Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: RFC 1149
From: George Herbert <george.herbert () gmail com>
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2013 19:37:12 -0700

Packets, shmackets.  I'm just upset that my BGP over Semaphore Towers
routing protocol extension hasn't been experimentally validated yet.

Whoever you are who keeps flying pigeons between my test towers, you can't
deliver packets without proper routing updates!  Knock it off long enough
for me to converge the # () $#$@ routing table...



On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 7:19 PM, Jeff Kell <jeff-kell () utc edu> wrote:

On 4/1/2013 10:15 PM, Eric Adler wrote:
Make sure you don't miss the QoS implementation of RFC 2549 (and make
sure
that you're ready to implement RFC 6214).  You'll be highly satisfied
with
the results (presuming you and your packets end up in one of the higher
quality classes).
I'd also suggest a RFC 2322 compliant DHCP server for devices inside the
hurricane zone, but modified by implementing zip ties such that the C47s
aren't released under heavy (wind or water) loads.

Actually, given recent events, I'd emphasize and advocate RFC3514
(http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3514.txt) which I think is LONG overdue for
adoption.  The implementation would forego most of the currently debated
topics as related to network abuse or misuse :)

Jeff





-- 
-george william herbert
george.herbert () gmail com


  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]
AlienVault