This report has been generated at Fri Mar 16 21:46:08 2007 AEST.
The report analyses the BGP Routing Table of an AS4637 (Reach) router
and generates a report on aggregation potential within the table.
Check http://www.cidr-report.org/as4637 for a current version of this report.
Recent Table Hist
BGP Update Report
Interval: 02-Mar-07 -to- 15-Mar-07 (14 days)
Observation Point: BGP Peering with AS4637
TOP 20 Unstable Origin AS
Rank ASNUpds % Upds/PfxAS-Name
1 - AS701525174 1.5% 6.2 -- CCCH-AS2 - Comcast Cable
Communications Holdings, Inc
2 - A
Anyone know what is going on with Qwest? I have issues reaching a
particular block that began at about 3:30am(ish).
traceroute 65.115.xxx.xxx
traceroute to 65.115.xxx.xxx (65.115.xxx.xxx), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets
1 pwwr1.edge.xxx.xxx.xxx (208.51.xxx.xxx) 0.409 ms 0.423 ms
0.4
--- Sean Donelan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How many people thank the police officer for
> stopping them and giving
> them a ticket for violating traffic rules?
>
I do, but perhaps I'm uncommon in this regard.
Your larger point, however, is completely valid: there
is a relatively normal des
On Fri, Mar 16, 2007, David Barak wrote:
> It does surprise me that no enterprising person/group
> has turned this into a salable feature: "we're the
> network which shuts down spammers/infected/baddies."
> I could imagine that there would be customers who
> would rather give their business to p
This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet
Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan.
Daily listings are sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For historical data, please see http://thyme.apnic.net.
If you have any comments please contact Philip Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED
On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 07:41:58PM -0700, S. Ryan wrote:
> However, while it's not really above me to do the same, he could
> have removed the email address so spammers aren't adding to that guys
> list of problems.
Anti-spam strategies based on concealment and/or obfuscation of addresses
are n
We do not have any problem with SORBS. We use SORBS entire list
with the exception of the DUL at all of our client sites. I have worked
with Mat for years, and despite our differences with regard to DUL
lists, our relationship has always been both respectful and cordial.
This guy was tal
Anyone from GBLX Peering?
Contact me off list if so, thank you..semi-urgent matter
-Christian
NM
|-Original Message-
|From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
|Behalf Of Koch, Christian
|Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 2:53 PM
|To: nanog@merit.edu
|Subject: Global Crossing Contact?
|
|
|Anyone from GBLX Peering?
|
|Contact me off list if so, thank you..semi-urgent matt
Nachman Yaakov Ziskind wrote:
Steve Sobol wrote (on Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 10:31:44PM -0400):
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007, S. Ryan wrote:
Personally, we gave up using SORBS because of it's very high
false-positive ratio
YMMV; at $DAYJOB we don't seem to have the same problem.
I
On Fri, 16 Mar 2007, David Barak wrote:
> It does surprise me that no enterprising person/group
> has turned this into a salable feature: "we're the
> network which shuts down spammers/infected/baddies."
IMHO being the good cop has never been a mass-marketable feature, whether
we're talking sp
Almost ALL providers should be multihomed.
--Mike
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
virendra rode //
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 11:26 AM
To: NANOG
Subject: Re: SaidCom disconnected by Level 3 (former Telcove property)
-BEGIN PGP S
Almost ALL?
Any company, or any person for that matter, that relies on their
Internet connectivity for their lively hood should be multihomed.
-wil
On Mar 16, 2007, at 4:42 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
Almost ALL providers should be multihomed.
--Mike
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL
Some locations are just too cost prohibitive to multihome, but that really
is a select few. Few places are out of the reach of a couple wireless hops
back to civilization.
--Mike
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Wil
Schultz
Sent: Friday
On 16-Mar-2007, at 19:56, Wil Schultz wrote:
Almost ALL?
Surely all those except those who are competing with you for the same
customers should multi-home. :-)
Joe
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mar 16, 2007, at 6:59 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
Some locations are just too cost prohibitive to multihome, but that
really
is a select few.
It isn't just cost but can be path diversity (or lack thereof). We
used to be headquartered 210 mile
On Fri, 16 Mar 2007, Joe Abley wrote:
Almost ALL?
Surely all those except those who are competing with you for the same
customers should multi-home. :-)
True :) I'd also think (read: hope) if an organization was located in an
area where multi-homing was not possible, then that organizati
I've been working at a smaller ISP (~4000 subs, plus businesses), and not
one has asked me if I'm multi-homed.
When we or our upstream provider have a problem the telephones light up and
people act as if it's a problem, but the reality is that they're not
communicating it, up front, as a business
Joe Abley wrote:
>
>
> On 16-Mar-2007, at 19:56, Wil Schultz wrote:
>
>> Almost ALL?
>
> Surely all those except those who are competing with you for the same
> customers should multi-home. :-)
To the NANOG T-shirt Committee: Please consider this as the slogan for the
next design.
On 3/16/07, Justin M. Streiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, 16 Mar 2007, Joe Abley wrote:
>> Almost ALL?
>
> Surely all those except those who are competing with you for the same
> customers should multi-home. :-)
True :) I'd also think (read: hope) if an organization was located in an
21 matches
Mail list logo
