On Sat, Jul 30, 2005 at 09:41:54PM -0400, Robert E.Seastrom wrote:
> "Cisco 1700 series" or "Cisco 2600XM" would be nice answers if their
> price had the decimal point moved one place to the left.
Looks like a Cisco 1760 is $1086.65 'on the street' (well, online
actually).
Whereas the Cisco 83
Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
will the v6 access really be enough to require LB's? or are they there for
other reasons (global lb for content close to customers, regionalized
content) perhaps reasons which would matter 'less' in an initial v6 world
where you were getting the lb's fixed by their v
Randy Bush wrote:
Until such devices support IPv6, to reiterate Steve's point, it's not an
option to consider approaching connectivity suppliers with IPv6 enquiries.
could you comment on christopher's observation that, given the likely
volume of v6 traffic, you would not have a v6 load worth ba
Joel Jaeggli wrote:
LVS which rather a lot of people use for load balancing supports ipv6
and has since 2002
This is what I binned in favour of Redline.
I don't know whether you're balancing HTTP or something else, but if you
are balancing web traffic, then you may get much better performanc
Hi,
With apologies to the topic fairies ..
Crist Clark wrote:
It matters how you look at income taxes (figures never lie, but
liars figure). The top 3% of earners pay about 40% of all income
taxes. The top 1/12% pay about 10% of the taxes. Why do the super
rich guys want a flat tax? And the ot
Matt Bazan wrote:
In need of external 3rd party site monitoring solution. Nothing fancy.
Need to be alerted if site (HTTP/S, SMTP, TCP connect based) goes down
(email, pager). Off list fine, thanks.
http://www.alertsite.com/ give us http availability which we can
configure to alert us in a
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
There are two types of VoIP: voice over a private, tightly controlled
IP network, and voice over the public internet. Now obviously the
latter is a risky proposition, as it imports all the limitations of the
internet into the voice service.
I'm not so sure; som
Peter Dambier wrote:
The Ankara root injected a number of older records into the DNS resulting
in false answers to queries. Ankara was also listing as root servers some
DNS that pointed back to ICANN data and did not resolve the Public-Root.
This was very unprofessional behavior on behalf of UNI
Sean Donelan wrote:
Should content suppliers be required to provide equal access to all
networks? Or can content suppliers enter into exclusive contracts?
Erm .. the content 'belongs' to the supplier, why shouldn't they be
allowed to chose who can and can't get access to it.
The electronic
ed in some way. One MX record doesn't mean one machine
and no load-balancing by any means.
--
Regards, Andy Davidson
http://www.fotoserve.com/
Great quality photo prints, gifts and clothing from digital photos.
Steve Gibbard wrote:
So from my uninformed vantage point, it looks like they started doing
this more or less right -- two servers or clusters of servers in two
different facilities, a few thousand miles apart on different power
grids and not subject to the same natural disasters. In other wor
Hi,
Embarassingly late reply; I've been away.
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 10:48:45AM -0500, Jeremy Stinson wrote:
> We are in the need for a better mechanism for sharing passwords between our
> engineers. Most of these passwords are for our client's systems where some
> of them are controlling
Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
On 2/14/06, Jon R. Kibler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"A bill just announced in Congress would require every Web site operator
to delete information about visitors, including e-mail addresses, if the
data is no longer required for a "legitimate" business purpose.
O
On 15 Feb 2006, at 18:05, Edward B. DREGER wrote:
RIRs refuse to grant ASNs to dual-homed leaves. Transit providers
_must_ cooperate with each other.
Introducing the greater risk of blackholes, and potentially
increasing the complexity and size of the routing table.
In one of our facil
On 16 Feb 2006, at 14:56, Christopher J. Pilkington wrote:
We have a PI /24 we'd like to advertise out of our primary data center
for production use. (Well, actually, we'll be advertising a more
specific from our /21 assignment, so already not too friendly... but I
digress.)
[...]
I'm think
On 21 Feb 2006, at 16:26, Jason Frisvold wrote:
Key words there.. "Large Provider" .. I don't think A/V companies
have any interest whatsoever in smaller providers.. Just not a big
enough customer base I guess...
It would be nice to see an A/V provider willing to take that first
step and off
Mark Newton wrote:
I mean, who accepts prefixes longer than /24 these days anyway?
We've all decided that we "can live without" any network smaller
than 254 hosts and it hasn't made a lick of difference to
universal reachability.
What's to stop someone who wants to carry around less prefixes f
Roland Dobbins wrote:
On Mar 3, 2006, at 10:50 AM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> OTOH, hosts go a lot longer between upgrades and generally don't have
> professional admins. It'll be a long, long time (if ever) until shim6
> is deployed widely enough for folks to literally bet their company on
Joseph S D Yao wrote:
[...]
service except perhaps to their own population, than against what can
you compare the DNS service that you are getting, to see whether it is
giving you what "the world" should be seeing?
DNS looking glasses, in much the same way that we use web-form based BGP
or tr
Hi,
Has anyone else seen Juniper support pricing take one hell of a hike in
the past twelve months ?
We've been quoted a rise of 141% on the costs of supporting our ISG2000
units, and a 114% rise on the costs of supporting our Redline^WJuniper
E|X devices.
I've been asked to provide a ca
On Fri, Apr 07, 2006 at 01:13:19PM +0200, Alexander Koch wrote:
> When a random customer (content hoster) asks you to accept
> something out of 8/8 that is Level(3) space, and there is no
> route at this moment in the routing table, do you accept it,
> or does Level(3) have some fancy written
Hi, guys
Very late reply, but this is a 'hot topic' in my space..
On 12 Jun 2006, at 04:02, Randy Bush wrote:
I'm trying to get a more clear understanding as to what is
involved in
terms of moving the IPs, and how fast it can potentially be done.
can we presume that separate ip spaces and
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andy Davidson wrote:
24 hours + outage whilst stale dns disappears will never do in
internet retail.
And yet, with 90% of the net implementing the "will never do" scenario,
we manage to get a lot of internet retail done anyhow. I'm obviously
On 15 Aug 2007, at 08:07, Chengchen Hu wrote:
Just suppose no business fators (like multiple ASes belongs to a
same ISP), is it always possible for BGP to automatically find an
alternative path when failure occurs if exist one? If not, what may
be the causes?
I think everyone here has
Hi, David, everyone --
On 21 Aug 2007, at 17:55, David Lesher wrote:
And still not getting it. A friend oversees various expensive USG
networks. They pay for physically diverse routing from multiple
sources. Yet every year, when they do an laborious audit down to
the "what fiber, in what bund
On 16 Sep 2007, at 07:39, Martin Hannigan wrote:
On 9/15/07, Iljitsch van Beijnum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Browsers are pretty good at falling back on a different address in
general / IPv4 in particular when the initial try doesn't work,
"Pretty good" as in there is a browser standard to p
On 16 Sep 2007, at 15:13, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
We see the browser cache bite us regularly with regard to the way
they dip into the cache for long-stale records today.
Does browser caching still work these days? I thought all web
admins disabled it on their servers because they can't
, but a general rule is the more you
de-aggregate the more problems you are going to have, so unless you
have a very good reason not to, announce the /22 and nothing longer.
Best wishes,
Andy Davidson.
On 8 Oct 2007, at 13:06, Roland Perry wrote:
Surely the incumbent doesn't impose a cost on the bandwidth along
the local loop - the bottleneck (and cost per gigabyte) is the
backhaul from their locally operated DSLAM to the ISP's own network.
Yes, and it's £1,758,693 ($3.5m) PA for a 622M
On 8 Oct 2007, at 22:43, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have a client that wants us to advertise an IP block assigned by
another ISP. I know that the best practice is to have them request
an AS number from ARIN and peer with us, etc. However, I cannot
find any information that states as law
On 9 Oct 2007, at 18:48, Leo Vegoda wrote:
On 9 Oct 2007, at 17:47, Andy Davidson wrote:
However, if a different third-party network then sweeps up their
routing table by looking to remove more specifics that seem
'spoofed' using IRR data, the routes you intend to push onto the
On 14 Oct 2007, at 01:26, Jim Popovitch wrote:
- New Media / Web 2.0
HUH?
I understand what Lorell means - the web 2.0 scaling model is to
throw resources, rather than intelligence at your bottlenecks.
I met some 'web 2' people at a conference quite recently, and they
were telli
On 15 Oct 2007, at 13:33, John Payne wrote:
To answer the OP's question I'd be looking at manually filtering
the more specifics if they are also sending the aggregates through
the IX.
The customer's customer is still going to see *your* routes via the
MLP, unless (without knowing what e
On 7 Nov 2007, at 12:50, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
You sure XO hasn't been playing with banner delays, and your MTA is
timing out before establishing an smtp connection?
Yep
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ time telnet dalsmlprd08.dal.dc.xo.com 25
Trying 207.88.96.46...
telnet: Unable to connect t
refused to the example I gave them -
dalsmlprd08.dal.dc.xo.com.
Many thanks
Andy
--
Regards, Andy Davidson // Engineering
Localphone Limited http://www.localphone.com
+44-(0)114-3191919 // Sheffield, UK
On 7 Nov 2007, at 14:01, Tim Jackson wrote:
Contact your account manager, they can get it fixed in about an hour
w/ an internal IT ticket. They were doing the same thing to us.
I don't open a business relationship with everyone that my users want
to email. :-)
On 16 Nov 2007, at 15:54, Justin Scott wrote:
Is there a mailing list similar to NANOG specifically for e-mail
operations? I've seen some smaller lists around that deal with
specific
issues (spam, etc.) but have not seen a general postmaster operations
mailing list, though I'm sure there h
On 29 Nov 2007, at 22:05, Eduardo Ascenco Reis wrote:
Although the BGP data is around one month old and the original
focus was on Brazilian AS and IP prefixes, the general analysis
covers all Regional Internet Registries (RIRs).
[...]
The methodology shows a good efficiency (around 40%) re
On 2 Dec 2007, at 20:19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 09:59:19 EST, Andy Davidson said:
On 29 Nov 2007, at 22:05, Eduardo Ascenco Reis wrote:
The methodology shows a good efficiency (around 40%) reducing BGP
table size, but the estimated number of affect prefixes are also
On 19 Dec 2007, at 11:58, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
So, out of our /32, if we assign each customer a /48 we can only
support 65k customers. So in order to support millions of
customers, we need a new allocation and I would really like for
each new subnet allocated to be very much larger so
On 19 Dec 2007, at 12:24, Jeroen Massar wrote:
Andy Davidson wrote:
[..]
From the RIPE perspective, there are seven "empty" /32s between
my /32 and the next allocation.
I imagine this is fully intentional, and allows the NCC to grow my
v6 address pool, without growing my footpr
On 9 Jan 2008, at 20:04, Deepak Jain wrote:
I remember Bill Norton's peering forum regarding P2P traffic and
how the majority of it is between cable and other broadband
providers... Operationally, why not just lash a few additional 10GE
cross-connects and let these *paying customers* comm
Hi,
For the small number of us in the UK who have not seen this
notification, the ninth UKNOF meeting is going to happen on Monday -
there are some spaces left, so why not visit and meet some of your
counterparts in the industry ?
For those who are not local, remote participation is ava
On 15 Jan 2008, at 16:11, Ben Butler wrote:
As a transit consumer - why would I want to carry all this cr*p in my
routing table, I would still be getting a BGP route to the larger
prefix
anyway - let my transit feeds sort out which route they use & traffic
engineering.
Maybe you don't get
On 17 Jan 2008, at 12:45, Jeff McAdams wrote:
Tony Li wrote:
On Jan 16, 2008, at 1:37 PM, Mike Donahue wrote:
Anyway, it's all getting (for us) pretty complicated. We're a
fairly small firm and just want an Ethernet handoff with our IP
block on it. Sprint didn't blink at the request, bu
Hi,
On 20 Jan 2008, at 16:37, Andrew Odlyzko wrote:
The more sensible end of town pays about $80 per month for about 40
Gbytes of quota, give or take, depending on the ISP. After that
they get shaped to 64 kbps unless they want to pay more for more
quota.
I replied offlist to Andrew wi
On 21 Jan 2008, at 00:16, Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
Andy Davidson wrote:
- Am I peering widely enough ? Should I actually be stuffing a
switch under the floor in my employer's suite and letting my
buddies plug in ? Peeringdb knows about eight exchanges in a
developed economy
On 21 Jan 2008, at 01:43, Martin Barry wrote:
$quoted_author = "Andy Davidson" ;
.. think about what happens when your customers' routes start
appearing
through your MLP session as well.
Standard practice would be to localpref customer routes over peering
routes.[...]
On 21 Jan 2008, at 14:02, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
OK, I give and admit my ignorance. What does "MLP" mean in this
context ?
A google search for "Australia mlp" reveals many hits for "My Little
Pony,"
which somehow I doubt is the intended meaning on this list.
Smile...
Here it stands f
On 22 Jan 2008, at 17:30, Michael K. Smith - Adhost wrote:
Hmm, who gets paid? It sounds like your hinting around a telco-type
reciprocal payment model (correct me if I'm wrong). Do I pay my
upstreams who in turn pay there upstreams and so on and so on? Or,
is there some central, uber-
On 23 Jan 2008, at 17:24, Paul Vixie wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andy Davidson) writes:
People pay the RIRs.
The RIRs spend money on parties for network operators.
...
according to <http://www.arin.net/about_us/corp_docs/budget.html>
for 2007 and
<http://www.arin.net/about_us/
On 25 Jan 2008, at 10:42, Roland Perry wrote:
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Matt Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes
Tunnels all over the place seems like the only way it'd even be
halfway practical. It's more-or-less how phone number portability
works anyway, from what (little) I know.
I
On 14 Feb 2008, at 17:02, Kai Chen wrote:
A typical Internet Exchange Point (IXP) consists of one or more
network switches, to which each of the participating ISPs connect.
We call it the exchange-based topology. My question is if some
current IXPs use directly-connected topology, in whic
On 7 Mar 2008, at 23:57, Scott Weeks wrote:
Might as well do TCP 20, 21 and 23, too. Woah, that slope's getting
slippery!
Oh, no, this one again.
*** The Internet Is Not The Web. ***
Could someone put that onto a t-shirt ?
If it becomes normal for home users to only have 80 and 443, th
Hi,
I am really fed up of calls from UltraDNS - we seem to get them every
few days. We don't need their product.
We've tried saying no, and additionally we've tried putting people on
hold indefinitely, trying to be enough of a nuisance to drop off their
sales call list (works with UK telcos
On Tue, 2006-11-28 at 16:44 +, Paul Vixie wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andy Davidson) writes:
> > I am really fed up of calls from UltraDNS - we seem to get them every
> > few days. We don't need their product.
> every month or two somebody will ask me "does
On 30 Nov 2006, at 07:02, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006, Deepak Jain wrote:
Afraid so. I'm hoping to be out of the industry before calls for
128 bit
AS#s come down the pipe and people (at that time) are laughing
about how
silly 32 bit AS#s seem.
anyone have a swag at the numb
name ...
--
Regards, Andy Davidson
Consultant Systems and Network Engineer, Devonshire IT Limited
http://www.devonshire.it/ - 0844 704 704 7 - Sheffield, UK
ing to talk about this at Toronto ? Trying to justify
taking a week 'off' to visit ... ;-)
--
Regards, Andy Davidson
http://www.devonshire.it/ - 0844 704 704 7 - Sheffield, UK
wo of them, eventually through 'LambdaNet' on both.
-a
--
Regards, Andy Davidson
Consultant Systems and Network Engineer, Devonshire IT Limited
http://www.devonshire.it/ - 0844 704 704 7 - Sheffield, UK
On 12 Jan 2007, at 15:26, Gian Constantine wrote:
I am pretty sure we are not becoming a VoD world. Linear
programming is much better for advertisers. I do not think content
providers, nor consumers, would prefer a VoD only service. A
handful of consumers would love it, but many would not
everything else will still lose a few percentage of
inbound packets ...
Unless you want to outsource your entire hosting to someone on the
list. ;-)
--
Regards, Andy Davidson
http://www.devonshire.it/ - 0844 704 704 7 - Sheffield, UK
On 23 Jan 2007, at 16:48, Sean Donelan wrote:
Why is IP required,
Because using something that works so well means less wheel reinvention.
and even if you used IP for transport why must the meter
identification be based on an IP address?
Idenification via IP address (exclusively) is bad
On Mon, 2007-01-29 at 12:56 -0800, Andrew Gristina wrote:
> I have two racks in London UK. The colocation is
> currently in London. The contract is up soon and most
> of the feet on the ground in the UK of the company is
> in the greater Birmingham area. So I'm interested in
> colocating about t
On 6 Mar 2007, at 21:51, Jason Arnaute wrote:
But, I am charged between $150 and $180 per megabit/s for non-
redundant, single-homed bandwidth (not sure
which provider they put it on) and even if I commit to 20 or 30
megabits/s it still only drops down to $100 -
$120 per megabit/s.
[...]
On 13 Mar 2007, at 20:31, Roland Dobbins wrote:
On Mar 13, 2007, at 11:19 AM, Daniel Senie wrote:
A universal service charge could be applied to all bills, with the
funds going to subsidize rural areas.
This is already done in the U.S., to no discernible effect.
That isn't *quite* the
On 28 Mar 2007, at 00:28, Jim Shankland wrote:
Jumbo frames seem to help a lot when trying to max out a 10 GbE
link, which is what the Internet land speed record guys have been
doing. At 45 Mb/s, I'd be very surprised if it bought you more than
2-4% in additional throughput. It's worth a
On 2 Apr 2007, at 21:21, Lasher, Donn wrote:
Rather, I thought a lot more providers would actually be blocking
outbound
25 except to their SMTP servers. Just brought up a new mail server
for a
friend; moved an old (14+ year) domain.. I was amazed at the number of
connections from rr.com, c
On 3 Apr 2007, at 03:02, Gadi Evron wrote:
What are your thoughts on basic suggestions such as:
1. Allowing registrars to terminate domains based on abuse, rather
than just fake contact details.
I don't like this because its impossible to define abuse clearly
enough in this context.
If
On 16 May 2007, at 17:14, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does anyone have ballpark costs on what colo space costs in England.
Space costs lots and lots in central London where connectivity is
cheaper. There are datacentres away from London which are much less
expensive, but connectivity tends
70 matches
Mail list logo
