Mailing List Archive by Gossamer Threads http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/ en-us (c) Gossamer Threads Inc. All rights reserved. 08 Nov 2009 12:28:04 -0800 120 75 23 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/ http://www.gossamer-threads.com/images/lists/rss_logo.jpg Thanks Seth and James, Things are getting a lot clearer. The BGP multihoming solution sounds like exactly what I want. I have more questions :-) N 08 Nov 2009 12:17:03 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/119662 Kanak, We're not a Staminus reseller. Please do your homework: http://webtrace.info/asn/32421 . I'm not going to hold court on whether or not you or 08 Nov 2009 12:01:57 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/119661 On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 08:23:41 MST, Blake Pfankuch said: > I wouldn't sway from the big names for your primary connections either. This is, of course 08 Nov 2009 11:46:20 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/119660 adel@baklawasecrets.com wrote: > Thanks for all your comments guys. With regards to bgp I did > think about placing two bgp routers in front of the s 08 Nov 2009 10:19:00 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/119659 Seth Mattinen [sethm@rollernet.us] said: >Forget all of that and just multihome to two separate providers with BGP --Assuming that you're advertising 08 Nov 2009 10:09:11 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/119658 Thanks for all your comments guys. With regards to bgp I did think about placing two bgp routers in front of the ssg's. However my limited understan 08 Nov 2009 09:34:08 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/119657 On 2009-11-08-10:23:41, Blake Pfankuch <bpfankuch@cpgreeley.com> wrote: > Make sure they operate their own network for last mile [...] > I wouldn't sw 08 Nov 2009 09:29:08 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/119656 adel@baklawasecrets.com wrote: > HI, > > I was recently brought onto a project where some failover is desired, but I think that the number of connect 08 Nov 2009 09:23:53 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/119655 Anton Kapela wrote: > What curve must we shift to get routers with hardware and software > that's both a) fast b) reliable and c) cheap -- in the hope 08 Nov 2009 08:51:06 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/119654 Owen, > We could learn a lot about this from Aviation.  Nowhere in human history has > more research, care, training, and discipline been applied to 08 Nov 2009 08:26:40 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/119653 adel@baklawasecrets.com wrote: > HI, > > > Now I couldn't get any good answers as to why Internet connections 1 and 2 need to be separate. I think th 08 Nov 2009 07:47:35 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/119652 >> -----Original Message----- >> From: adel@baklawasecrets.com [mailto:adel@baklawasecrets.com] >> Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2009 4:52 AM >> To: n 08 Nov 2009 07:23:41 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/119651 HI, I was recently brought onto a project where some failover is desired, but I think that the number of connections provisioned is excessive. Also 08 Nov 2009 03:51:37 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/119650 2009/11/6 Jeffrey Lyon <jeffrey.lyon@blacklotus.net> > The primary issue is that we receive a fair > deal of customers who end up with wide scale DD 08 Nov 2009 02:27:34 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/119649 On Nov 8, 2009, at 2:33 AM, Stefan Fouant wrote: > if the discussion hasn't shifted from that of DDoS to EDoS, it > should. All DDoS is 'EDoS' - 07 Nov 2009 18:33:39 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/119648 > Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2009 18:22:19 -0500 > From: Jon Meek <meekjt@gmail.com> > > I use iperf with packet capture on both sides, then analyze the packet 07 Nov 2009 15:56:36 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/119647 Hello, Jeffery and other NANOC members. Sorry for making another thread - I'm not too experienced in mailgroups. The problem is in structure of new 07 Nov 2009 13:58:39 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/119646 Device driver? Nah. Just use a tool (like Scapy) to just arbitrarily, easily custom-craft any packet he|she wants ... Yes, it is that easy. Thanks 07 Nov 2009 13:40:42 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/119645 On Fri, 6 Nov 2009, Christopher Morrow wrote: >>> paragraph (1) shall be liable for any damages caused thereby, including >>> damages suffered by SIPC 07 Nov 2009 12:48:34 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/119644 It's not all that easy unless the dude has hacked the device driver. Owen DeLong wrote: > And of course, a rogue RA station would _NEVER_ mess with t 07 Nov 2009 12:36:34 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/119643 > -----Original Message----- > From: Brian Feeny [mailto:bfeeny@mac.com] > Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2009 1:37 PM > > (packet sizes, features, etc) 07 Nov 2009 12:02:18 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/119642 > -----Original Message----- > From: Florian Weimer [mailto:fweimer@bfk.de] > Sent: Friday, November 06, 2009 4:55 AM > > Not all attacks involve sat 07 Nov 2009 11:33:44 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/119641 > -----Original Message----- > From: Florian Weimer [mailto:fweimer@bfk.de] > Sent: Friday, November 06, 2009 4:52 AM > To: Stefan Fouant > Cc: 'Jeffr 07 Nov 2009 11:07:09 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/119640 Owen DeLong wrote: > > On Nov 6, 2009, at 12:04 PM, JC Dill wrote: > >> Owen DeLong wrote: >>> >>> We could learn a lot about this from Aviation. Now 07 Nov 2009 10:45:40 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/119639 What I am gathering is that you are looking to by a off brand switch? If this is the case, then I would argue reliability and speed aren't importan 07 Nov 2009 10:37:19 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/119638