these guys.
Thanks,
Baldur
man. 10. maj 2021 16.20 skrev :
> I prefer MX204 over the ACX5048. The ACX5048 can’t add L3 interface to an
> mpls layer 2 type of service. There are other limitations to the ACX5048
> that cause me to want to possibly replace them with MX204’s. But in
> defense of the ACX5048, we have gotten
lør. 8. maj 2021 22.56 skrev Mark Tinka :
>
>
> On 5/8/21 22:50, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
>
> >
> > Maybe they did in the ACX710? Does most things except full routing table.
>
> We looked at it. Apart from supporting only DC power (which we don't
> like), it's Broad
lør. 8. maj 2021 09.16 skrev Mark Tinka :
>
> I just wish Juniper could make an MX204-lite, one with more 10Gbps port
> density, e.t.c.
>
Maybe they did in the ACX710? Does most things except full routing table.
We use mx204 to carry the full tables and handle ip transit. And ACX5448 +
ACX710
Hello
We had a 100G link that started to misbehave and caused the customers to
notice bad packet loss. The optical values are just fine but we had packet
loss and latency. Interface shows FEC errors on one end and carrier
transitions on the other end. But otherwise the link would stay up and our
On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 8:48 PM Seth Mattinen wrote:
> On 12/28/20 9:11 AM, Aaron Wendel wrote:
> > Actually our free service doesn't have limitations, has an SLA, no
> > time/term restrictions, a CPE, support, etc.
>
>
> How do SLA refunds work on free service? Do you just pay them some cash
>
I applaud your commitment to helping your local community. Just want to
point out that this is a charity because it does not scale. Nobody could
build out a FTTH network and make it free as a business case. But there are
plenty of people that made a network for their neighbors and provided that
søn. 27. dec. 2020 19.00 skrev Valdis Klētnieks :
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2020 17:57:17 +0100, Baldur Norddahl said:
>
> > Here in the civilised world we bury the wires ;-)
>
> Even the long-haul 765kv and up connections across the power grid?
>
> In the US, they're out on tower
søn. 27. dec. 2020 17.14 skrev Michael Thomas :
>
>
> We have both, and are going to get a battery. But the battery would
> probably only be good for about a day which is not enough, especially
> with these planned shutoffs because they have to inspect their wire
> plant in daylight. There has to
ven tcp
> window scaling is enabled (default on modern Linux).
>
> Filip
>
>
> On 26 December 2020 19:14:13 CET, Baldur Norddahl <
> baldur.nordd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> lør. 26. dec. 2020 18.55 skrev Mikael Abrahamsson :
>>
>>
On Sat, Dec 26, 2020 at 7:28 PM Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Dec 2020, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
>
> > I demonstrated that it is about buffers by showing the same download
> > from a server that paces the traffic indeed gets the full 930 Mbps with
> > exactly the
lør. 26. dec. 2020 18.55 skrev Mikael Abrahamsson :
> On Sat, 26 Dec 2020, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
>
> > It is true there have been TCP improvements but you can very easily
> verify
> > for yourself that it is very hard to get anywhere near 1 Gbps of actual
> > transfer
On Sat, Dec 26, 2020 at 5:41 PM Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Dec 2020, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
>
> > That is why. The RTT to the source can not be larger than the minimum
> > buffer size in the transport path. Otherwise the speed will start
> > decreasing.
>
lør. 26. dec. 2020 16.35 skrev Mikael Abrahamsson via NANOG :
>
>
>
> Perhaps there are some issues at other parts of the network that limits
> their speeds? I'm in Stockholm, Sweden, with plenty of local CDNs located
> just 1-3ms away from me.
>
That is why. The RTT to the source can not be
fre. 25. dec. 2020 21.49 skrev Michael Thomas :
>
> On 12/25/20 12:40 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
> >
> > The other aspect of it is that we're doing these downloads while
> > continuing to play other games and chat (both things sensitive to
> > latency). Some have family/roommates in the home, so
Hello
What is the best current practice for buffer size? For customer facing
ports, core network ports and transit links?
We have a buffer problem, discovered by a customer that moved their servers
to a cloud service some distance away. That resulted in a drastic reduced
transfer speed between
Hello
While working on my ACLs I noticed that I was successful in blocking some
apparently spoofed IPv6 traffic. The destination was Facebook and the
source was IPv6 range belonging to a mobile operator that sells 4G Wifi
router based solutions.
So thinking about how and why a few customers end
Does this device have deep buffers?
On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 11:12 PM Colton Conor
wrote:
> https://www.multicominc.com/wp-content/uploads/DZS-M3000_M.pdf
>
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 4:08 PM Colton Conor
> wrote:
>
>> Well then Adam I would say the Dasan Zhone fits the budget. The M3000
>>
Might filtering port 11211 like that not risk blocking random connections,
where the operating system picked that port as source, which then becomes
destination on the reply packets?
tir. 20. okt. 2020 07.19 skrev Randy Bush :
> term blocked-ports {
> from {
> protocol [ tcp udp ];
>
Juniper ACX710. Yes it also has more ports, but you only pay for the
capacity you need (100G minimum). So you could buy a license that would
allow you to enable 10x 10G with the 100G ports dormant.
On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 11:57 PM wrote:
> For this particular gig even the MX204 would be
.
>
> -not sure why this isn’t the first sentence in every BCP and “security
> bulletin”…
>
>
>
>
>
> adam
>
>
>
> *From:* NANOG *On
> Behalf Of *Baldur Norddahl
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 15, 2020 8:38 AM
> *To:* nanog@nanog.org
> *Subject:* Re:
All DNS resolvers discovered on our network belong to customers. Our own
resolvers, running unbound, were not discovered.
While filtering same AS on ingress could help those customers (but only one
was a open relay), filtering bogons is something the customer can also do.
Or the software can be
On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 1:30 AM Aaron Gould wrote:
> Do y’all like HE for Internet uplink? I’m thinking about using them for
> 100gig in Texas. It would be for my eyeballs ISP. We currently have
> Spectrum, Telia and Cogent.
>
> -Aaron
>
I find HE useful as a special kind of transit
Are you really suggesting decrypting customer traffic? In most parts of the
world that act falls in one of two categories: it is either required by law
or it is illegal.
Offer your customers a good virus scanner to install instead.
Regards
Baldur
fre. 9. okt. 2020 21.27 skrev Christopher J.
Hello
ARP timeout should be lower than MAC timeout, but usually the default is
the other way around. Which is extremely stupid. To those who do not know
why, let me give a simple example:
Router R1 is connected to switch SW1 with a connection to server SRV: R1
<-> SW1 <-> SRV
Router R2 is
That is what the 5G router is for...
ons. 2. sep. 2020 19.47 skrev Michael Hallgren :
> While conserving connectivity?
>
>
> --
> *De :* Shawn L via NANOG
> *Envoyé :* mercredi 2 septembre 2020 13:15
> *À :* nanog
> *Objet :* Re: Centurylink having a bad morning?
>
. 2020 15.36 skrev Saku Ytti :
> On Wed, 2 Sep 2020 at 16:16, Baldur Norddahl
> wrote:
>
> > I am not buying it. No normal implementation of BGP stays online,
> replying to heart beat and accepting updates from ebgp peers, yet after 5
> hours failed to process withdrawal from
I am not buying it. No normal implementation of BGP stays online, replying
to heart beat and accepting updates from ebgp peers, yet after 5 hours
failed to process withdrawal from customers.
ons. 2. sep. 2020 14.11 skrev Saku Ytti :
> On Wed, 2 Sep 2020 at 14:40, Mike Hammett wrote:
>
> >
2020, 8:10 AM Drew Weaver wrote:
>
>> I’m not defending them but I am sure it isn’t intentional.
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* NANOG *On
>> Behalf Of *Baldur Norddahl
>> *Sent:* Sunday, August 30, 2020 9:28 AM
>> *To:* nanog@nanog.org
>> *Subject:* Re: Cen
On Sun, Aug 30, 2020 at 5:21 PM Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Baldur Norddahl said:
> > How is that acceptable behaviour? I shall remember never to make a
> contract
> > with these guys until they can prove that they won't advertise my
> prefixes
> > a
How is that acceptable behaviour? I shall remember never to make a contract
with these guys until they can prove that they won't advertise my prefixes
after I pull them. Under any circumstances.
søn. 30. aug. 2020 15.14 skrev Joseph Jenkins :
> Finally got through on their support line and spoke
Hello
By accident I noticed several of my VPLS instances have
00:aa:bb:01:23:45 in the MAC table. We never sent anything just received
a little traffic from that. Obviously not a real MAC address so I tried
to search Google for it. I find several hits with apparently ADSL users
doing pppd
No plan survives contact with the enemy. Your careful made growth
projection was fine until the brass made a deal with some major customer,
which caused a traffic spike. Or any infinite other events that could and
eventually will happen to you.
One hard thing, that almost everyone will get wrong
<http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>
> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
> --
> *From: *"Baldur Norddahl"
> *To: *nanog@nanog.org
> *Sent: *Thursday, August 13, 2
Is it possible to do and is anyone monitoring metrics such as max queue
length in 5 minutes intervals? Might be a better metric than average load
in 5 minutes intervals.
Regards
Baldur
IP address space is no longer free. But an ISP or hosting company is a
trader of addresses now and like everything else we do, there is an
opportunity to make a margin.
Say the provider bought at $12 per address and assuming IPv4 is needed for
at least 10 years, that would only be .1 USD/month.
On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 3:54 PM Job Snijders wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 03, 2020 at 02:36:25PM +0200, Alex Band wrote:
> > According to the information I received from the community[1], you
> > should read PR1461602 and PR1309944 before deploying.
> >
> > [1]
How do you know that none of the prefixes had ROA? The ones that had got
stopped by Telias filter, so we would never know.
This is exactly the situation where RPKI already works. My and yours
prefixes, provided you like me have ROAs, will not be leaked through Telia
and a number of other large
On 31.07.2020 10.47, Nick Hilliard wrote:
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
1 - 100 of 545 matches
Mail list logo
