From esj at cs.fiu.edu  Sat Oct  1 10:43:40 2011
From: esj at cs.fiu.edu (Eric S. Johnson)
Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2011 13:43:40 -0400
Subject: [Xorp-users] OSPF slow-to-converge bug fixed.
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 30 Sep 2011 14:16:05 PDT."
	<4E863195.2040304@candelatech.com> 
Message-ID: <20111001174340.1224B3680002@cheetah.cs.fiu.edu>


>Anyway, it appears to be fixed now.  So, if anyone had any issues with
>OSPF being slow to converge, please try out the top-of-tree and see
>if it works better for you.

I was one of those that had issues. I had tried playing with the 
environment variable setting you sent me a few weeks ago, but even 
extreme settings didn't seem to help, just to push the problem later.
I didn't have time to do much more debugging myself.

I am very happy to report that the git tree I just pulled
and built works perfect. And ospf starts doing its thing
much faster now too. 

(Centos 5, ospf and PIM-SM primary used features)

This bug is squashed!

Thanks much!
E


From greearb at candelatech.com  Mon Oct  3 17:33:31 2011
From: greearb at candelatech.com (Ben Greear)
Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 17:33:31 -0700
Subject: [Xorp-users] Xorp doesn't start
In-Reply-To: <4DEE6EA7.5080105@ll.mit.edu>
References: <80C343A5D090C24F9229C34CCD17287405F37ABF@usnjpar1blex05.us.ad.irmc.com>	<4DED3BFA.10500@candelatech.com>
	<80C343A5D090C24F9229C34CCD17287405F37ACA@usnjpar1blex05.us.ad.irmc.com>
	<4DEE6EA7.5080105@ll.mit.edu>
Message-ID: <4E8A545B.2090401@candelatech.com>

On 06/07/2011 11:32 AM, Jeff Mitchell wrote:
> On 06/06/2011 04:49 PM, Grinberg, Leo wrote:
>> No, this is a dedicated CentOS server. I have exactly the same server
>> running xorp with no problems.
>
> Dedicated CentOS *what* server?
>
> FWIW, I've used it on 5.5 without problems, although it was significantly slower to start up than on same-spec'd Ubuntu and Gentoo VMs.

Just to close this out:  The problem was bad handling of some OSPF retransmit
timers.  I fixed this a few days ago and the test machine Iqor let me use
started working much better....

Anyone using xorp 1.7 or higher and OSPF should upgrade to the
latest github snapshot.  I had unfortunately just released 1.8.4,
so 1.8.5 will be out fairly soon...

Thanks,
Ben

-- 
Ben Greear <greearb at candelatech.com>
Candela Technologies Inc  http://www.candelatech.com


From sarada.ece08 at gmail.com  Mon Oct  3 22:23:26 2011
From: sarada.ece08 at gmail.com (sarada lenka)
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 10:53:26 +0530
Subject: [Xorp-users] Functionality of virtual link is not working in ospf
Message-ID: <CAEz7sOV7ZVio5XT2d1=DDev_n=GBVLtJW1vZNNXrrqjq0a38+w@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

Xorp Version : 1.8.2
     I have tested the below topology for virtual link in ospf

Topology :

  H1 ----> R1 ----> R2 ----> R3 -----> H2
    ---A0----  --------- A1 --------  ---A2---


 Here, R1, which is connected to host(H1) is configured in area A0(0.0.0.0),
other interface is configured in A1(0.0.0.1).
 Router R2 two interfaces are configured in A1(0.0.0.1)
 Router R3 which is connected to R2 is configured in area A1(0.0.0.1), other
interface which is connected to host(H2) is configured in A2(0.0.0.2)

virtual link has configured for R1 and R3.

when i have executed the command "show route table ipv4 unicast final"  in
R1, it is not showing the R3 N/w connected to H2
Similarly when i have executed same command in R3, it is not showing the R1
N/w connected to H1

Regards,
Sarada Devi.L
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/pipermail/xorp-users/attachments/20111004/81b6e13a/attachment.html 

From greearb at candelatech.com  Tue Oct  4 09:50:12 2011
From: greearb at candelatech.com (Ben Greear)
Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 09:50:12 -0700
Subject: [Xorp-users] Functionality of virtual link is not working in
 ospf
In-Reply-To: <CAEz7sOV7ZVio5XT2d1=DDev_n=GBVLtJW1vZNNXrrqjq0a38+w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAEz7sOV7ZVio5XT2d1=DDev_n=GBVLtJW1vZNNXrrqjq0a38+w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4E8B3944.10402@candelatech.com>

On 10/03/2011 10:23 PM, sarada lenka wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Xorp Version : 1.8.2
>       I have tested the below topology for virtual link in ospf
>
> Topology :
>
>    H1 ----> R1 ----> R2 ----> R3 -----> H2
>      ---A0----  --------- A1 --------  ---A2---
>
>
>   Here, R1, which is connected to host(H1) is configured in area A0(0.0.0.0), other interface is configured in A1(0.0.0.1).
>   Router R2 two interfaces are configured in A1(0.0.0.1)
>   Router R3 which is connected to R2 is configured in area A1(0.0.0.1), other
> interface which is connected to host(H2) is configured in A2(0.0.0.2)
>
> virtual link has configured for R1 and R3.
>
> when i have executed the command "show route table ipv4 unicast final"  in R1, it is not showing the R3 N/w connected to H2
> Similarly when i have executed same command in R3, it is not showing the R1 N/w connected to H1

I haven't tested this particular setup.  I did fix some other OSPF problems recently,
so please see if the top-of-tree xorp from github works any better.

If it does not, please post all of your xorp configs, and look through your logs
for any obvious errors, and post the logs if you see something that looks
suspicious.

Tell us what OS you are using as well.

Thanks,
Ben

>
> Regards,
> Sarada Devi.L
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xorp-users mailing list
> Xorp-users at xorp.org
> http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/xorp-users


-- 
Ben Greear <greearb at candelatech.com>
Candela Technologies Inc  http://www.candelatech.com


From greearb at candelatech.com  Tue Oct  4 11:21:48 2011
From: greearb at candelatech.com (Ben Greear)
Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 11:21:48 -0700
Subject: [Xorp-users] xorp VLAN create/delete usage question
Message-ID: <4E8B4EBC.7080102@candelatech.com>

I just noticed that the vlan delete logic is messing up one of
my own xorp configurations.  Basically, I want to delete a vlan
from the xorp config, but I don't want it deleted from the OS.

I can easily enough add some hack like an environment variable
to disable all vlan deletes, but I was wondering instead if I
should be more clever and maybe have xorp only delete vlans
that it created?

Any opinions on this?

Thanks,
Ben

-- 
Ben Greear <greearb at candelatech.com>
Candela Technologies Inc  http://www.candelatech.com


From esj at cs.fiu.edu  Tue Oct  4 11:47:48 2011
From: esj at cs.fiu.edu (Eric S. Johnson)
Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 14:47:48 -0400
Subject: [Xorp-users] xorp VLAN create/delete usage question
In-Reply-To: <4E8B4EBC.7080102@candelatech.com> 
References: <4E8B4EBC.7080102@candelatech.com>
Message-ID: <20111004184748.C01E13680008@cheetah.cs.fiu.edu>


greearb at candelatech.com said:
> I just noticed that the vlan delete logic is messing up one of my
> own xorp configurations.  Basically, I want to delete a vlan from
> the xorp config, but I don't want it deleted from the OS.

> I can easily enough add some hack like an environment variable to
> disable all vlan deletes, but I was wondering instead if I should be
> more clever and maybe have xorp only delete vlans that it created? 

If you delete an interface that was previously created outside xotp
it deletes it.

So I would think vlan behavior should follow that paradigm, by default.
So I would vote for a env variable based behavior change.

E


From greearb at candelatech.com  Tue Oct  4 11:53:25 2011
From: greearb at candelatech.com (Ben Greear)
Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 11:53:25 -0700
Subject: [Xorp-users] xorp VLAN create/delete usage question
In-Reply-To: <20111004184748.C01E13680008@cheetah.cs.fiu.edu>
References: <4E8B4EBC.7080102@candelatech.com>
	<20111004184748.C01E13680008@cheetah.cs.fiu.edu>
Message-ID: <4E8B5625.5000401@candelatech.com>

On 10/04/2011 11:47 AM, Eric S. Johnson wrote:
>
> greearb at candelatech.com said:
>> I just noticed that the vlan delete logic is messing up one of my
>> own xorp configurations.  Basically, I want to delete a vlan from
>> the xorp config, but I don't want it deleted from the OS.
>
>> I can easily enough add some hack like an environment variable to
>> disable all vlan deletes, but I was wondering instead if I should be
>> more clever and maybe have xorp only delete vlans that it created?
>
> If you delete an interface that was previously created outside xotp
> it deletes it.

It does now...question is whether it should?  Xorp has no concept
of delete interface v/s remove xorp configuration for interface.

I was thinking that if xorp didn't create the VLAN itself, it
should not delete the VLAN from the OS when removing xorp
configuration for that interface.

>
> So I would think vlan behavior should follow that paradigm, by default.
> So I would vote for a env variable based behavior change.

That's easily enough done, but might not be flexible enough
for all users...

Perhaps a better way would be an explicit per-interface flag that
users could set..but that is a lot code...

Thanks,
Ben


>
> E


-- 
Ben Greear <greearb at candelatech.com>
Candela Technologies Inc  http://www.candelatech.com


From jobhunts02 at aol.com  Tue Oct  4 15:11:24 2011
From: jobhunts02 at aol.com (jobhunts02 at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 18:11:24 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [Xorp-users] (no subject)
Message-ID: <8CE50F9B044A755-1FE4-BA2C@webmail-m021.sysops.aol.com>

http://mustafaozsimseklerhoca.info/poster.php




From greearb at candelatech.com  Tue Oct  4 16:07:06 2011
From: greearb at candelatech.com (Ben Greear)
Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 16:07:06 -0700
Subject: [Xorp-users] xorp VLAN create/delete usage question
In-Reply-To: <4E8B5625.5000401@candelatech.com>
References: <4E8B4EBC.7080102@candelatech.com>
	<20111004184748.C01E13680008@cheetah.cs.fiu.edu>
	<4E8B5625.5000401@candelatech.com>
Message-ID: <4E8B919A.7030508@candelatech.com>

On 10/04/2011 11:53 AM, Ben Greear wrote:
> On 10/04/2011 11:47 AM, Eric S. Johnson wrote:
>>
>> greearb at candelatech.com said:
>>> I just noticed that the vlan delete logic is messing up one of my
>>> own xorp configurations.  Basically, I want to delete a vlan from
>>> the xorp config, but I don't want it deleted from the OS.
>>
>>> I can easily enough add some hack like an environment variable to
>>> disable all vlan deletes, but I was wondering instead if I should be
>>> more clever and maybe have xorp only delete vlans that it created?
>>
>> If you delete an interface that was previously created outside xotp
>> it deletes it.
>
> It does now...question is whether it should?  Xorp has no concept
> of delete interface v/s remove xorp configuration for interface.
>
> I was thinking that if xorp didn't create the VLAN itself, it
> should not delete the VLAN from the OS when removing xorp
> configuration for that interface.

I just committed code that will cause xorp to only delete from the
OS VLANs that it created earlier.

If anyone wants an env-variable to either force the VLANS to
always be deleted, or never, I'll be happy to add it.

Adding a new flag to the configuration to allow users per-interface
control of vlan deletion is more effort than I feel like putting in,
but patches are welcome.

Thanks,
Ben

>
>>
>> So I would think vlan behavior should follow that paradigm, by default.
>> So I would vote for a env variable based behavior change.
>
> That's easily enough done, but might not be flexible enough
> for all users...
>
> Perhaps a better way would be an explicit per-interface flag that
> users could set..but that is a lot code...
>
> Thanks,
> Ben
>
>
>>
>> E
>
>


-- 
Ben Greear <greearb at candelatech.com>
Candela Technologies Inc  http://www.candelatech.com


From igorm at etf.rs  Wed Oct  5 01:44:55 2011
From: igorm at etf.rs (=?ISO-8859-2?Q?Igor_Maravi=E6?=)
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2011 10:44:55 +0200
Subject: [Xorp-users] IEEE HPSR 2012
Message-ID: <CAFdo_mWOykhL9gsoScPm7OCb517aiHniwEPo4KDGN_J9nC5P4A@mail.gmail.com>

*********************************************************************************************************************
*********************************************************************************************************************
IEEE HPSR 2012

June 24-27
Belgrade
Serbia

http://www.ieee-hpsr.org
Important Dates

Full paper submission: January 20, 2012
Tutorial submission: January 20, 2012
Acceptance notifications: March 20, 2012
Camera-ready due: April 15, 2012
IEEE Conference on High Performance Switching and Routing 2012 will be
held in Belgrade, the capital of Serbia. Belgrade is a lively
metropolis that is a blend of different cultures whose representatives
were visiting at various points of history. As such, it is very well
suited to host the IEEE HPSR conference that gathers scientists and
engineers from the entire world, after Heidelberg, Dallas, Kobe,
Torino, Arizona, Hong Kong, Poznan, New York, Shanghai, Paris, Dallas
(again), and Cartagena. Internet traffic keeps growing thanks to the
access technologies whose speeds are increasing at a fast pace, and
thanks to many non-profit and commercial efforts to bridge the
digital-divide by providing all the advantages of the Internet to
developing countries as well. At the same time, challenging
applications are gaining popularity on the Internet such as multimedia
and P2P applications. Multimedia applications require a lot of
bandwidth and low delays, while the traffic patterns of P2P
applications are impossible to predict. IPv4 addresses are being
exhausted at this very moment. Data centers are moving a vast amount
of content through thousands of switches. Also, routers and switches
are being attacked, and energy available for them, as for everything
else, is decreasing. All these circumstances put a higher burden than
ever on switching and routing. So, there is a lot of work to be done,
and IEEE HPSR 2012 will do its part by addressing the following
topics:

Architectures of high-performance switches and routers
High-speed packet processors
Address lookup algorithms
Packet classification, scheduling and dropping
Switching, bridging and routing protocols
Multicasting
P2P routing
Routing in wireless, mobile and sensor networks
Optical switching and routing
Switching, bridging and routing in data centers and clouds
Data placement and migration
Multiprocessor networks
Network management
Pricing, accounting and charging
QoS and scalability of switching, bridging and routing
Traffic characterization and engineering
Power-aware switching, bridging and routing protocols
High-speed network security
Paper submission guidelines: Submitted papers must be unpublished, and
cannot be submitted elsewhere at the same time. Accepted papers should
not exceed 6 pages in two-column IEEE Transactions style
(www.ieee.org). Accepted papers longer than 6 pages will be charged
$100 for each extra page. Papers cannot be longer than 8 pages. Papers
should be submitted as PDF files through the EDAS system
(http://edas.info). All submitted papers will be subject to three
independent reviews.
Awards: The Best Paper Award will be granted based on the reviewers?
comments and scores that it received. Presentation of the paper will
be scored by the audience, and will influence its final ranking.
Note: In order to publish the paper at the IEEE HPSR 2012 proceedings
and IEEE Xplore, the paper must be presented at the conference, and at
least one of its authors should have a full registration.
Non-refundable registration fees must be paid prior to uploading the
final IEEE formatted, publication-ready, version of the paper.

General Chairs: Aleksandra Smiljani? (Belgrade University, Serbia),
Mounir Hamdi (Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, China)
Technical Program Committee Chairs: Jonathan Chao (Polytechnic
Institute of NYU, USA), Eiji Oki (University of Electro-Communications
in Tokyo, Japan), Cyriel Minkenberg (IBM Research, Switzerland)
Publicity Chairs: Andrea Bianco (Politecnico di Torino, Italy),
Aleksandar Kolarov (Telcordia, USA), Dominique Verchere
(Alcatel-Lucent, France)
Registration and Finance Chair: Milan Bjelica (Belgrade University, Serbia)
Publication Chair: Ljiljana Trajkovi? (Simon Fraser University, Canada)
Local Arrangement Chairs: Zoran ?i?a, Nata?a Maksi?, and Marija Anti?
(Belgrade University, Serbia)
Tutorials Chair: Dejan Kosti? (EPFL, Switzerland), dejan.kostic at epfl.ch
Panel Chair: Mitchell Gusat (IBM, Switzerland)

Q&A: aleksandra at etf.rs, zoran.cica at etf.rs


From JoeCoco at mecnet.net  Wed Oct  5 05:03:51 2011
From: JoeCoco at mecnet.net (Joe Coco)
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2011 12:03:51 +0000
Subject: [Xorp-users] xorp VLAN create/delete usage question
In-Reply-To: <4E8B919A.7030508@candelatech.com>
References: <4E8B4EBC.7080102@candelatech.com>
	<20111004184748.C01E13680008@cheetah.cs.fiu.edu>
	<4E8B5625.5000401@candelatech.com> <4E8B919A.7030508@candelatech.com>
Message-ID: <9513B0D809E3024A85A611E9B3726CA99C335C@MECnetExchange.mecnet.net>

Hello,

I kind of like the idea of either an ENV or a startup option. Leaning more towards the startup option. 

We're (considering) using Xorp in the following scenarios:

A.  Gui creates interfaces/vlans, and XORP just performs dynamic routing
B. XORP does everything
C. Initial interface configuration created at startup, XORP has control later on.

I like the idea that based on a flag or switch, XORP would allow the adding, deleting, or modifying of any existing interface, or based on a different flag or switch XORP
would either leave any interfaces configured alone on exit, or cleanup on exit and discard them.

As to your initial concern, I don't completely understand why you would want to delete an interface from XORP's configuration but not have that interface modified in the OS. 

Could you explain that a little?

-- Joe

-----Original Message-----
From: xorp-users-bounces at xorp.org [mailto:xorp-users-bounces at xorp.org] On Behalf Of Ben Greear
Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 7:07 PM
To: Eric S. Johnson
Cc: xorp-users at xorp.org
Subject: Re: [Xorp-users] xorp VLAN create/delete usage question

On 10/04/2011 11:53 AM, Ben Greear wrote:
> On 10/04/2011 11:47 AM, Eric S. Johnson wrote:
>>
>> greearb at candelatech.com said:
>>> I just noticed that the vlan delete logic is messing up one of my 
>>> own xorp configurations.  Basically, I want to delete a vlan from 
>>> the xorp config, but I don't want it deleted from the OS.
>>
>>> I can easily enough add some hack like an environment variable to 
>>> disable all vlan deletes, but I was wondering instead if I should be 
>>> more clever and maybe have xorp only delete vlans that it created?
>>
>> If you delete an interface that was previously created outside xotp 
>> it deletes it.
>
> It does now...question is whether it should?  Xorp has no concept of 
> delete interface v/s remove xorp configuration for interface.
>
> I was thinking that if xorp didn't create the VLAN itself, it should 
> not delete the VLAN from the OS when removing xorp configuration for 
> that interface.

I just committed code that will cause xorp to only delete from the OS VLANs that it created earlier.

If anyone wants an env-variable to either force the VLANS to always be deleted, or never, I'll be happy to add it.

Adding a new flag to the configuration to allow users per-interface control of vlan deletion is more effort than I feel like putting in, but patches are welcome.

Thanks,
Ben

>
>>
>> So I would think vlan behavior should follow that paradigm, by default.
>> So I would vote for a env variable based behavior change.
>
> That's easily enough done, but might not be flexible enough for all 
> users...
>
> Perhaps a better way would be an explicit per-interface flag that 
> users could set..but that is a lot code...
>
> Thanks,
> Ben
>
>
>>
>> E
>
>


--
Ben Greear <greearb at candelatech.com>
Candela Technologies Inc  http://www.candelatech.com

_______________________________________________
Xorp-users mailing list
Xorp-users at xorp.org
http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/xorp-users


From greearb at candelatech.com  Wed Oct  5 08:38:58 2011
From: greearb at candelatech.com (Ben Greear)
Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2011 08:38:58 -0700
Subject: [Xorp-users] xorp VLAN create/delete usage question
In-Reply-To: <9513B0D809E3024A85A611E9B3726CA99C335C@MECnetExchange.mecnet.net>
References: <4E8B4EBC.7080102@candelatech.com>
	<20111004184748.C01E13680008@cheetah.cs.fiu.edu>
	<4E8B5625.5000401@candelatech.com>
	<4E8B919A.7030508@candelatech.com>
	<9513B0D809E3024A85A611E9B3726CA99C335C@MECnetExchange.mecnet.net>
Message-ID: <4E8C7A12.2040300@candelatech.com>

On 10/05/2011 05:03 AM, Joe Coco wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I kind of like the idea of either an ENV or a startup option. Leaning more towards the startup option.
>
> We're (considering) using Xorp in the following scenarios:
>
> A.  Gui creates interfaces/vlans, and XORP just performs dynamic routing
> B. XORP does everything
> C. Initial interface configuration created at startup, XORP has control later on.
>
> I like the idea that based on a flag or switch, XORP would allow the adding, deleting, or modifying of any existing interface, or based on a different flag or switch XORP
> would either leave any interfaces configured alone on exit, or cleanup on exit and discard them.
>
> As to your initial concern, I don't completely understand why you would want to delete an interface from XORP's configuration but not have that interface modified in the OS.
>
> Could you explain that a little?

I have an application that drives creation/deletion of interfaces, and sets up
routing rules for them and such.  I just need xorp to run the actual routing
protocols.  I need to be able to move interfaces in and out of xorp 'virtual routers'
without them being deleted.

I'll work on some env-var over-rides.  Startup options are not easy because
we do not directly start the xorp_fea process.  It could be added to the xorp
config, but that's a lot of work:  I'd do it for hire, but I think not just
for fun :)

Thanks,
Ben


>
> -- Joe
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xorp-users-bounces at xorp.org [mailto:xorp-users-bounces at xorp.org] On Behalf Of Ben Greear
> Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 7:07 PM
> To: Eric S. Johnson
> Cc: xorp-users at xorp.org
> Subject: Re: [Xorp-users] xorp VLAN create/delete usage question
>
> On 10/04/2011 11:53 AM, Ben Greear wrote:
>> On 10/04/2011 11:47 AM, Eric S. Johnson wrote:
>>>
>>> greearb at candelatech.com said:
>>>> I just noticed that the vlan delete logic is messing up one of my
>>>> own xorp configurations.  Basically, I want to delete a vlan from
>>>> the xorp config, but I don't want it deleted from the OS.
>>>
>>>> I can easily enough add some hack like an environment variable to
>>>> disable all vlan deletes, but I was wondering instead if I should be
>>>> more clever and maybe have xorp only delete vlans that it created?
>>>
>>> If you delete an interface that was previously created outside xotp
>>> it deletes it.
>>
>> It does now...question is whether it should?  Xorp has no concept of
>> delete interface v/s remove xorp configuration for interface.
>>
>> I was thinking that if xorp didn't create the VLAN itself, it should
>> not delete the VLAN from the OS when removing xorp configuration for
>> that interface.
>
> I just committed code that will cause xorp to only delete from the OS VLANs that it created earlier.
>
> If anyone wants an env-variable to either force the VLANS to always be deleted, or never, I'll be happy to add it.
>
> Adding a new flag to the configuration to allow users per-interface control of vlan deletion is more effort than I feel like putting in, but patches are welcome.
>
> Thanks,
> Ben
>
>>
>>>
>>> So I would think vlan behavior should follow that paradigm, by default.
>>> So I would vote for a env variable based behavior change.
>>
>> That's easily enough done, but might not be flexible enough for all
>> users...
>>
>> Perhaps a better way would be an explicit per-interface flag that
>> users could set..but that is a lot code...
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Ben
>>
>>
>>>
>>> E
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Ben Greear<greearb at candelatech.com>
> Candela Technologies Inc  http://www.candelatech.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xorp-users mailing list
> Xorp-users at xorp.org
> http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/xorp-users


-- 
Ben Greear <greearb at candelatech.com>
Candela Technologies Inc  http://www.candelatech.com


From jobhunts02 at aol.com  Sun Oct 16 05:04:25 2011
From: jobhunts02 at aol.com (jobhunts02 at aol.com)
Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2011 08:04:25 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [Xorp-users] (no subject)
Message-ID: <8CE5A12E1F9D49D-164-4BB89@webmail-d066.sysops.aol.com>

http://www.metalurgicaoberto.com.ar/page.php?id=22




From JoeCoco at mecnet.net  Tue Oct 18 06:41:13 2011
From: JoeCoco at mecnet.net (Joe Coco)
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 13:41:13 +0000
Subject: [Xorp-users] BGP policy bug (ipv6)
Message-ID: <9513B0D809E3024A85A611E9B3726CA99C5A13@MECnetExchange.mecnet.net>


Hello,

Anyone ever take a look at this bug a little more or since March:

http://www.xorp.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31

We really need to be able to apply per-peer policies on our BGP6 peers.


n  Joe
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/pipermail/xorp-users/attachments/20111018/ce02a553/attachment.html 

From jobhunts02 at aol.com  Sun Oct 30 21:34:04 2011
From: jobhunts02 at aol.com (jobhunts02 at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 00:34:04 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [Xorp-users] (no subject)
Message-ID: <8CE659D74208CF2-1E78-106D09@webmail-d159.sysops.aol.com>

http://hindustan247.com/detail.php?id=71