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
Howdy,
Question for those more versed in IPv6 than I: Is there any harm from
dropping ICMPv6 multicast listener discovery reports in a network
which does NOT use any multicast routing (i.e. only uses multicast
which stays within the local link). I see a LOT of idle node chatter
in the form of
Grant Taylor via NANOG wrote:
>On 6/3/21 8:44 AM, William Herrin wrote:
>> rp_filter is great until your network is slightly less than a perfect
>> hierarchy. Then your Linux "router" starts mysteriously dropping packets
>> and, as with allow_local, Linux doesn't have any way to generate logs
>>
> 1) unreachable publication point / CA == 'ok, see you in 30 mins on my
> next cycle through the world' (no real changes)
yup. much ado about nothing
> b) revoking some portion of their claimed resources in various forms of
> CA == 'ideally a bunch of routes suddenly go unknown' == 'ok'
>
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 strong wording by calling you
Hello Mr. Tinka & Mr. Andrews , Please see below .
On Thu, 3 Jun 2021, Mark Tinka wrote:
On 6/3/21 00:25, babydr DBA James W. Laferriere wrote:
The Below is to keep thread of thought accurate ...
On Wed, 2 Jun 2021, Mark Tinka wrote:
* Step 2 - take your time cluing up on
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
Folks,
While discussing port randomization (in the context of
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-ntp-port-randomization-06.txt
), it has been raised to us that some NAT devices do not translate the
source port if the source port is a privileged port (<1024).
Any clues/examples of this
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.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
Midwest Internet
I believe all devices will translate a privileged ports, but it won't translate
to the same number on the other side. It will translate to an unprivileged
port. Is it what you meant or really there are some devices that will not
translate at all a privileged port?
What are you trying to
GPON is full duplex. Two different wavelengths for the two directions.
1490/1310.
Wireless we'll say you're doing 20 MHz. That doesn't divide up. That's
simply 20 MHz half duplex. With fixed timing (for colocation) it means
that you simply can't shift your ratios.
Josh Luthman
24/7 Help
All I'm going to say is at $5/foot for fiber, even if it's 864 count, you
are royally overpaying for material!
Josh Luthman
24/7 Help Desk: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Fri, Jun 4, 2021 at 3:42 AM Baldur Norddahl
wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 4, 2021
Current gen Cisco ASA firewalls have logic so that if the connection
from a private host originated from a privileged source port, the NAT
translation to public IP also uses an unprivileged source port (not
necessarily the same source port though).
I found out that this behavior can cause
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 strong wording by calling you wrong.
The moderators put me in place. I wanted to say I disagree with the claim.
I rather thank
This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet
Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan.
The posting is sent to APOPS, NANOG, AfNOG, SANOG, PacNOG, SAFNOG
TZNOG, MENOG, BJNOG, SDNOG, CMNOG, LACNOG and the RIPE Routing WG.
Daily listings are sent to
15 matches
Mail list logo
