It looks great though I would not want to troubleshoot the RIB to FIB
programing errors unless there's a note somewhere saying what abbreviation to
search for in FIB.
The other think that comes to mind is that the more specifics could have
different backup next-hops programed.
adam
From:
-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Matthew
Petach
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2014 3:35 AM
So, if Netflix had to pay additional money to get direct links to Verizon,
you'd
be OK paying an additional 50cents/month to cover those additional
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Irwin, Kevin
Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2014 4:39 PM
I¹m really surprised that most people have not hit this limit already,
especially
on the 9K¹s, as it seems Cisco has some fuzzy math when it comes to the
512K limit.
I would
From: Mark Tinka [mailto:mark.ti...@seacom.mu]
On Tuesday, May 06, 2014 11:27:09 AM Rajiv Asati (rajiva)
wrote:
Segment routing (SR) could/would certainly work with single-stack v6
and enable MPLS forwarding.
Certainly, but based on the Paris meeting, it was not high up on the
Ideally, we would have a solution where an entire MPLS infrastructure
could be built without v4 space, demoting
v4 to a legacy application inside a VRF, but the MPLS standards wg
seems content with status quo.
There is work ongoing in the MPLS IETF WG on identifying the gaps that
Sure it's a different transport protocol altogether, anyways It's interesting
to see how everybody tends to separate the IPv4 and IPv6 AFs onto a different
TCP sessions and still run the plethora of other AFs on the common v4 TCP
session, maybe apart from couple of the big folks, who can afford
How is this good for the consumer? How is this good for the market?
You are asking a wrong question all they care about is Where's my moneyTM
adam
That Upstream B is simply accepting everything
their customer is sending to them without applying proper filters, or checking
to confirm that what their customer needs to send them should come from
them is absolutely and unacceptably shocking!
I wonder when (or if ever) we'll have such a
From: Dobbins, Roland [mailto:rdobb...@arbor.net]
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 8:06 AM
Although it's questionable whether or not it's possible to remotely absolutely
ascertain whether the attacking machine in question was being operated by
miscreants unbeknownst to its actual owner.
Though
Hi,
Herro91
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 6:19 PM
1) I think I should be seeing MIPs in my traceroute when there is a P router
in between the two PEs, correct?
It is a L2 form of traceroute so it will record only L2 hops configured as MIPs
or MEPs.
So in a p2p PW there are going to be
]
Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2014 2:01 PM
To: Vitkovský Adam; Jérôme Nicolle; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Filter on IXP
On 02/03/2014 12:45, Vitkovský Adam wrote:
On the other hand, if a member provides transit, he will add its
customer prefixes to RaDB / RIPEdb with appropriate route objects
On the other hand, if a member provides transit, he will add its
customer prefixes to RaDB / RIPEdb with appropriate route
objects and the ACL will be updated accordingly. Shouldn't break there.
And that's a really nice side effect.
However in case of transit providers the problem is that
12 matches
Mail list logo
