On 2/Sep/20 05:53, Alain Hebert wrote:
>
> Beat installing a Cisco 12k solo with 2x4's to align the mounting
> holes...
I still have those in a rack somewhere, trapping air, if you want to
test that :-)...
Mark.
On 2/Sep/20 13:36, Mike Hammett wrote:
> Sure, but I don't care how busy your router is, it shouldn't take
> hours to withdraw routes.
If only routers had feelings...
Mark.
On 3/Sep/20 17:54, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
> The outage that happened, while long, was the type that every big
> enough infrastructure will face one day or another.
This is probably the most sage piece of advice.
None of us are immune to this occurrence, regardless of size. Our only
hope is that
On 2/Sep/20 15:12, 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 customers.
A BGP RFC spec. is not the same thing as a vendor
On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 11:02, Warren Kumari wrote:
>> well, what you REALLY need is one of these:
>> https://www.cru-inc.com/products/wiebetech/hotplug_field_kit_product/
>>
>
> Yeah, no... actually, hell no!
>
> That setup scares me, and I'm surprised that it can be sold at all,
> even with
The only ones that like CL are the ones with no options. CL is now an
operational threat to the whole Internet due to their hours-long time
to withdraw routes, something that having other providers or not being
a direct customer doesn't prevent.
The outage that happened, while long, was the type
On 3/Sep/20 17:54, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
> The outage that happened, while long, was the type that every big
> enough infrastructure will face one day or another.
This is probably the most sage piece of advice.
None of us are immune to this occurrence, regardless of size. I our only
hope is
On 31/Aug/20 17:57, Bryan Holloway wrote:
> Not everyone will peer with you, notably, AS3356 (unless you're big
> enough, which few can say.)
I think Tomas meant more diverse peering, not peering with CL.
Mark.
I have a functional mpls-te test running, seems fine.but, question about
bandwidth reservations please.
At the Headend router, I set bandwidth on my mpls-te tunnel, but I can't for
the life of me, find where in the network is this bandwidth actually being
admitted, or seen, or allocated or
Aaron,
> On 3 Sep 2020, at 20:05, aar...@gvtc.com wrote:
>
> I have a functional mpls-te test running, seems fine…but, question about
> bandwidth reservations please.
>
> At the Headend router, I set bandwidth on my mpls-te tunnel, but I can’t for
> the life of me, find where in the network
And just to add just a little bit of fuel to this fire let me share that
the base principle of BGP spec mandating to withdraw the routes when the
session goes down could be in the glory of IETF soon a history :(
It started with the proposal to make BGP state "persistent":
Thanks, how do I see the control plane reservation? I don’t seem to be seeing
anything getting allocated
RP/0/0/CPU0:r20#sh rsvp interface g0/0/0/1
Thu Sep 3 15:15:55.825 CST
*: RDM: Default I/F B/W % : 75% [default] (max resv/bc0), 0% [default] (bc1)
Interface
On 3/Sep/20 22:20, aar...@gvtc.com wrote:
> Thanks, how do I see the control plane reservation? I don’t seem to
> be seeing anything getting allocated
>
>
>
> RP/0/0/CPU0:r20#sh rsvp interface g0/0/0/1
>
> Thu Sep 3 15:15:55.825 CST
>
>
>
> *: RDM: Default I/F B/W % : 75% [default] (max
On 31/Aug/20 16:33, Tomas Lynch wrote:
> Maybe we are idealizing these so-called tier-1 carriers and we,
> tier-ns, should treat them as what they really are: another AS. Accept
> that they are going to fail and do our best to mitigate the impact on
> our own networks, i.e. more peering.
14 matches
Mail list logo
