Juniper Networks has also tried using Bloom filters.
https://patents.google.com/patent/US20170187624
I think the QFX10002 was the first product they made which used this approach.
https://forums.juniper.net/t5/Archive/Juniper-QFX10002-Technical-Overview/ba-p/270358
On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 1:45
Employer has been using them for transit in Chicago for a while now.
There was a case where they had a weird detour path through a router
on the east coast for a prefix ultimately destined for the west coast,
but once we notified them they quickly (same day) got it resolved.
Been pretty happy with
When it comes to reasons for them to force everyone off I believe it
has to do with control. ISP accounts tend to be personal accounts, but
when you stop being a customer of the ISP they will deactivate the
account. Now that they tied purchases on the play store to the account
it made things very
On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 4:59 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
josh,
thanks for the more technical scoop. now i get it a bit better.
We also re-designed the LAN back in 2011 to break up the giant single
broadcast domain down to a subnet per table switch.
so it is heavily routed using L3
Now, boss man comes in and has a new office opening up. Go grab the r1 box
out of the closet, you need to upgrade the code and reconfigure it. Cable
it up to your PC with a serial port, open some some sort of terminal program
so you can catch the boot and password recover it. Plug it's
Ubiquiti has been contributing to VyOS, so I'm assuming it is the
version they are using as the upstream for their code.
On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Nolan Rollo nro...@kw-corp.com wrote:
I wonder how Ubiquiti Networks is going to react to this since their EdgeMax
Routers run a fork of the
Our local Akamai cluster has pegged it's 1G uplink a few times, and we
are hitting our 1G Equinix IX link pretty hard as well.
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Ben Bartsch uwcable...@gmail.com wrote:
We are seeing Akamai traffic up about 100-300% since noon CDT. Seeing
similar increased from
My first question is, how are they going to keep themselves from
congesting links?
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com wrote:
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/06/google-making-the-web-faster-with-protocol-that-reduces-round-trips/?comments=1
Sorry if
But what I don't understand is why everyone implies that the status
quo with round-robin DNS is any better.
I don't think anyone believes round robin DNS records is better. It's
that attempting to do better requires adding onto or changing
standards that must maintain backwards compatibility
Have you looked at anything from Clear Field, just as an example
something like this.
http://www.clearfieldconnection.com/products/panels/fieldsmart-small-count-delivery-scd-1ru-rack-mount-cabinet-mount-panel.html
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Chuck Anderson c...@wpi.edu wrote:
I'm looking
Yep,
http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog56/presentations/Monday/mon.lightning.siegel.pdf
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 6:03 AM, Christopher J. Pilkington c...@0x1.netwrote:
Overnight BGPmon reports that 3356 was adjacent to our AS, but it is
not. Only plausible situation I can think of is Level(3)
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 1:45 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
I fully expect them to develop an HDCP-or-equivalent enabled protocol to run
over IP Multicast.
Do you have any reason you believe that won't happen?
Owen
I'm pretty sure it's already in place for IPTV solutions.
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 8:01 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
But suppose you had a TCP protocol that wasn't statically bound to the
IP address by the application layer. Suppose each side of the
connection referenced each other by name, TCP expected to spread
packets across multiple
2012/2/16 Masataka Ohta mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp:
Andreas Echavez wrote:
*How NAT breaks end-to-end connectivity (fun one..., took me
hours to explain to an old boss why doing NAT at the ISP level
was horrendously wrong)
That's another misconception.
While NAT breaks the end to
I've seen this discussion show up in a number of venues lately. I'm
not at all surprised about the trend as I've been using Steam for a
few years now. I expect they will take a similar path and continue to
sell physical medium with keys to tie the game to an account, and do
staged downloads using
I certainly agree they have very different applications, and hopefully
that will help those looking for this kind of insight.
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 3:54 PM, Saku Ytti s...@ytti.fi wrote:
On (2012-01-20 09:50 -0700), PC wrote:
Juniper has some very aggressive pricing on mx80 bundles
I would also be interested in peoples experiences with the MX80
platform. Currently considering the MX40 license level of MX80
platform for a project. We have had good experiences with the ASR1002
but want to keep our options open.
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 2:45 PM, PC paul4...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 2:21 PM, Steve Clark scl...@netwolves.com wrote:
On 06/10/2011 09:37 AM, Ray Soucy wrote:
You really didn't just write an entire post saying that RA is bad
because if a moron of a network engineer plugs an incorrectly
configured device into a production network it may
In all honesty control over the Internet doesn't sound like the issue
here. The US Government regulates entities functioning with in it's
boarders. This would be no different if I being in the US were
restricted access to a site in any other country due to their
regulations.
I'll preface this that I'm more of an end user then a network
administrator, but I do feel I have a good enough understanding of the
protocols and
network administration to submit my two cents.
The issue I see with this level of NAT, is the fact that I don't
expect that UPNP be implemented at
20 matches
Mail list logo
