|
Grex > Jelly > #33: The Networking and Network Programming item | |
|
| Author |
Message |
cross
|
|
The Networking and Network Programming item
| 
Sep 17 00:04 UTC 2006 |
Network programming. Sockets, dial, UCX and Multinet. Ask away.
|
| 11 responses total. |
dtk
|
|
response 1 of 11:
|
Jan 29 04:46 UTC 2013 |
A co-irker of mine convinced me to start working on my CCNP, rather than
renew my CCNA again. The material is not hard, it's all stuff I've
dealt with before. Now if I could get the "around to it" to do the
damned boring, simplistic labs. Server-builds and consultations for the
software developers seem to sap all of my focus and get-up-and-go.
Anyone have some spare motivation I can borrow? -DTK
|
cross
|
|
response 2 of 11:
|
Feb 9 18:17 UTC 2013 |
Learn Lisp. All else will follow. :-)
|
dtk
|
|
response 3 of 11:
|
Feb 12 23:20 UTC 2013 |
I do not consider counting close-parens to be the best use of my time.
While I appreciate the idea of functional programming, I cannot get my
head around it enough to generate functional codes.
Cross, tag me off-line, I have an interesting turn of events to tell
about.
|
cross
|
|
response 4 of 11:
|
Feb 13 13:06 UTC 2013 |
Counting parens?! Heavens no; that's what paredit mode is for.
I'll shoot you an email.
|
dtk
|
|
response 5 of 11:
|
Feb 26 23:26 UTC 2013 |
Anyone screwed with IS-IS? (I know you carrier-network administrators
have). I am interested in it because of SPB, but even my CCNP instructor
(taking BSCI right now) has only minimal exposure to it. By only having
two area types, does it make simpler to manage, or limiting? Does
moving the area boundary off the router and onto the link make
significant distinction?
Is SPB as cool as it sounds? The speed and simplicity of a bridged
network, but with the compartmentalization of a routed network sounds
nifty. Do you find yourself growing to broad, flat, mushy networks?
Getting rid of spanning-tree sounds fantastic, but what do you lose?
|
cross
|
|
response 6 of 11:
|
Feb 27 15:20 UTC 2013 |
Nothing is ever as cool as it sounds. :-)
I've never used IS-IS directly, but have read about it in Radia
Perlman's book (which I highly recommend). She describes the
circumstances of its creation and its relation to, e.g., OSPF and
other link-state protocols and how it grew out of work done for
DECnet and OSI, but later adopted for use on the Internet; it's
on par with OSPF.
SPB sounds cool; anything is better than the old spanning tree
protocol.
|
dtk
|
|
response 7 of 11:
|
Mar 9 03:16 UTC 2013 |
Reading up on IS-IS some more, it looks like you can have multiple
disjoint backbones (level two areas), leading to stringy network
topology. What OSPF does exceptionally well is impose a disciplined
approach to networking, in which your topology has north-south
interconnect between east-west regions enforced by protocol.
Still, almost anything that is not spanning-tree would be better, as
long as it avoids bridging loops.
|
dtk
|
|
response 8 of 11:
|
Jul 17 04:09 UTC 2013 |
Just heard about Cisco's VIRL. WANT! When will it be out? It sounds like
IOU/IOL, with a Nexus simulator and a BFR simulator. It would be nice
to be able to model a real large-scale network, without investing
multiple tens of thousands of dollars, or browning-out the whole
apartment complex.
|
tod
|
|
response 9 of 11:
|
Jan 27 15:01 UTC 2017 |
re #8
I have a $450 setup for CCNA..5xrouter 3xswitch
It's the CCNAv3 200-125 exam lab with single homed eBGP and they've
added MPLS, MetroE, PPPoE and VPNs.
No Internet2 shenanigans though..c'est la vie
2811, 1841, 2950-24, etc
|
nharmon
|
|
response 10 of 11:
|
Jan 30 18:18 UTC 2017 |
A nice application for vendor-neutral network testing and research is Mininet
(mininet.org). I've used it to test TCP multipath under various conditions.
|
tod
|
|
response 11 of 11:
|
Mar 14 17:26 UTC 2017 |
NICE
|