The Federal Communications Commission’s Public Safety and Homeland
Security Bureau (PSHSB), together with the Cybersecurity and
Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA)’s Emergency Communications Division,
will host a public roundtable on the cybersecurity of the nation’s public
alert and
The issue in Houston is Dallas.
I reached out to 30-40 networks and 90% of them all said they just back haul to
Dallas and have no interest in peering in Houston. It’s a real hard town to
get any traction in. If you’re local and have some insight, I’d be super happy
to talk to you.
Aaron
Jon was very kind to me when I was a wet-behind-the-ears network engineer. He
once showed me around ISI and gave me an entire shelf of down-version Cisco
manuals. I had a Cisco 2500 peering with ISI in a maintenance closet in the ISI
parking structure. A single T1 let me run a few dozen
Junos doesn't maintain an intermediate BGP table / RIB as you would see on
other Cisco-like platforms. Therefore you need to build comm-string actions
into your neighborship policies.
JTAC says we must disable a physical port to allocate BW for tunnel-services.
Also leaving tunnel-services bandwidth unspecified is not possible on the 204.
I haven't independently tested / validated in lab yet, but this is what they
have told me. I advised JTAC to update the MX204
is it candle time?
Le 16 octobre 2023 21:13:50 UTC, Randy Bush a écrit :
>25 years ago, jon postel died. we stand on the shoulders of jon and
>others, a number of whom died in october. not a cheering month for
>old timers.
>
>randy
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse
25 years ago, jon postel died. we stand on the shoulders of jon and
others, a number of whom died in october. not a cheering month for
old timers.
randy
Looks like the MX204 Is a bit of an odd duck in the MX series. It probably
shares some hardware characteristics under the hood (even the MX80 (mostly,
there was a variant that had pre-installed interfaces) had MIC slots).
The MX-204 appears to be an entirely fixed configuration chassis and
On 10/15/23 8:33 PM, Matthew Petach wrote:
I think we often forget just how much of a massive inversion the
communications industry has undergone; back in the 80s, when
I started working in networking, everything was DS0 voice channels,
and data was just a strange side business that nobody
> I wonder if he knew it would have become what it is today.
one of my favorite postel quotes
It's perfectly appropriate to be upset. I thought of it in a
slightly different way--like a space that we were exploring and, in
the early days, we figured out this consistent path through
I wasn’t even born yet when he died, but as humans we are lucky to have had
someone like him, along with a great many other folks along side him. One of my
professors at Michigan (his name eludes me for some reason) always had a great
many stories about him and other folks in that time period,
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 at 22:49, wrote:
> JTAC says we must disable a physical port to allocate BW for tunnel-services.
> Also leaving tunnel-services bandwidth unspecified is not possible on the
> 204. I haven't independently tested / validated in lab yet, but this is what
> they have told
On 10/17/23 03:20, Ryan Kozak wrote:
"The MX204 router supports two inline tunnels - one per PIC. To
configure the tunnel interfaces, include the tunnel-services statement
and an optional bandwidth of 1 Gbps through 200 Gbps at the \[edit
chassis fpc fpc-slot pic number\] hierarchy
On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 at 00:28, Delong.com wrote:
> The MX-204 appears to be an entirely fixed configuration chassis and looks
> from the literature like it is based on pre-trio chipset technology.
> Interesting that there are 100Gbe interfaces implemented with this seemingly
> older
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
According to:
On 10/16/23 21:49, Jeff Behrns via NANOG wrote:
Also leaving tunnel-services bandwidth unspecified is not possible on the 204.
This is true of other MX platforms as well, unless I misunderstand.
Mark.
16 matches
Mail list logo