Re: Colo Vending Machine
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 7:13 PM, Gary Buhrmaster wrote: > On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 01:02, George Herbert > wrote: > >>> Will IANA accept netblock transfers as an exchange medium for >>> datacenter goodies vending machine payments? ... ;-) >> >> Joking while busy discouraged. s/IANA/ARIN/d'oh > > I suspect ARIN would follow its policy to recognize > any transfer and update its records as long as the > needs assessment was successfully completed, > but any compensation between the seller and > buyer of the resource is not part of the ARIN process. > > (This is a (bad?) joke reference to a currently > ongoing discussion on the ARIN PPML list). > Hah. So, this should work, provided both entities are on the STSL then. --- Harrison
Re: Colo Vending Machine
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 11:21 AM, John Curran wrote: > On Feb 18, 2012, at 1:55 PM, Astrodog wrote: >> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 7:13 PM, Gary Buhrmaster >> wrote: >>> On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 01:02, George Herbert >>> wrote: >>> >>>>> Will IANA accept netblock transfers as an exchange medium for >>>>> datacenter goodies vending machine payments? ... ;-) >>>> >>>> Joking while busy discouraged. s/IANA/ARIN/d'oh >>> >>> I suspect ARIN would follow its policy to recognize >>> any transfer and update its records as long as the >>> needs assessment was successfully completed, >>> but any compensation between the seller and >>> buyer of the resource is not part of the ARIN process. >>> >>> (This is a (bad?) joke reference to a currently >>> ongoing discussion on the ARIN PPML list). >> >> Hah. So, this should work, provided both entities are on the STSL then. > > "Sure..." ;-) > > That means you'd want about $2K worth of gear because of the existing /24 > minimum, in addition to vending machine able to explain why it needs the > address space. > > Have fun, > /John > > p.s. A /16 might be about right for a pack of 100G SMF CFP modules... > This gives me an idea. The vending machine could also sell hosting. Sometimes, the box just won't come back to life and you need somewhere to stuff the data. *grin* (Actually, based on a few of my DC visits, there are times where I'd have gladly shelled out $2k for a small baggie of screws.) --- Harrison
Re: IPv6 /64 links (was Re: ipv6 book recommendations?)
On 06/22/2012 08:35 PM, TJ wrote: The center part of the internet is the easiest part of modification for IPv6 and is probably somewhere near 99% complete at this point. What do you mean something 99% complete is rapidly accelerating? Is it a theory for time traveling? Rate of deployment is more inclusive than just the 'center', that would be my guess. Are we really taking this already nearly-pointless conversation to an all new low and arguing semantics? Clearly some of us disagree with each other, perhaps we just hold our tongues (& fingers) and let the real world decide?? /TJ There might be good money in a PPV "cagematch"-style event.
Re: ServerBeach Name Server Outage?
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 9:24 AM, Jon Kibler wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hi, > > Is anyone else that uses ServerBeach hosting having issues with their name > servers (ns[12].geodns.net) failing to resolve their hostnames? > > Jon K I was just thinking about the irony in some asking if their DNS provider is down, via e-mail. That being said, they seem down for me, too. --- Harrison
Re: Traffic Shaping on ISPs
BT/Virgin throttling information: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/11/virgin_media_throttle_extension/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/07/bt_samknows_bandwidth_throttling/ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8077839.stm http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/5431052/BT-admits-limiting-download-speeds-and-throttling-iPlayer-traffic.html It looks like the throttling window lines up fairly well with the times you're seeing problems. Now, if that's the throttling, or just BT's network being oversubscribed... who knows. Good luck getting your problem cleared up. Harrison Grundy On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 4:49 AM, Jake Vargas wrote: >> While I cannot confirm officially, there is a lot of rumors, that several >> larger UK ISP's are throttling traffic at that time period. >> I am not sure who to contact, but the individual ISP's to solve this, from >> your point, maybe another NANOG'er knows. > > Hi Lasse, > > Thanks for the reply. We wrote an app to reveal troubles. > > Just to satisfy any curiosity and get some facts out, I will provide a real > world example (1 of many) from a direct test of one of our BT sourced > customers (this is from a 08-29 test at ~22:04 hours GMT): > > Date IP RTT Port ActualRecv > NicSent NicRecv > 090829 22:04:24 86.128.0.0/10 103.5 80 199 13 214 > 090829 22:04:24 86.128.0.0/10 103.5 80 199 13 214 > 090829 22:04:24 86.128.0.0/10 103.5 443 200 12 215 > 090829 22:04:24 86.128.0.0/10 103.5 443 199 12 214 > 090829 22:04:24 86.128.0.0/10 103.5 7255 2 2 5 > 090829 22:04:24 86.128.0.0/10 103.5 7255 3 1 4 > 090829 22:04:24 86.128.0.0/10 103.5 7003 3 2 5 > 090829 22:04:24 86.128.0.0/10 103.5 7003 4 1 5 > 090829 22:04:24 86.128.0.0/10 103.5 7202 27 3 32 > 090829 22:04:24 86.128.0.0/10 103.5 7202 24 2 29 > 090829 22:04:24 86.128.0.0/10 103.5 7499 27 3 32 > 090829 22:04:24 86.128.0.0/10 103.5 7499 25 2 31 > 090829 22:04:24 86.128.0.0/10 103.5 80 195 13 206 > Idle NIC bandwidth Send: 0 KB/sec Recv: 0 KB/sec > > To remove any doubt we also measured idle bandwidth utilization on the NIC > when the test wasn't run to remove any other culprit such as torrent > download, A/V streaming and etc in the background. In this case, 0/0 on idle > use. All results are in KBytes > > I withheld the actual IP address of this test and replaced it from the source > prefix. We have quite a few iterations of similar results from other source > addresses from this prefix alone. All appear to exhibit the same issue. > > I've already written British Telecom and they never replied. > > >
