On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 2:34 PM, oliver rothschild <orothsch...@gmail.com> wrote: > This is my first e-mail to the list and I hope it is not entirely
As a suggestion, could you please in the future not use a subject such as "Re: NANOG Digest, Vol 47, Issue 56" for posts. It is MUCH better to use a topical subject line (see my suggestion above); that helps people who filter their mail keep track of threads and topics. Regards Marshall > inappropriate. We are attempting to use Juniper single-mode SFPs (LX > variety) across multi-mode fiber. Standard listed distance is always > for SFPs using the appropriate type of fiber. Does anyone out there > know how much distance we are likely to get? Thanks for your help in > advance. > > On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 2:07 PM, <nanog-requ...@nanog.org> wrote: >> Send NANOG mailing list submissions to >> nanog@nanog.org >> >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >> https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog >> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >> nanog-requ...@nanog.org >> >> You can reach the person managing the list at >> nanog-ow...@nanog.org >> >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >> than "Re: Contents of NANOG digest..." >> >> >> Today's Topics: >> >> 1. Re: EFF call for signatures from Internet engineers against >> censorship (Suresh Ramasubramanian) >> 2. RE: EFF call for signatures from Internet engineers against >> censorship (O'Reirdan, Michael) >> 3. Recognized Address Transfer Facilitators (was: Your Christmas >> Bonus Has Arrived) (John Curran) >> 4. Re: Recognized Address Transfer Facilitators (was: Your >> Christmas Bonus Has Arrived) (Leigh Porter) >> 5. Re: EFF call for signatures from Internet engineers against >> censorship (Suresh Ramasubramanian) >> 6. Re: Your Christmas Bonus Has Arrived >> (bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com) >> 7. Re: Recognized Address Transfer Facilitators (was: Your >> Christmas Bonus Has Arrived) (Justin M. Streiner) >> 8. Re: Recognized Address Transfer Facilitators (was: Your >> Christmas Bonus Has Arrived) (Mark Tinka) >> 9. Multiple ISP Load Balancing (Holmes,David A) >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Message: 1 >> Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 15:42:51 +0530 >> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.li...@gmail.com> >> To: Hal Murray <hmur...@megapathdsl.net> >> Cc: nanog@nanog.org >> Subject: Re: EFF call for signatures from Internet engineers against >> censorship >> Message-ID: >> <caarzuouqu2sivngce-3ipe-awsq7v7n1h4wwqoxzxsp8hxy...@mail.gmail.com> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 >> >> I would strongly suggest that operators work with their legal >> departments to endorse this paper by Crocker and others. >> >> If other ISP organizations (such as say MAAWG) come out with >> something, other operators could sign on to that as well. >> >> The EFF petition has way too much propaganda and far less content than >> would be entirely productive in a policy discussion. >> >> --srs >> >> >> On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Hal Murray <hmur...@megapathdsl.net> wrote: >>> >>> ?Security and Other Technical Concerns Raised by the >>> ? ?DNS Filtering Requirements in the PROTECT IP Bill >>> ?Authors: >>> ? ?Steve Crocker, Shinkuro, Inc. >>> ? ?David Dagon, Georgia Tech >>> ? ?Dan Kaminsky, DKH >>> ? ?Danny McPherson, Verisign, Inc. >>> ? ?Paul Vixie, Internet Systems Consortium >> >> >> >> -- >> Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.li...@gmail.com) >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 2 >> Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 11:36:59 +0000 >> From: "O'Reirdan, Michael" <michael_oreir...@cable.comcast.com> >> To: Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.li...@gmail.com>, Hal Murray >> <hmur...@megapathdsl.net> >> Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org> >> Subject: RE: EFF call for signatures from Internet engineers against >> censorship >> Message-ID: >> >> <b13238ab0cb1514b9509deee5f98f2e00de39...@pacdcexmb13.cable.comcast.com> >> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >> >> MAAWG has written voicing its concerns on SOPA and PIPA. >> >> http://www.maawg.org/sites/maawg/files/news/MAAWG_US_Congress_S968-HR3261_Comments_2011-12.pdf >> >> Mike >> ________________________________________ >> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [ops.li...@gmail.com] >> Sent: 14 December 2011 05:12 >> To: Hal Murray >> Cc: nanog@nanog.org >> Subject: Re: EFF call for signatures from Internet engineers against >> censorship >> >> I would strongly suggest that operators work with their legal >> departments to endorse this paper by Crocker and others. >> >> If other ISP organizations (such as say MAAWG) come out with >> something, other operators could sign on to that as well. >> >> The EFF petition has way too much propaganda and far less content than >> would be entirely productive in a policy discussion. >> >> --srs >> >> >> On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Hal Murray <hmur...@megapathdsl.net> wrote: >>> >>> Security and Other Technical Concerns Raised by the >>> DNS Filtering Requirements in the PROTECT IP Bill >>> Authors: >>> Steve Crocker, Shinkuro, Inc. >>> David Dagon, Georgia Tech >>> Dan Kaminsky, DKH >>> Danny McPherson, Verisign, Inc. >>> Paul Vixie, Internet Systems Consortium >> >> >> >> -- >> Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.li...@gmail.com) >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 3 >> Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 12:18:56 +0000 >> From: John Curran <jcur...@arin.net> >> To: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patr...@ianai.net> >> Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org> >> Subject: Recognized Address Transfer Facilitators (was: Your Christmas >> Bonus Has Arrived) >> Message-ID: <131b2da4-7c99-4db8-924a-ebcb27ef9...@arin.net> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >> >> On Dec 14, 2011, at 12:40 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: >> >>> I believe this company is the one that sold the MS & Borders blocks, so >>> they may be "legit" (whatever that means in this context). >> >> I also do not know what "legit" means in this context, but will note >> that we have added a public list of all recognized specified transfer >> facilitators to the ARIN web site: >> >> <https://www.arin.net/resources/transfer_listing/facilitator_list.html> >> >> Facilitators are aware of ARIN's address transfer policies and agree to >> comply with same. Note that any qualifying parties may transfer space in >> compliance with policy, but folks may find it easier to work with one of >> these facilitators to find a matching party for transfer. Facilitators may >> make use of information in the optional Specified Transfer Listing Service >> (which lists those who have space available or prequalify as a recipient) >> but not required to do so. Similarly, parties which may have space available >> for transfer or wish to prequalify in advance to receive address space via >> transfer may also register in the Specified Transfer Listing Service (STLS). >> More information is available on the ARIN web site <www.arin.net> under >> "IPv4 SPECIFIED TRANSFER OPTIONS" section. >> >> FYI (and Happy Holidays :-) >> /John >> >> John Curran >> President and CEO >> ARIN >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 4 >> Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 12:30:06 +0000 >> From: Leigh Porter <leigh.por...@ukbroadband.com> >> To: John Curran <jcur...@arin.net> >> Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org> >> Subject: Re: Recognized Address Transfer Facilitators (was: Your >> Christmas Bonus Has Arrived) >> Message-ID: <8c3137b6-7690-4cf5-85b2-594e450cd...@ukbroadband.com> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >> >> I love the anti v6 stuff on some of their sites! >> >> http://www.iptrading.com/news/news.htm >> >> >> -- >> Leigh >> >> >> On 14 Dec 2011, at 12:21, "John Curran" <jcur...@arin.net> wrote: >> >>> On Dec 14, 2011, at 12:40 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: >>> >>>> I believe this company is the one that sold the MS & Borders blocks, so >>>> they may be "legit" (whatever that means in this context). >>> >>> I also do not know what "legit" means in this context, but will note >>> that we have added a public list of all recognized specified transfer >>> facilitators to the ARIN web site: >>> >>> <https://www.arin.net/resources/transfer_listing/facilitator_list.html> >>> >>> Facilitators are aware of ARIN's address transfer policies and agree to >>> comply with same. Note that any qualifying parties may transfer space in >>> compliance with policy, but folks may find it easier to work with one of >>> these facilitators to find a matching party for transfer. Facilitators may >>> make use of information in the optional Specified Transfer Listing Service >>> (which lists those who have space available or prequalify as a recipient) >>> but not required to do so. Similarly, parties which may have space >>> available >>> for transfer or wish to prequalify in advance to receive address space via >>> transfer may also register in the Specified Transfer Listing Service (STLS). >>> More information is available on the ARIN web site <www.arin.net> under >>> "IPv4 SPECIFIED TRANSFER OPTIONS" section. >>> >>> FYI (and Happy Holidays :-) >>> /John >>> >>> John Curran >>> President and CEO >>> ARIN >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ______________________________________________________________________ >>> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. >>> For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com >>> ______________________________________________________________________ >> >> ______________________________________________________________________ >> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. >> For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com >> ______________________________________________________________________ >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 5 >> Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 18:01:06 +0530 >> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.li...@gmail.com> >> To: "O'Reirdan, Michael" <michael_oreir...@cable.comcast.com> >> Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>, Hal Murray >> <hmur...@megapathdsl.net> >> Subject: Re: EFF call for signatures from Internet engineers against >> censorship >> Message-ID: >> <CAArzuotafMx+1mRFT9dLqYyRvhyFBsPg=Cir48-Ez=qzxll...@mail.gmail.com> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 >> >> Wonderful. I would urge SPs based stateside to strongly consider >> endorsing the MAAWG comments. >> >> thanks >> suresh >> >> On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 5:06 PM, O'Reirdan, Michael >> <michael_oreir...@cable.comcast.com> wrote: >>> MAAWG has written voicing its concerns on SOPA and PIPA. >>> >>> http://www.maawg.org/sites/maawg/files/news/MAAWG_US_Congress_S968-HR3261_Comments_2011-12.pdf >>> >>> Mike >>> ________________________________________ >>> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [ops.li...@gmail.com] >>> Sent: 14 December 2011 05:12 >>> To: Hal Murray >>> Cc: nanog@nanog.org >>> Subject: Re: EFF call for signatures from Internet engineers against >>> censorship >>> >>> I would strongly suggest that operators work with their legal >>> departments to endorse this paper by Crocker and others. >>> >>> If other ISP organizations (such as say MAAWG) come out with >>> something, other operators could sign on to that as well. >>> >>> The EFF petition has way too much propaganda and far less content than >>> would be entirely productive in a policy discussion. >>> >>> --srs >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Hal Murray <hmur...@megapathdsl.net> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> ?Security and Other Technical Concerns Raised by the >>>> ? ?DNS Filtering Requirements in the PROTECT IP Bill >>>> ?Authors: >>>> ? ?Steve Crocker, Shinkuro, Inc. >>>> ? ?David Dagon, Georgia Tech >>>> ? ?Dan Kaminsky, DKH >>>> ? ?Danny McPherson, Verisign, Inc. >>>> ? ?Paul Vixie, Internet Systems Consortium >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.li...@gmail.com) >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.li...@gmail.com) >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 6 >> Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 14:10:52 +0000 >> From: bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com >> To: Chaim Rieger <chaim.rie...@gmail.com> >> Cc: nanog@nanog.org >> Subject: Re: Your Christmas Bonus Has Arrived >> Message-ID: <20111214141052.ga7...@vacation.karoshi.com.> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >> >> On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 10:07:44PM -0800, Chaim Rieger wrote: >>> What do you have for those that don't do the whole Jesus thing ? >> >> babalyonian fertility icons? (you -did- bring an evergreen tree into your >> home, yes?) >> >> /bill >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 7 >> Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 09:16:27 -0500 (EST) >> From: "Justin M. Streiner" <strei...@cluebyfour.org> >> To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org> >> Subject: Re: Recognized Address Transfer Facilitators (was: Your >> Christmas Bonus Has Arrived) >> Message-ID: <pine.lnx.4.64.1112140906460.30...@whammy.cluebyfour.org> >> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed >> >> On Wed, 14 Dec 2011, Leigh Porter wrote: >> >>> I love the anti v6 stuff on some of their sites! >>> >>> http://www.iptrading.com/news/news.htm >> >> Some of which seems to float between fear-mongering, possibly >> mis-appropriated quotes, half-truths and information that is flat-out >> wrong. I would not trust the judgment and opinions of someone who even >> admitted in one of their blog posts that they had "no hands-on Service >> Provider IPv6 experience." >> >> While I can understand why IPv4 address brokers would take a decidedly >> anti-IPv6 stance (deploying IPv6 cuts into their potential business), that >> doesn't make it any less underhanded. >> >> jms >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 8 >> Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 22:18:41 +0800 >> From: Mark Tinka <mti...@globaltransit.net> >> To: nanog@nanog.org >> Cc: John Curran <jcur...@arin.net> >> Subject: Re: Recognized Address Transfer Facilitators (was: Your >> Christmas Bonus Has Arrived) >> Message-ID: <201112142218.42329.mti...@globaltransit.net> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >> >> On Wednesday, December 14, 2011 08:30:06 PM Leigh Porter >> wrote: >> >>> I love the anti v6 stuff on some of their sites! >>> >>> http://www.iptrading.com/news/news.htm >> >> I'd have been more impressed if they actually came up with >> the stories by themselves, as opposed to linking to existing >> stories that their link titles take out of context. >> >> Mark. >> -------------- next part -------------- >> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... >> Name: signature.asc >> Type: application/pgp-signature >> Size: 836 bytes >> Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. >> URL: >> <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20111214/2168d8c3/attachment-0001.bin> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 9 >> Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 11:07:04 -0800 >> From: "Holmes,David A" <dhol...@mwdh2o.com> >> To: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org> >> Subject: Multiple ISP Load Balancing >> Message-ID: >> <922acc42d498884aa02b3565688af9953402d4e...@usexmbs01.mwd.h2o> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >> >> >From time to time some have posted questions asking if BGP load balancers >> >such as the old Routescience Pathcontrol device are still around, and if >> >not what have others found to replace that function. I have used the >> >Routescience device with much success 10 years ago when it first came on >> >the market, but since then a full BGP feed has become much larger, >> >Routescience has been bought by Avaya, then discontinued, and other >> >competitors such as Sockeye, Netvmg have been acquired by other companies. >> >> Doing some research on how load balancing can be accomplished in 2011, I >> have come across Cisco's performance routing feature, and features from load >> balancing companies such as F5's Link Controller. I have always found BGP to >> be easy to work with, and an elegant, simple solution to load balancing >> using a route-reflector configuration in which one BGP client (Routescience >> Pathcontrol in my background) learns the best route to destination networks, >> and then announces that best route to BGP border routers using common and >> widely understood BGP concepts such as communities and local pref, and found >> this to lead to a deterministic Internet routing architecture. This required >> a knowledge only of IETF standards (common BGP concepts and configurations), >> required no specialized scripting, or any other knowledge lying outside IETF >> boundaries, and it seemed reasonable to expect that network engineers should >> eagerly and enthusiastically want to master this technology, just as any >> other technology must be mastered to run high availability networks. >> >> So I am wondering if anyone has experience with implementing load balancing >> across multiple ISP links in 2011, and if there have been any comparisons >> between IETF standards-based methods using BGP, and other proprietary >> methods which may use a particular vendor's approach to solving the same >> problem, but involves some complexity with more variables to be plugged in >> to the architecture. >> >> David >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> This communication, together with any attachments or embedded links, is for >> the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain information that >> is confidential or legally protected. If you are not the intended recipient, >> you are hereby notified that any review, disclosure, copying, dissemination, >> distribution or use of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you >> have received this communication in error, please notify the sender >> immediately by return e-mail message and delete the original and all copies >> of the communication, along with any attachments or embedded links, from >> your system. >> >> >> End of NANOG Digest, Vol 47, Issue 56 >> ************************************* >
