Saku Ytti wrote on 21/3/20 19:04:
> On Sat, 21 Mar 2020 at 18:55, Tassos Chatzithomaoglou
> wrote:
>
>> I still don't understand why the vendors cannot make it work in one
>> direction only (the low-end platform would only need to remove an extra
>> label,
Mark Tinka wrote on 21/3/20 18:15:
> So the three or four times we tried to get FAT going (in a multi-vendor
> network), it simply didn't work.
>
> Have you (or anyone else) had any luck with it, in practice?
>
> Mark.
>
Only between Cisco boxes.
I still don't understand why the vendors cannot
I guess you're looking into something similar to
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-keyur-idr-bgp-prefix-limit-orf.
--
Tassos
Jörg Kost wrote on 31/8/17 13:50:
>
>
> What about adding an option to the BGP session that A & B do agree on a fixed
> number of prefixes in both directions, so Bs
I don't know if it has any relation to your issue, but we use Circuit-ID to
uniquely identify the access node plus the customer's access loop logical port
on the access node.
Access node can be either a DSLAM, a switch, an OLT, etc.
You may have a look at BBF's TR-101 (section 3.9.3) or TR-156
With a ~59% dual-stack percentage and a 8% ds-lite percentage (aka 67%
of our subscriber base has IPv6), we get around 40% of IPv6 traffic.
--
Tassos
Radu-Adrian Feurdean wrote on 10/4/2017 1:11 μμ:
> On Fri, Apr 7, 2017, at 20:03, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
>> On Fri, 7 Apr 2017, Max Tulyev
I had given some numbers for PBA in
http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/2016-February/101908.html
--
Tassos
Adam wrote on 23/11/16 23:17:
> I'm crunching the numbers on the cost effectiveness of implementing CGN vs
> IPv4 auctions. The determining factor is how many ephemeral ports are
>
Mikael Abrahamsson wrote on 10/3/16 18:21:
>
> However, I stand by my earlier statement that we need to include MTU/MRU in
> ND messages, so that this can be negotiated on a LAN where not all devices
> support large MTU.
>
Isn't this already supported?
Martin Pels wrote on 10/3/2016 4:15 μμ:
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 08:23:30 +0200
> Tassos Chatzithomaoglou <ach...@forthnet.gr> wrote:
>
>> Niels Bakker wrote on 10/3/16 02:44:
>>> * nanog@nanog.org (Kurt Kraut via NANOG) [Thu 10 Mar 2016, 00:59
>>> CET]:
>
Niels Bakker wrote on 10/3/16 02:44:
> * nanog@nanog.org (Kurt Kraut via NANOG) [Thu 10 Mar 2016, 00:59 CET]:
>> I'm pretty confident there is no need for a specific MTU consensus and not
>> all IXP participants are obligated to raise their interface MTU if the IXP
>> starts allowing jumbo
I must be missing something very obvious here, because i cannot think of any
reason why an IXP shouldn't enable the maximum possible MTU on its
infrastructure to be available to its customers. Then it's clearly customers'
decision on what MTU to use on their devices, as long as:
* It fits
In our case IPv6 traffic is ~27% of total, with ~58% dual-stack subscribers and
~7% ds-lite subscribers.
--
Tassos
nanog-...@mail.com wrote on 20/1/16 14:14:
> Hello all,
>
> Would those with IPv6 deployments kindly share some statistics on their
> percentage of IPv6 traffic?
>
> Bonus points
I'm having a look at real-time traffic engineering/management solutions that
include visibility/analysis/control and offer the following basic
characteristics:
1) take into account
* links utilization/threshold/deviation
* link price
* packet delay/loss
* physical/logical topology
2)
I'm looking for ways to verify that the currently running software on our
Cisco/Juniper boxes is the one that is also in the flash/hd/storage/etc.
Something that will somehow compare the running software in ram with the
software on flash/hd/storage/etc, so that i can verify that nobody has
that the running software is actually the original one?
--
Tassos
Saku Ytti wrote on 13/1/2014 12:46:
On (2014-01-13 12:26 +0200), Tassos Chatzithomaoglou wrote:
I'm looking for ways to verify that the currently running software on our
Cisco/Juniper boxes is the one that is also in the flash
Saku Ytti wrote on 13/1/2014 12:51:
On (2014-01-13 12:46 +0200), Saku Ytti wrote:
On (2014-01-13 12:26 +0200), Tassos Chatzithomaoglou wrote:
I'm looking for ways to verify that the currently running software on our
Cisco/Juniper boxes is the one that is also in the flash/hd/storage/etc
Unfortunately, many issues don't appear (deliberately?) as network events on
their portal.
--
Tassos
Jason Baugher wrote on 6/11/2013 06:46:
For what it's worth, Level3 finally told us they had a peering issue with
ATT. They ended up re-routing traffic for the time being until they
identify
We also noticed an interesting spike (+ ~40%), mostly in akamai.
The same happened on previous iOS too.
--
Tassos
Zachary McGibbon wrote on 18/9/2013 20:38:
So iOS 7 just came out, here's the spike in our graphs going to our ISP
here at McGill, anyone else noticing a big spike?
[image:
http://www.renesys.com/products/ provide some guidance, but probably not the
kind of detailed tech you want.
Judging from my own experience, we have mostly been hit by limited path
diversity everything seems fine support in the past.
--
Tassos
Eric Louie wrote on 27/8/2013 22:02:
Based on
These were published recently:
http://tools.cisco.com/security/center/content/CiscoSecurityAdvisory/cisco-sa-20130801-lsaospf
http://www.juniper.net/alerts/viewalert.jsp?txtAlertNumber=PSN-2013-08-987actionBtn=Search
--
Tassos
Glen Kent wrote on 02/08/2013 19:40:
Hi,
Does anybody have
The idea reminds me of uTP in terms of congestion handling.
--
Tassos
Josh Hoppes wrote on 28/6/2013 23:16:
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:
I think blocking phishing sites vs blocking ddos require a different approach.
--
Tassos
Jared Mauch wrote on 30/04/2013 18:11:
Sounds like a no win situation. Either you let the bad guys do things or get
complaints you blocked the bad guys.
Jared Mauch
On Apr 30, 2013, at 11:07 AM,
Same here too...i don't know if having a direct peering with Edgecast will
solve the issue.
--
Tassos
Brian Keefer wrote on 8/11/2012 05:08:
On Nov 6, 2012, at 4:33 AM, Seth Mos wrote:
Hi,
Since about a week or so it's become impossible to reach wp.com content over
IPv6.
IPv4 content
I've been trying hard to come up with a solution regarding this, but i haven't
decided yet which one is the best.
From the perspective of an ISP, how do you characterize the p2p addresses
given for a point-to-point connection to a)
customers with their own ASN b) customers without an ASN?
-routing protocols do you allow from/to
these type of addresses?
Only specific types of icmp messages?
--
Tassos
Dobbins, Roland wrote on 06/11/2012 14:05:
On Nov 6, 2012, at 6:32 PM, Tassos Chatzithomaoglou wrote:
Do you filter them on your border routers (via iACLs)
Yes.
and if yes, how
, the customer might want to use this wan address for many other
things which you shouldn't actually care,
since it's his router.
--
Tassos
Dobbins, Roland wrote on 06/11/2012 14:34:
On Nov 6, 2012, at 7:31 PM, Tassos Chatzithomaoglou wrote:
Only specific types of icmp messages?
That, plus
Any idea what to do if you want to use a FHRP for 255 subinterfaces?
HSRP allows you to use the same group number under multiple subinterfaces,
while VRRP doesn't.
I don't know if this is only a Cisco limitation (giving preference to their
child).
--
Tassos
Owen DeLong wrote on 20/8/2012
Tom Lanyon wrote on 11/10/2011 01:42:
In the case that there is both iBGP and IGP running internally, is there any
reason to choose one or the other to originate a default route to our
aggregation/access layers? At some point I imagine it's going to be
redistributed into the IGP (or
Strangely, both the RFC (5396) and the CIDR report appear to be written by the same
guy...Geoff.
btw, am i the only one who finds it easier to remember asdot formatted ASNs?
-
Tassos
Nick Hilliard wrote on 16/9/2011 23:06:
On 16/09/2011 00:51, Schiller, Heather A wrote:
I thought AS-plain
Michel de Nostredame wrote on 07/04/2011 22:30:
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 2:27 AM, Daniel STICKNEYdstick...@optilian.com wrote:
I'm investigating how to setup multihoming for IPv6 over two DSL lines
(different ISPs), and I wanted to see if this wheel has already been
invented. Has anyone
Are there any transit providers out there that accept using the BFD (or
any other similar) mechanism for eBGP peerings?
If no, how do you solve the issue with the physical interface state when
LANPHY connections are used?
Anyone messing with the BGP timers? If yes, what about multiple LAN
Richard A Steenbergen wrote on 16/03/2011 19:03:
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 06:56:28PM +0200, Tassos Chatzithomaoglou wrote:
Are there any transit providers out there that accept using the BFD (or
any other similar) mechanism for eBGP peerings?
If no, how do you solve the issue
How do you define infrastructure addresses in your network?
Ok, probably router loopbacks are some of them. Router LANs also.
But what about addresses used on WAN (or LAN p2p) links that are used
for interconnections with customers?
What about addresses used for public servers (dns, mail, web,
There is also CSCsg23226 which might be related.
--
Tassos
Nick Hilliard wrote on 23/11/2010 01:35:
On 22/11/2010 22:56, Tassos Chatzithomaoglou wrote:
Does service counters max age help in any way?*
*According to Cisco, setting it too low might upset the snmp counters.*
https
Does service counters max age help in any way?*
*According to Cisco, setting it too low might upset the snmp counters.*
*
--
Tassos
Jon Lewis wrote on 23/11/2010 00:19:
On Mon, 22 Nov 2010, Brandon Ross wrote:
On Mon, 22 Nov 2010, Nick Hilliard wrote:
some do, some don't. For example,
http://revtr.cs.washington.edu/
I was also looking for a such a kind of tool some days ago.
--
Tassos
Ryan Shea wrote on 10/09/2010 00:35:
According to the presentation they were planning on releasing a
downloadable tool by May 2009, but in searching around I found no
evidence that this was
We're planning to do exactly the same, but not in parallel. ASR9k first
(in September), MX960 after.
I'll be interested in your results (and everyone else), especially in
the areas of L2VPN, M(V)PLS, OSPF and everything Carrier Ethernet related.
--
Tassos
Jason Lixfeld wrote on 30/08/2010
37 matches
Mail list logo
