you are comparing LAN to WAN, never a bright idea
Even ATM years ago blurred that arbitrary line.
Why does there even need to be a line between local and wide in
terms of networking? As far as IP is concerned, there is no
difference. Even as far as Ethernet is concerned, there is no
That's strange, I abhor the Cisco way of doing VLANs and love the
HP/Procurve method.
What do you find so irritating?
It just feels ass backwards alot of the time, especially trunking.
That's more likely an RTFM problem, but the Cisco VLAN config has
always just seemed more logical.
Regardless of recommendations, people are using commodity server-grade SMP
hardware to run commodity OS's to get the job done, and given the people who
have chimed in here, apparently are doing it without lots of problems. The
increase on this and other lists of questions about Mikrotik,
I wasn't aware that the 7206 and M20 classified as software-based.
I don't see why you could call it anything but a software router.
The 7206 yes. The M20, no.
Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sth...@nethelp.no
It is not about how many devices, it is about how many subnets, because you
may want to keep them isolated, for many reasons.
It is not just about devices consuming lots of bandwidth, it is also about
many small sensors, actuators and so.
I have no problems with giving the customer several
We have problems reaching www.worldspan.com (216.113.132.22) from
some locations. The common problem seems to be ATT (AS 7018). Our
AS path towards the 216.113.128.0/19 prefix is typically
3356 7018 17228 19631
Anybody else see problems here? I note that I can ping 216.113.132.22
from some
That host is not working for us either, but looks more like a host
problem rather then BGP problem. I have no problem getting to other
IP's in that range like 216.113.132.21 which is probably it's default
gateway.
I can ping 216.113.132.21 from all the places I have tried too. So I
agree
We have a client with the following situation:
v1, v2, v3
---| Switch | --| Switch ||
Switch|- JUNIPER M7i IQ2E -
Carrier offers only 3 vlans to the client. But he wants to push
Will the provider unbundle the components so that it's feasible for a
niche vendor to sell me custom connection services?
No?
Then the provider doesn't get to decide.
It's about control. As the customer, the guy with the green, I should
have it. A combination of decisions on the
Just want to ask if anyone here had experience deploying software-based
routers to serve as perimeter / border router? How does it gauge with
hardware-based routers? Any past experiences will be very much appreciated.
Software based routers (e.g. Cisco 7200 series) have been used as border
Completely agree with you on that point. I'd love to see Equinix, AMSIX,
LINX,
DECIX, and the rest of the large exchange points put out statements indicating
their ability to transparently support jumbo frames through their
fabrics, or at
least indicate a roadmap and a timeline to when
RFC 4821 PMTUD is that negotiation that is lacking. It is there.
It is deployed. It actually works. No more relying on someone sending
the ICMP packets through in order for PMTUD to work!
For some value of works. There are way too many places filtering
ICMP for PMTUD to work consistently.
RFC 4821 PMTUD is that negotiation that is lacking. It is there.
It is deployed. It actually works. No more relying on someone sending
the ICMP packets through in order for PMTUD to work!
For some value of works. There are way too many places filtering
ICMP for PMTUD to work
That's what I'm hearing. Cogent refuses to peer with HE via IPv6.
So cogent IPv6 Customers currently can not hit things at HE. And they can't
do anything about it. Besides 6to4 tunneling and BGP peering with HE (or
native, If they can).
A few weeks ago I compared what cogent sees
Yahoo just dropped in on the IPv6 content party
http://ipv6.weather.yahoo.com/
I just bookmarked it. Well done Yahoos.
Well,
ipv6.ycpi.ops.yahoo.net has IPv6 address 2a00:1288:f006:1fe::1000
ipv6.ycpi.ops.yahoo.net has IPv6 address 2001:4998:f00b:1fe::1000
ipv6.ycpi.ops.yahoo.net
Anyone else seeing problems reaching ATT/XO possibly others from
AS6453 in Europe?
Seems to work okay from Norway:
traceroute to 140.239.191.10 (140.239.191.10), 64 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 ge0-0-0-3000.br1.fn3.no.catchbone.net (193.75.4.1) 0.165 ms 0.179 ms
0.235 ms
2
Does any one know the NMS (network management software) which can do the
fallowing:
1. Monitor on Cisco Routers/Switches interface utilization every 5-10
seconds and send e-mail alarm when utilization low or high of predefined
thresholds.
2. Collect net-flow statistics (at least src/dst)
I guess router vendors need to start supporting
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr/ and I'd
imagine that'll take 6-12 months after it's even feature commit, so seeing
deployment of this in 2011 seems highly doubtful?
It's one of those features I doubt would ever be
More to the point, I think it wouldn't be an NDA, but a security
classification on the knowledge of the backdoors, and probably one not
subject to automatic downgrading.
Please pardon my ignorance on the matter as I am not involved in any way
with Open Source development, but it stands
All the same, beware of the anycast addresses if you want to use a smaller
block for point-to-point and for LANs, you break stateless autoconfig and
very likely terminally confuse DHCPv6 if your prefix length isn't /64.
Breaking stateless autoconfig such that it *cannot* ever work, on my
Are there any large transit networks doing /64 on point-to-point
networks to BGP customers? Who are they? What steps have they taken
to eliminate problems, if any?
Our Global Crossing IPv6 transit is on a /64 Ethernet point-to-point.
Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sth...@nethelp.no
IPv6 is classless; routers cannot blindly make that assumption for
performance optimization.
Blindly, no. However, it's not impractical to implement fast path switching
that
handles things on /64s and push anything that requires something else
to the slow path.
Any vendor who was
- Hosted solutions offer a low barrier entry to smaller organizations
who simply cannot develop their own PKI infrastructure. This is the
case where they also lack the organizational skills to properly manage
the keys themselves, so, in most cases at least, they are *better off*
with a
It's a bit of a shame that people who've gotten into networking in the
last 10 to 15 years haven't studied or worked with anything more than
IPv4. They've missed out on seeing a variety of different ways to solve
the same types of problems and therefore been exposed to the various
benefits
The subject says it all... anyone with experience with a setup like
this ?
Unicast addresses must be located in at least a /64 subnet. No doubt
there are vendors which enforce this (perhaps even in the ASICs), so
deviating from this rule will result in some lock-in.
The Juniper and
I'm perfectly happy with an IPv6 network that only has rational people on it
while those who insist on NAT stay behind on IPv4.
There's an inherent conflict between your wish here and the desire to
bring IPv6 to the masses...
Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sth...@nethelp.no
Is there a NANOG FAQ we can add this to?
1- Use Public Ipv6 with /122 and do not advertise to Internet
2- Use Public Ipv6 with /127 and do not advertise to Internet
The all zeros address is the all routers anycast address so on most non-Cisco
routers you can't use it, ruling out
A /127 mask is still the best way to handle real point-to-point links
like SDH/SONET today, to avoid the ping-pong problem. Works fine with
Cisco and Juniper, not tried with other vendors.
I know it's immature, but I can't wait for some new hire at vendor C or
vendor J to reread the
Global scope addresses on router-to-router interfaces are necessary
today for traceroute to work. Some ISPs are *requiring* working
traceroute (without MPLS hiding of intermediate hops) in RFPs to
transit providers.
If you can get router ICMP handling changed such that the ICMP packet
A /127 mask is still the best way to handle real point-to-point links
like SDH/SONET today, to avoid the ping-pong problem. Works fine with
Cisco and Juniper, not tried with other vendors.
Can you elaborate on this? What's the ping-pong problem?
This has been well covered in the
Does anybody have anything neat to keep logs of what host gets what ipv6
address in an SLAAC environment?
You'd have to correlate ND information in the router to some kind of
record of who has what MAC address at any given time. With SLAAC the host
doesn't get an IPv6 address, it takes
In fairness, said device can do the same sort of inspection of SLAAC
traffic. It just looks at neighbor discovery messages instead of DHCP
messages.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-savi-fcfs
Any known (existing) or planned implementations of this?
Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting,
Juniper MX80 does all this.
1. It's not a switch (so don't expect switch pricing).
2. It doesn't offer 12 x 10GE ports.
And I believe this has been mentioned earlier in the same thread...
Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sth...@nethelp.no
Requirements are basically just 24/48 SFP ports, PVLAN and
selective QinQ.
Most devices that fit the requirements are Layer 3, which pushes
the cost
per port too high.
...
The ME3600X might be more a more appropriate Cisco solution than the
ME6524. The ME3600X
6to4 is handy as a toy or for experimenting, but it relies on a loose
network of generous volunteers who, while generous, are neither
generous nor numerous enough to support production traffic.
Any ISP that is delivering IPv6 to their clients would be insane
to not run a 6to4 relays for
Why o why are isp's and hosters so ignorant in dealing with such issues
and act like they do not care?
they don't act like they do not care. they really *don't* care. no acting.
Well now, I'd say this varies considerably. There are definitely ISPs
that care and *do* work hard at reducing
Is anyone else experiencing similar issues?
Not from here (AS 2116, Norway). No problem getting up the web page,
tcpdump shows MSS 1440.
My traceroute shows they are employing a CDN for s0.wp.com, so not
everyone might be affected.
7 asd2-rou-1022.NL.eurorings.net
as to whether ios/xe is rtc, you may want to see my preso at the last
nanog.
NANOG56? I only found RPKI Propagation by you. Direct URL would be
appreciated.
Look towards the end of the presentation and you'll find run to
completion...
Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sth...@nethelp.no
Again, where're the compelling IPv6-only content/apps/services?
To answer your rhetorical question, http://www.kame.net/ has a dancing
kame. To my knowledge, that's the most compelling IPv6-only content.
Don't forget http://loopsofzen.co.uk/ - that's definitely the most
compelling
I don't think you can get ethernet and transport out-of-the-area in
some places at a reasonable cost, so having serial-console I think is
still a requirement.
TDM is disappearing quickly in at least some parts of the world. We
may not be quite there yet, but I think it's entirely reasonable to
Getting reports from a third party vendor that there's been a line cut in the
Mediterranean that is affecting some Internet traffic. Anyone have any
details?
See the outages list:
https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/outages/2013-March/005386.html
Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting,
It's worth noting that being a v4 tier1/transit-free network doesn't
necessarily mean that they're the same in the v6 world. For instance,
Google appears to be a transit-free v6 network. It wouldn't surprise me
if the same is true for other big v6 players like Tinet and HE.
Good point.
Is there a competing droplist, that can be compared against Spamhaus's
droplist? That seems like an extraordinary claim, so I'm not satisfied
with the evidence provided. Is this not the best droplist?
Obviously the Spamhaus DROP list should be evaluated - you should not
use such lists
1. What's the point of increasing the max MTU from 9000 to 9012? If we
want a higher MTU, why not just ask for one in the next standard?
To me the only reason for this would be to lessen overhead on small
packets. Also, afaik standard payload MTU is 1500 for ethernet, anything
else is
My understanding is that 9000 is a standard for GigE and up but for
compatibility with earlier ethernets it's not the default.
Your understanding is wrong. The only IEEE standard is 1500 bytes.
Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sth...@nethelp.no
Speaking from a personal interest, has the Point-to-Point Protocol
stopped being useful?
After all, PPP over Sonet/SDH was specifically designed for just this case.
Absolutely, and it still works great for that purpose.
However, given a provider backbone with Ethernet being the underlying
The reality is that is an SDH/SONET backbone underlying most of these
Ethernet networks.
That may be so (however, numbers for the national provider I work for do
not tend to bear this out). But does it matter? People presumably use
Ethernet because it is inexpensive, easily available, well
Best case, you blow 12 bytes on IFG in gig, 20 bytes on fast-e/slow-e.
As far as I know Gig and 10 Gig (with LAN PHY) are exactly the same
as 10 and 100 Mbps in this respect, i.e. 8 bytes of preamble and 12
bytes of IFG. So you always have an overhead of 20 bytes, no matter
what.
10 Gig with
Please describe all benefits and detriments of using more than /30
subnet on SP PE.
Some good links will be very useful for me.
Don't know all, but have you see the arp tables on a PE router? Have you
seen some of the crazy things devices other than routers can do on
ethernet?
Good
GSR is far better platform.
Concur 100%.
---
I'm probably wrong, but aren't the 7600s 40Gbps per slot vs the GSR only
being 10Gbps per slot? and doesn't that mean that there should (fairly soon)
be a new version of the GSR coming that ups the slot width?
It's called the CRS-1 :-)
BT outsources all of their mail to Yahoo. It actually works pretty well,
either POP or web mail.
so far btopenworld.com looks like bullet proof phishing drop boxes, based
on yahoo's cluefree response.
How about writing to Bruce Schneier and explaining the problem? He's
Chief Security
In other news, Nigerian Scams at an all time low this morning/afternoon.
Unfortunately a lot of the Nigerian scams run out of Dutch coffee
shops/internet cafes and thus won't be affected.
Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sth...@nethelp.no
Rod Beck wrote:
What is EAPS?
A joke of a standard and something to be avoided at all costs. I
would echo the last part about Extreme switches too.
Disagree. I don't believe anybody would claim EAPS is a standard
just because an RFC has been published. In any case, EAPS is working
quite
I checked the MTUs on the 3550s and I am seeing the Fast E
interfaces are still showing 1500 bytes. Would increasing the MTU size
on the switches cause any harm?
The 3550s are very limited with respect to MTU - the standard model
can only do up to 1546 byte, while I believe the -12G model can
We are looking to deploy a greenfield MPLS network with OSPF as the IGP.
I'm told
OSPF areas don't play well with OSPF TED. For this reason, we are looking
at using
you said .. greenfield.. why use OSPF?
I was thinking the same. If you run OSPF and want IPv6 some time in
the future
I point you to a fairly common Internet architecture artifact,
the exchange point... dozens of routers sharing a common
media for peering exchange.
Bill, could you explain how or why ra or dhcp or dhcpv6 have any relevance
to an IXP? Being one of these artefact operators -
When the conficker worms phones home to one of the 50,000 potential
domains names it computes each day, there are a lot of IT folks out
there that wish their local resolver would simply reject those DNS
requests so that infected machines in their network fail to phone
home.
To
When the conficker worms phones home to one of the 50,000 potential
domains names it computes each day, there are a lot of IT folks out
there that wish their local resolver would simply reject those DNS
requests so that infected machines in their network fail to phone
home.
That's an
Since people need to *explicitly* choose using the OpenDNS servers, I
can hardly see how anybody's wishes are foisted on these people.
If you don't like the answers you get from this (free) service, you
can of course choose to use a different service - for instance your
ISP's name
Does anyone have any practical long term experience with third party
alternatives to the (must be made from solid gold) Cisco SFP-GE-S module
that they'd like to share with me? I suppose I could just use compatible
GLC-SX-MM instead, but I kind of want to have DOM support.
There are plenty of
Having slightly lost track of what everybody is using for peering routers
these days, what is the consensus about the best alternative to Juniper M
series routers?
Juniper MX series? Works great for us. Much nicer 10G prices than M120.
Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sth...@nethelp.no
I had looked briefly, does anybody here actually use them as peering
routers? I've seen a few implementations using them in the MPLS P and PE
router roles but never as border routers.
We use MX series as peering routers. They work very well.
Steinar Haug, AS 2116
That's excellent news - any word on when Cisco will be back-porting these
truly useful features from XR to that platform which so many of us are still
running on (ie traditional IOS)?
Obviously not speaking for Cisco here - but as a significant customer
we have had no indication that this will
This really should be a DHCP option which points to the authentification
server using ip addresses. This should be return to clients even
if they don't request it. Web browers could have a hot-spot button that
retrieves this option then connects using the value returned.
Unfortunately,
Won't say I'm an expert with TC, but anytime I see packet loss on an
interface I always check the interface itself...10% packet loss is
pretty much what you would get if there was a duplex problem. I always
try to hard set my interfaces on both the Linux machines and Switches.
Used to set
The biggest problem with duplex had to do with 100mb.
Cisco (and a lot of other companies) decided in their infinite wisdom
that at 100mb if auto-negotiation fails, to use half duplex as the
default.
No, that wasn't those companies deciding to do so in their infinite
wisdom. That was those
If you aren't breaking the law, the government won't be looking for your
data, and won't ask Google/Yahoo/Bing/AltaVista or other search companies
for your data.
That's an extremely naive view of how governments operate. To put it
mildly.
Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sth...@nethelp.no
The practice of filling out the reverse zone with fake PTR record
started before there was wide spread support for UPDATE/DNS. There
isn't any need for this to be done anymore. Machines are capable
of adding records for themselves.
How do I setup this for DHCPv6-PD? Say, I delegate
I am wondering if anyone else is seeing a sudden increase in DNS attacks
emanating from chinese IP addresses? Over the past 24 hours we've seen a
sudden rash of chinese IPs attacking our DNS servers in the order of 5 to 10
million PPS for periods of 5 to 10 mins, repeated every 20 to 30
We discover there are so many (source) ip not belonging to our network
to go to outside.
We can block it but don't know how to locate the source.
Any tools can be easily found out.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=unicast+rpf
Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sth...@nethelp.no
I am not sure if this is the reason as this only applies to the link
local IP address. One could still assign a global IPv6 address. So,
why does basic IPv6 (ND process, etc) break if i use a netmask of say
/120?
As long as you assign addresses statically, IPv6 works just fine with a
netmask
prefixes on the same link. Choosing to make use of a 120-bit prefix
(for example) will do nothing to protect against a rogue RA announcing
its own 64-bit prefix with the A flag set.
I could not find any A flag in the RA. Am i missing something?
It's part of the Prefix Information
On the other hand there's also the rule that IPv6 is classless and therefore
routing on any prefix length must be supported, although for some
implementations forwarding based on /64 is somewhat less efficient.
Can you please name names for the somewhat less efficient part? I've
seen this
Most vendors have a TCAM that by default does IPv6 routing for netmasks =64.
They have a separate TCAM (which is usually limited in size) that does
routing for masks 64 and =128.
Please provide references. I haven't seen any documentation of such an
architecture myself.
TCAMs are expensive
Can you please name names for the somewhat less efficient part? I've
seen this and similar claims several times, but the lack of specific
information is rather astounding.
Well, I do know if you look at the specs for most newer L3 switches,
they will often say something like max IPv4
If every route is nicely split at the 64-bit boundary, then it saves a
step in matching the prefix. Admittedly a very inexpensive step.
My point here is that IPv6 is still defined as longest prefix match,
so unless you *know* that all prefixes are = 64 bits, you still need
the longer match.
IPv6 CEF appears to be functioning normally for prefixes longer than
64-bit on my 720(s).
I'm not seeing evidence of unexpected punting.
The CPU utilization of the software process that would handle IPv6
being punted to software, IPv6 Input, is at a steady %0.00 average
(with spikes up
Note: An IPv4 route requires only one TCAM entry. Because of the
hardware compression scheme used for IPv6, an IPv6 route can take
more than one TCAM entry, reducing the number of entries forwarded
in hardware. For example, for IPv6 directly connected IP addresses,
the
If you want to know if your resolver talks IPv6 to the world and
supports 4096 EDNS UDP messages the following query will tell you.
dig edns-v6-ok.isc.org txt
Similarly for IPv4.
dig edns-v4-ok.isc.org txt
Both PowerDNS recursor 3.3 and Nominum CNS 3.0.5
Anyone seen signs of this attack actually occurring ?
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/31/technology/with-advance-warning-bracing-for-attack-on-internet-by-anonymous.html?_r=1
From my vantage point in Oslo, Norway, there is no sign of any attack
occurring.
Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting,
We already have this type of attack in Bucharest/Romania since last
Friday. The targets where IP's of some local webhosters, but at one
moment we event saw IP's from Go Daddy.
Tcpdump will show something like:
11:10:41.447079 IP target open_resolver_ip.53: 80+ [1au] ANY? isc.org.
(37)
Anyway, not the best devices for an edge router that is for sure.
Which is too bad... for very small DC edge applications, the J6350
was a pretty cool router in earlier versions of JunOS that didn't
decide to re-engineer your network and transit for you.
We have 3 J2320s in the lab, all
There's new mib support in new IOS's and ASR9k stuffs but there's
still not feature parity with IPv4. It seems the current prevailing
winds indicate less support for SNMP and more for NETCONF. So maybe
we should all get cozy with XML rather than OIDs...
shudder All I've seen of Netconf so
I disagree. Origin is tremendously useful as a multi-AS weighting
tool, and isn't the blunt hammer that AS_PATH is.
If you think of AS_PATH as a blunt hammer, how would you describe
localpref?
We use AS_PATH in many cases *precisely* because we don't consider it
to be a blunt hammer...
The port number of the Layer 4 connection cannot be determined without
executing IP fragment reassembly in that case.Routers normally
reassemble fragments they receive, if possible.
No, routers normally do *not* reassemble fragments. This is typically
done by hosts and firewalls.
Steinar
I think it would be far more reliable to simply have two independent
DHCP servers with mutually exclusive address ranges, and have one
system be secondary and delay its responses by 2s so it always
loses when the primary is up and running well.
Yes, you lose the ability for clients to get
Yeah I see the disconnect. I'm assuming that what I see is what I get.
Which means I'm going to stick with HSRP. If our AS team gives me any
good feedback that I can share I will do so. Thanks Nick.
XE: v4: HSRPv1, HSRPv2, VRRPv6: HSRPv2
Not particularly relevant to the
When I was working with Svalbard, Internet connectivity was through a
satellite link at about 2.5 degrees
elevation looking through a notch in the mountains. I don't think it
has changed
It has. Svalbard now has undersea cable connection to the Norwegian
mainland. See
That depends on the hardware. I've seen gear running as low as ~8k. I'd
have to consult standard, but I think the max is 10k (10240).
There *is* no standard for jumbo MTU. IEEE has steadfastly refused to
standardize anything bigger than 1500 bytes.
Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting,
There are sometimes good reasons to do this, for instance to ensure
uniqueness in the face of mergers and acquisitions.
How does that help? If you are renumbering due to a merger, couldn't
you just agree on separate private space just as easily?
It would ensure that you could get the
What reason could you possibly have to use non RFC 1918 space on a
closed network? It's very bad practice - unfortunately I do see it done
sometimes
There are sometimes good reasons to do this, for instance to ensure
uniqueness in the face of mergers and acquisitions.
Steinar Haug,
The problem is that DHCP seemed like a good idea at the time but it
doesn't make any sense today. We know that parsing complex binary data
formats is asking for security problems.
And parsing complex text data structures is better?
What we need is a simple, fast, efficient way to
I suppose you can individually configure every host to get itself
temporary addresses from RA announcements. This isn't usually a
good default configuration, but OS implementation already seems to
be inconsistent on the default configuration here. So we're back to
the IPv4 dark ages
I am starting to see random BGP neighbor messages from multiple neighbors on
different boxes.
%BGP-3-NOTIFICATION: received from neighbor X.X.X.X 3/11 (invalid or corrupt
AS path) 516 bytes
Maybe because of this?
94.125.216.0/21*[BGP/170] 00:31:49, MED 22367, localpref 100
Just how DO we get the message to the IETF that we need all the tools we
have in v4 (DHCP, VRRP, etc) to work with RA turned off?
You don't, because there isn't really a technical reason for turning off
RA.
I'm glad to see that several of the big vendors seem to disagree with
you.
-
2) Some end-node box with a IPv6 stack from Joe's Software Emporium
and
Bait-n-Tackle sees an RA packet, and concludes that since RA and
DHCPv6
are mutually exclusive, to ignore any DHCPv6 packets it sees, and
hilarity
ensues.
They are not mutually exclusive, DHCPv6
Anyone else seeing this:
* 91.196.186.0/24 62.237.167.25 0 3292 3549 15703
43531 23456 i
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4893.txt
6. Transition
An OLD BGP speaker MUST NOT use AS_TRANS as its Autonomous System
number.
Seeing it here too. On our 4-byte capable
Cisco 6500/7600 with SUP720-3BXL handles 1mil routes
If I remember correctly, using certain function(s) like e.g. uRPF
halves this value (in FIB).
Old Sup2, yes. Sup720 and related, no.
Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sth...@nethelp.no
Now I realize that FlowSpec isn't a panacea, but it certainly meets some
of the requirements that many customers have today, and it gives us a
lot more flexibility over simply destination based filtering. Whether
it's FlowSpec or something else, what's it going to take to get the
vendors and
We *want* things like IPv6 stateless autoconfig to work. It's a great
idea. We *want* a protocol simple enough that we don't have to deal
with stateful DHCP, we *want* something that is hard to screw up.
You should be aware that this is by no means a universal viewpoint.
IPv6 stateless
1 - 100 of 183 matches
Mail list logo
