-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Well, there was an update on this topic on the AfNOG list. I thought
nanog list should find this interesting.
On May 24, 2006, at 7:00 AM, Mikisa Richard wrote:
This thread has been dead for awhile now but it never was really
solved.
Turns o
On 5/24/06, Gaurab Raj Upadhaya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well, there was an update on this topic on the AfNOG list. I thought
nanog list should find this interesting.
yup see my followup to nanog earlier today
-srs
--
Suresh Ramasubramanian ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
On May 24, Suresh Ramasubramanian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Fastweb seems to think 41/8 is a dsl pool for its users in Turin
Indeed. But that list is a bit old, they are also using 59/8 (in use
in the APNIC region) and a few private DoD networks like 26/8 and 29/8:
http://plany.fasthosting.it
This came in from someone in Italy..
-- Forwarded message --
From: *
Date: May 24, 2006 11:15 AM
Subject: Re: 41/8 announcement
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Turns out the folks at fastweb (Italy) NAT there adsl clients but
>instead of using the rfc1918 space like most people, t
> >The NANOG meeting archives are full of presentations as the result
> >of very sophisticated network monitoring. Like most technology,
> >it can be used for good and evil. You can't tell the motivation
> >just from the technology.
OK, so he says in a roundabout way that you are
already paying
> > Does NANOG have a role in developing some best
> > practices text that could be easily imcorporated
> > into peering agreements and service contracts?
> ...
>
> RFC 2267 -> RFC 2827 == Best Current Practice (BCP) 38
> RFC 3013 == BCP 46
> RFC 3704 == BCP 84
> Are these followed?
No, the IETF
so how many ISPs will shun fastweb for hijacking address space?
(please do -NOT- respond, its a retorical question...)
--bill
On Wed, May 24, 2006 at 11:37:12AM +0300, Richard Mikisa wrote:
>
> This came in from someone in Italy..
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: *
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The NANOG meeting archives are full of presentations as the result
of very sophisticated network monitoring. Like most technology,
it can be used for good and evil. You can't tell the motivation
just from the technology.
OK, so he says in a roundabout way that you a
> The guy wants to say, please raise your eyes above the horizon of your
> plate and view a not yet existing country named europe. Here our
> infrastructure is a lot more advanced and we have standardized a
> common eavesdropping api.
We have? News to me.
Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, [EMAIL
> > The guy wants to say, please raise your eyes above the horizon of your
> > plate and view a not yet existing country named europe. Here our
> > infrastructure is a lot more advanced and we have standardized a
> > common eavesdropping api.
>
> We have? News to me.
You missed a line later in h
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The guy wants to say, please raise your eyes above the horizon of your
plate and view a not yet existing country named europe. Here our
infrastructure is a lot more advanced and we have standardized a
common eavesdropping api.
We have? News to me.
Steinar Haug, Nethe
Well, the noise helped some. We now have connectivity to fastweb net.
On 5/24/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
so how many ISPs will shun fastweb for hijacking address space?
(please do -NOT- respond, its a retorical question...)
--bill
On Wed, May 24, 2006 at 11:37:12AM +0
On May 24, 2006, at 4:37 AM, Richard Mikisa wrote:
[...]
>Turns out the folks at fastweb (Italy) NAT there adsl clients but
>instead of using the rfc1918 space like most people, they use
>unassigned
>global /8s. Well 41/8 is one of there NATted allocations for
Turin. No
>amount of emails will
> >>The guy wants to say, please raise your eyes above the horizon of your
> >>plate and view a not yet existing country named europe. Here our
> >>infrastructure is a lot more advanced and we have standardized a
> >>common eavesdropping api.
> >
> >
> > We have? News to me.
> >
> > Steinar Hau
On May 24, 2006, at 9:44 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I see a list of documents. I see no sign that these documents are
standards, nor that they are actually *implemented*. I know for a fact
that the service provider I work for has not implemented this on the
IP side.
Now, now, Steinar, we a
Hello...
On Tue, May 23, 2006 6:22 pm, Rodney Joffe said:
> Can anyone point me to a source in the 55 S Market area that might
> have the appropriate intelligent media conversion devices actually in
> stock, at a reasonable price, and not "1-2 days" out? Bearing in mind
> that besides converti
On Wed, May 24, 2006 at 07:54:00AM -0700, Christopher McCrory wrote:
> This is not in you area, but FFR in LA across the street from one
> wilshire, Lightsource1 has a small storefront. They stock GBICS, fiber,
> copper, various Cisco bits (backed by a stockpile of larger stuff). There
> is a ph
At 04:58 AM 5/24/2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >The NANOG meeting archives are full of presentations as the result
> >of very sophisticated network monitoring. Like most technology,
> >it can be used for good and evil. You can't tell the motivation
> >just from the technology.
OK, so he s
On May 24, 2006, at 2:05 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So again, I ask the question: Is NANOG an appropriate
forum to develop some best practices text that
could be incorporated into service agreements and
peering agreements by reference in the same way
that a software licence incorporates th
Christian Kuhtz wrote:
On May 24, 2006, at 9:44 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I see a list of documents. I see no sign that these documents are
standards, nor that they are actually *implemented*. I know for a fact
that the service provider I work for has not implemented this on the
IP side.
On Wed, 24 May 2006 11:50:34 PDT, Warren Kumari said:
> d: A fish (not a fish anything, just a random posting not related to
> anything on topic)
And this one will invariably start a "trout"/"salmon"/"swordfish"/"octopus"
debate.
pgpey06HNxilK.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Wed, 24 May 2006 10:39:05 EDT, Christian Kuhtz said:
> Now, now, Steinar, we all know that cannot be true. Case and point,
> everyone has implemented RFC 3514, just because it has been published
> as a standard.
Actually, it's Informational rather than Standards Track. However, since
the
On May 24, 2006, at 3:27 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 24 May 2006 10:39:05 EDT, Christian Kuhtz said:
Now, now, Steinar, we all know that cannot be true. Case and point,
everyone has implemented RFC 3514, just because it has been published
as a standard.
Actually, it's Information
On Wed, 24 May 2006 15:27:56 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Wed, 24 May 2006 10:39:05 EDT, Christian Kuhtz said:
>
> > Now, now, Steinar, we all know that cannot be true. Case and point,
> > everyone has implemented RFC 3514, just because it has been published
> > as a standard.
>
>
Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 15:26:15 -0400
From: Valdis.Kletnieks
d: A fish (not a fish anything, just a random posting not related to
anything on topic)
And this one will invariably start a "trout"/"salmon"/"swordfish"/"octopus"
debate.
...at which point someone interjects that an octopus
25 matches
Mail list logo
