[189091] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: BGP peering strategies for smaller routers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (=?utf-8?Q?=C5=81ukasz_Bromirski?=)
Tue May 3 19:08:27 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: =?utf-8?Q?=C5=81ukasz_Bromirski?= <lukasz@bromirski.net>
In-Reply-To: <572924EE.2020606@ispn.net>
Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 01:08:20 +0200
To: Blake Hudson <blake@ispn.net>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Blake,
> On 04 May 2016, at 00:23, Blake Hudson <blake@ispn.net> wrote:
>=20
> =C5=81ukasz Bromirski wrote on 5/3/2016 4:13 PM:
>>> On 03 May 2016, at 22:31, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
>>>=20
>>> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 3:50 PM, Gustav Ulander
>>> <gustav.ulander@telecomputing.se> wrote:
>>>> Yes I can confirm that we also had the issue with the asr1001s.
[...]
> I feel like you're trying to fit some other (possible, but far fetched) sc=
enario from where we started.
Yeah, sorry for that - saw 1001 in quote and kept that as original platform.=
For 1002 with SSO off you may be fine, sure. BTW, the versions you're quotin=
g as working were also quoted by me as the ones that could have been OK even=
on the 1001 (I know, I know).
--=20
=C5=81ukasz Bromirski
CCIE R&S/SP #15929, CCDE #2012::17, PGP Key ID: 0xFD077F6A=
