On Wednesday, March 6, 2002, at 12:53 AM, David Luyer wrote:
> Often the server TCP stack and the customer TCP stack may be dodgy and
> sometimes
> even unable to directly communicate, but the good TCP stack in the
> middle can
> communicate to both of the dodgy TCP stacks at either end as well
On Thursday, March 7, 2002, at 04:37 , Sean Donelan wrote:
> My comment was originally prompted by the meeting minutes which
> reported on the survey data showing that 100% of carriers are
> implementing
> firewalls in their gateways. The 100% is what caught my eye. As the
> topic comes up i
On Friday, March 8, 2002, at 08:39 , Ron da Silva wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 08, 2002 at 04:48:49AM +, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
>>
>> ...I don't think I can put it any more clearly. There has got
>> to be a push from the USERS of this equipment (not just one user, all
>> users) to get line
On Tuesday, March 12, 2002, at 03:23 , Ratul Mahajan wrote:
>> Perhaps the attacks on core routers aren't bad enough to justify such
>> a drastic step yet. I get conflicting signals from engineers still
>> working. Some say they see attacks all the time, others say they've
>> never seen one on
On Wednesday, April 17, 2002, at 02:29 , Kevin Loch wrote:
> "Rubens Kuhl Jr." wrote:
>>
>> Spread-spectrum radio systems are not that easy to DoS, a good benefit
>> from
>> the original military applications.
>
> Actually, at close range it should be trivial to Dos an 802.11 system.
> Just
>
For those private pilots planning to attend the meeting in Richmond
Hill, Diamond Aircraft are located about two hours (drive) away at CYXU.
The popular DA20-C1 two-seat trainer is manufactured on the field, as is
the new four-place DA40-180 which has received some glowing reviews
recently (s
On Wednesday, April 24, 2002, at 03:47 , Shivkuma wrote:
> Inter-domain:
>- Hot potato/cold potato routing
>- Inbound load balancing (between peering links)
>- Inbound load balancing (between transit links or a mix of
> peering/transit)
>- Outbound load balancing (between peeri
On Wednesday, May 1, 2002, at 10:33 , Steven J. Sobol wrote:
>
> On Wed, 1 May 2002, Deepak Jain wrote:
>
>> I'm more concerned that if the major metropolitan markets deploying
>> GPRS
>> all use NAT, then the Next Big Thing won't ever happen on GPRS devices.
>> Customers won't jump ship if th
On Mon, May 06, 2002 at 10:41:09AM -0700, David Conrad wrote:
> On 5/6/02 10:20 AM, "Grant A. Kirkwood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm sorry, but ARIN's policy practically _encourages_ the "efficient
> > wasting" of space to qualify for PI space. This is one of the most
> > frustrating things
On Tuesday, June 4, 2002, at 12:48 , Barry Raveendran Greene wrote:
>> Then we come to the extra bogons like exchange point allocations. Can't
>> forget them. :)
>
> I've never heard anyone refer to the IXP allocations as "bogons." Plus,
> I've
> not heard of anyone filtering the IXP prefixes
On Tuesday, June 4, 2002, at 03:47 , Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
> Exchange point blocks SHOULDN'T be transited by anyone, therefore you
> should not hear them from your peers.
Unless an exchange point includes such a restriction in the agreements
with their participants, isn't this a privat
On Tuesday, June 4, 2002, at 07:49 , Sean M. Doran wrote:
> | Messy traceroutes make the helpdesk phone ring.
>
> Messy architecture is worse!
Agreed. An inconsistent architecture is a messy one. Why treat exchange
subnets differently to any other bit of backbone infrastructure? Why
number p
On Sunday, June 9, 2002, at 12:06 , John Payne wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 08, 2002 at 11:06:04AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> Yesterday morning, I noticed mail-abuse.org appeared to be down
>> (unreachable). I checked again, and it's still unreachable. In fact, I
>> can't even reach its nam
On Sunday, June 9, 2002, at 12:58 , John Payne wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 09, 2002 at 12:46:59AM -0400, Joe Abley wrote:
>> traceroute to 209.208.0.0 (209.208.0.0), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
>> 15 gsvlfl-br-1-s2-0.atlantic.net (209.208.6.126) 50.244 ms 49.778 ms
>>
On Thursday, June 27, 2002, at 04:54 , Leigh Anne Chisholm wrote:
> The FCC prohibits communication using a cellular telephone while in an
> aircraft in US airspace. In Canada, I don't believe there is such a
> regulation.
I couldn't find the energy to go swimming in the Canadian Air
Regulat
On Thu, Jul 11, 2002 at 08:24:38PM -0400, Sean Donelan wrote:
> Yes, several people mentioned that the two groups should just maintain
> their seperate ways. There is this thing called convergence.
I know a small number of operators with really talented and dedicated
architecture people who hav
On Saturday, July 13, 2002, at 06:17 , Stephen Stuart wrote:
>> Legend speaks of a well known BGP community referred to as 'no export',
>> which causes people with no direct connections to $carrier to not
>> have to listen to all that extra junk while still engineering inbound
>> traffic w/ mor
On Tuesday, July 16, 2002, at 02:44 , Pedro R Marques wrote:
> I would be inclined to agree with your statement that the major blame
> should lie on "router vendors" if you see your router vendor as
> someone that sells you the network elements + the NMS to manage it.
The NMS for the vast majo
On Thursday, July 18, 2002, at 05:25 , Marshall Eubanks wrote:
> I still don't see where the excess 20K routes come from. Could these be
> internal routes from an iBGP ?
The export policy of contributors to route-views collectors is not
well-defined. While some participants might be sending a
On 6 Jul 2005, at 11:41, Scott McGrath wrote:
You do make some good points as IPv6 does not address routing
scalability
or multi-homing which would indeed make a contribution to lower OPEX
and
be easier to 'sell' to the financial people.
As I read the spec it makes multi-homing more difficu
On 7 Jul 2005, at 08:27, Andre Oppermann wrote:
Err... So you want to protect the incumbent ISP's? Even those once
started off with 200 customers. Who is going to decide if some (today)
small ISP is worthy of receiving its own PA space or not?
Pretty much any ISP is capable of obtaining th
On 2005-07-07, at 10:10, Kuhtz, Christian wrote:
Anyone here care to share operator perspectives shim6 and the
like? Do
we actually have anything that anyone considers workable (not whether
somebody can make it happen, but viable in a commercial
environment) for
mh?
There is no operati
On 2005-07-07, at 10:23, Andre Oppermann wrote:
It was about a spot in the global routing table. No matter if one
gets
PA or PI they get a routing table entry in the DFZ. There is no
way around
it other than to make the routing protocols more scaleable.
With the hole-punching/CIDR abus
On 2005-07-07, at 12:53, Alexei Roudnev wrote:
We have relatively PI address space in IPv4, which works fine, even
with
current routers. No any problem to hold the whole world-wide
routing with a
future ones. Is it a pproblem keeping 500,000 routess in core
routers? Of
course, it is not (
On 8 Jul 2005, at 19:26, Daniel Roesen wrote:
On Sat, Jul 09, 2005 at 12:52:35AM +0200, Andre Oppermann wrote:
Multihomed end sites usually get away with receiving only default
route
or some partial routes from their upstreams. So technically you can
BGP multihome with Cisco 1600 or even sma
Since I've just run into the second of these in as many weeks, I
thought this was perhaps worth a mail to the list.
EP.NET assign netblocks from 198.32/16 to various Internet
infrastructure providers, including exchange points and prominent (e.g.
ccTLD) nameservers. And maybe other things, f
On 18 Jul 2005, at 18:43, Jason Sloderbeck wrote:
I don't know of any other IEEE/NANOG/IETF/ICANN-sanctioned method to
completely confuse even a savvy IT user who is trying to determine the
validity of an SSL site.
If I was feeling especially cynical (and hey, who isn't on a Monday?)
I'd
On 20 Jul 2005, at 21:46, Brad Knowles wrote:
In the case of regular cell phones, if you are roaming on a network
in a foreign country, or you have rented a local phone, I understand
that the carriers have gotten together and made sure that the various
911/112/999 emergency services numbers
On 21 Jul 2005, at 12:02, Joseph S D Yao wrote:
Unless you have personally verified each entry, you would do well to
add
a disclaimer that DNSRBLs are not 100% reliable, eh?
Unless I'm mistaken (and my first report hasn't arrived yet, so maybe I
am) this is more of a "heads up! the followi
On 24 Jul 2005, at 19:21, John Levine wrote:
North America is all mobile party pays,
so calls to mobile cost the same as calls to landline.
... not inside the [same provider's] mobile network, cell phone to
cell phone. See T-Mobile's "Unlimited Mobile-to-Mobile" component of
their service
On 26 Jul 2005, at 20:44, Todd Vierling wrote:
Maybe I missed it, but was there some concerted effort to remove or
block
access to the 2002::/16 route on the v6 backbone in North America
recently?
Connectivity to/from 6to4-only hosts seems sketchy at best. Of the US
hosts
I've tried, only I
On 27 Jul 2005, at 11:17, Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote:
After Aug. 30, VoIP providers will have to cut off subscribers who
refuse to acknowledge the warning, according to the ruling by the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC).
... because if there's an emergency, a handset which gives no
On 30 Jul 2005, at 15:03, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jul 2005, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
The RIPE NCC has hit strong resistance to reclamation, most often with
the argument that the ASes are used in inter-domain routing on the
Internet but our BGP data collectors just do not see the pa
On 31 Jul 2005, at 01:23, Robert Boyle wrote:
I agree that implementation sooner rather than later is a good idea,
but all of us already have a 2-Byte AS so although we care in theory
and believe it is a good idea, we don't _really_ care as much as the
first guy who gets a 4-Byte AS will.
On 1 Aug 2005, at 06:15, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
On Sun, 31 Jul 2005, Geoff Huston wrote:
So - to NANOG at large - if you want your vendor to include 4-Byte AS
support
in their BGP code anytime soon, in order to avoid some last minute
panic in a
couple of years hence, then it would appear
On 2 Aug 2005, at 08:24, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
no, but I'd like to... since I'm upgrading and all (for security
reasons
and ipv6 is so much better for security, right? :) )
It has quality of service, too! Let's not forget that!
On 3 Aug 2005, at 16:15, Roy Badami wrote:
Marlon> just remember that not all networks use '126.255.255.255'
Marlon> as a broadcast address. there are non-broadcast networks
Marlon> where that address is a 'host' one.
Surely the only networks on which this can be a host are:
On 4 Aug 2005, at 14:35, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
2. We know cable companies, dsl providers and mobile companies can use
this many
IPs, but they generally seem to make use of NAT and IPv6. If everyone
in this
category who could justify a /8 applied and received them we might be
in real
trou
On 4 Aug 2005, at 21:51, Simon Lyall wrote:
Creating a seperate instance or path though all that for IPv6 is
probably
going to be hard if it is all setup for everything to go one way.
I know people who have set up such things using reverse proxies (listen
on v6 for query, relay request to
On 5 Aug 2005, at 07:54, Sabri Berisha wrote:
On Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 04:10:46AM -0700, Bill Woodcock wrote:
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Sabri Berisha wrote:
With the use of anycast DNS servers on the internet, TCP is no
longer an
option for DNS.
Bzzzt. Try again.
On 10 Aug 2005, at 06:36, Florian Weimer wrote:
Is there some kind of real-time WHOIS for .COM (and friends) which
allows you to determine at least the corresponding registrar?
whois.crsnic.net?
On 22-Aug-2005, at 11:14, David Hagel wrote:
This is interesting. This may sound like a naive question. But if
queuing delays are so insignificant in comparison to other fixed delay
components then what does it say about the usefulness of all the
extensive techniques for queue management and co
A couple of people have expressed interest in an exchange-point BOF
at NANOG 34 in Los Angeles. The BOF would include a few short
presentations on topics of interest to exchange point operators, with
time for more general comment and discussion.
The kinds of topics that have been suggested
On 24-Aug-2005, at 19:16, Lewis Butler wrote:
And what does every country ahead of the US have in common? Tiny
populations.
And waht does every country but one have in common? Very small
area. The US has states taht are larger than 10 of the 11
countries ahed of use, COMBINED.
(popu
On 24-Aug-2005, at 22:43, Dan Golding wrote:
I suggest you take another look at these numbers. Those countries with
overall population densities lower than the US's all have something in
common - they are really cold. Iceland, Canada, Finland, Norway,
Sweden.
Folks in those countries are dens
On 31-Aug-2005, at 14:52, Barry Shein wrote:
Sorry for the interruption but I wish just once I could follow a
topical list where 50% or more of the traffic wasn't people posting or
arguing about how this or that post was off-topic!
As Randy alluded earlier, the right list to use for this kind
On 2-Sep-2005, at 15:11, Peter Dambier wrote:
ADD: NS-EXT.ISC.ORG
2001:4F8:0:2:0:0:0:13
I don't speak for any other nameserver on this list (and I don't
especially speak for this one, since I'm not part of the team at ISC
that runs it).
However,
In the interests of providing willing volunteers with a productive
place to offer their services, I just read the following:
http://www.boingboing.net/2005/09/02/fcc_coordinating_tec.html
This is arguably off-topic for this list, for which I apologise.
However, I thought it was worth shari
On 7-Sep-2005, at 17:09, Church, Chuck wrote:
So how did this newspaper server end up with NANOG posting rights
anyway???
Servers don't get posting rights. From: headers get posting rights.
list?
2. Should NANOG encourage, facilitate, or otherwise support a blog or
similar forum for this content?
Please follow-up to the nanog-futures mailing list or send private commentary to the NANOG
Steering Committee at <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
Joe Abley
(for the NANOG SC)
On 10-Sep-2005, at 09:18, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
[Perhaps this thread should migrate to Multi6?]
multi6 hasn't existed for some time. The "level-3 shim" approach to
multi-homing that was the primary output of multi6 is being discussed
in shim6.
Suppose they not only have no plan but
On 10-Sep-2005, at 21:42, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Sep 10, 2005, at 10:17 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
Yes, according to the current RIR policies. [So the determination
of "unworthy" above has been made, in effect, by RIR members.]
And this is why v6 has failed and will contin
On 12-Sep-2005, at 17:11, Daniel Roesen wrote:
On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 06:28:22PM +0700, Randy Bush wrote:
those who see full stats at ixes, v4/6 isps, etc will tell you that
actual v6 traffic is miniscule.
Not contesting the quantification, but what typical IXP switches can
do stats based
On 13-Sep-2005, at 03:28, Crist Clark wrote:
Igor Gashinsky wrote:
[snip]
Moving everything to the end-hosts is simply not a good idea imho.
But isn't that what IP is supposed to be about? Smart endpoints, dumb
network (a.k.a. the stupid network)?
And with many peer-to-peer applications,
On 25-Sep-2005, at 23:36, Dennis Dayman wrote:
*cough*
http://puck.nether.net/netops/nocs.cgi?ispname=TDC
*cough*
Dang it... I forgot about that.
Just in case there's anybody here who has forgotten about it, the
NANOG list has a FAQ:
http://www.nanog.org/listfaq.html
which includes
On 27-Sep-2005, at 16:03, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
There is already an IX called DIX (Denmark) so PRIX should work as
well :)
There's an exchange called the PNIX in Palmerston North, New Zealand,
too.
On 30-Sep-2005, at 09:32, Randy Bush wrote:
To get an understanding of routing-protocols, begin with RIP[3] and
perhaps run your own RIP-lab
necromancy will be severely punished.
many hand-on routing workshops start with rip, though with the
warning "you will now learn why not to use rip."
On 3-Oct-2005, at 17:28, Joe Johnson wrote:
Call it Monday Boredom, if you will, but a funny DNS question just
popped into my head: if I were to, say, win the lotto and buy my
own Island (which, of course, would technically be its own
country), would I be able to receive a ccTLD for said
On 5-Oct-2005, at 02:54, william(at)elan.net wrote:
I'm pretty sure ISC runs anycasted dns servers too and they
run .museum TLD and serve as secondary for one or two other TLDs.
Service for the nameservers NS-EXT.VIX.COM and NS-EXT.ISC.ORG are
provided by an anycast cluster along the line
On 5-Oct-2005, at 05:53, william(at)elan.net wrote:
2002::/16 AS3344 - 6to4 relay anycast - no longer done, right??
6to4 is alive and well.
Joe
On 5-Oct-2005, at 11:33, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Joe Abley:
On 5-Oct-2005, at 05:53, william(at)elan.net wrote:
2002::/16 AS3344 - 6to4 relay anycast - no longer done, right??
6to4 is alive and well.
For some values of. I believe the bit.nl 6to4 gateway still generates
IPv4 packets
On 5-Oct-2005, at 11:57, Simon Lockhart wrote:
On Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 11:50:52AM -0400, Matthew Crocker wrote:
I opened a billing/support ticket with Cogent. I'm not planning on
paying my bill or continuing the contract if they cannot provide full
BGP tables and full Internet transport (ba
On 5-Oct-2005, at 13:43, Jeff Shultz wrote:
And why isn't this apparently happening automatically? Pardon the
density of my brain matter here, but I thought that was what BGP
was all about?
I welcome any education the group wishes to drop on me in this matter.
For most ISPs, normal prac
On 5-Oct-2005, at 15:22, Jeff Shultz wrote:
Interesting. Balkanization of the Internet anyone? As one other
commenter hinted at, it does sound like a recipe for encouraging
multi-homing, even at the lowest levels. How many ASN's can the
system handle currently?
It's a 16-bit number; 0 i
On 6-Oct-2005, at 19:38, Schliesser, Benson wrote:
Customers don't want to pay for a "stochastic set of relationships",
they will pay for the "Internet" however.
What is "Internet"? Let's channel Seth Breidbart briefly and call it
the largest equivalence class in the reflexive transitive s
Doug,
On 8-Oct-2005, at 16:01, Randy Bush wrote:
I have a hint record pointing to a name server that has not been
used to
several years.
what's a "hint record?" ns glue?
If yes, then it depends on what the nameserver in question is called
(more accurately, what the parent zone is).
On 11-Oct-2005, at 11:33, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
On Tue, 11 Oct 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1) I meet the Multihoming requirement, which means I can get a
block as
small as a /22, which is about right for my needs. Are there
still any
concerns about networks (as Verio and Sprint h
On 14-Oct-2005, at 10:13, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
Yep, there is no multihoming, but effectively, except for the BGP
tricks
that are currently being played in IPv4 there is nothing in IPv4
either.
But one won't need to upgrade a Tier 1's hardware to support
shim6, as
shim6 is:
1) no
On 14-Oct-2005, at 11:27, Daniel Roesen wrote:
On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 10:57:59AM -0400, Joe Abley wrote:
The big gap in the multi-homing story for v6 is for end sites, since
those are specifically excluded by all the RIRs' policies on PI
addressing right now. Shim6 is intended to
On 14-Oct-2005, at 11:48, David Hubbard wrote:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I know most nanog responses seem to go off list immediately
but I'd be interested in this as well for traffic engineering.
A top AS and top prefix talkers would be really useful.
perhaps you have forgotten this nift
On 14-Oct-2005, at 14:48, David Conrad wrote:
On Oct 14, 2005, at 7:57 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
The big gap in the multi-homing story for v6 is for end sites,
since those are specifically excluded by all the RIRs' policies on
PI addressing right now. Shim6 is intended to be a solutio
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 14-Oct-2005, at 15:16, Owen DeLong wrote:
BTW, as I read it, SHIM6 requires not only modification to ALL
nodes at the
site,
but, modification to ALL nodes to which the node needs reliable
connectivity.
For one host with multiple, globally-u
On 15-Oct-2005, at 15:29, Tony Li wrote:
So the IETF identified 4 reasons to multihome. Of those 4, shim6
ignores at least 2 of them (operational policy and cost), and so
far as I can see glosses over load sharing.
If you have a solution that satisfies all requirements, you should
cont
On 16-Oct-2005, at 03:37, David Conrad wrote:
Shifting the NAT to end system removed the objection to NAT, tho
it's not entirely clear why. Shifting NAT to the end system also
happened to simplify the entire solution as well.
Except for the part about having to rewrite all existing
imp
On 16-Oct-2005, at 10:27, John Reilly wrote:
On Sat, 2005-10-15 at 22:02 -0700, David Conrad wrote:
I _really_ wish people would stop saying '"unlimited"' or 'almost
infinite' when talking about IPv6 address space. It simply isn't
true, even in the theoretical sense, and particularly given
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 16-Oct-2005, at 16:20, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 10:55:38 EDT, Joe Abley said:
Thought experiment: how many different software vendors need to
change their shipping IPv6 code in order for some new feature like
shim6 to be
On 16-Oct-2005, at 11:08, Joe Abley wrote:
Yes, you're mistaken. The locator identifier is chosen from the
host's pool of upper-layer identifiers.
Oops -- I meant "the upper-layer identifier is chosen from the host's
pool of locators". Must Not Post Before Coffee.
Joe
On 24-Oct-2005, at 11:21, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 12:53:12 CDT, John Dupuy said:
In fact, this is technically feasible right now with IPv4. Does
anyone know
of a pair of ISPs doing this?
"technically feasible" and "business case reasonable" are two
different things
On 25-Oct-2005, at 05:56, Robert Bonomi wrote:
*sigh* Multi-homing simply means [...]
As became clear when we wrote the draft that became RFC 3582,
apparently simple terms such as "transit provider" and "multi-homing"
mean surprisingly different things to different people.
The importa
On 31-Oct-2005, at 17:49, Bill Woodcock wrote:
Which leaves the question of why F, and now K, appear to be trying
to do
it.
F's covering prefix, 192.5.5.0/24, is advertised to peers of F-root
local nodes with NO_EXPORT. 192.5.5.0/24 is advertised to peers of AS
3557 without NO_EXPORT.
On 1-Nov-2005, at 14:19, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
or am i naive too?
I think you underestimate the tendencies of ISPs all over the world
to leak peering routes towards their transit providers.
Contrary to popular belief, leaks through peers in remote regions do
not always result in hug
On 1-Nov-2005, at 15:15, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
ok sure, but is this not just normal transit issues, these are not
special
because they are a) anycast b) root-servers?
You're right -- these are normal issues that any multi-homed AS might
see. The effectiveness of knuckle-rapping after
On 1-Nov-2005, at 17:52, Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
Sam Crooks wrote:
Pardon my stupidity, but could someone point to a good explanation of
Anycast (vs uni, broad and multi...)?
{mutter, mumble, google is your friend}
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=anycast+definition
Also
On 4-Nov-2005, at 09:07, Russ White wrote:
- -- BGP is currently moving to a 2^32 space for AS numbers. That's
odd,
if there's only 18,044 origins in the current table, and it won't ever
grow to much more--how'd we lose 40,000 or so AS numbers, that we now
need more than 64,000?
http://www
g Committee at <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
Joe Abley
(for the NANOG SC)
[1] <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0151804/> (as if anybody here needs
this)
On 7-Nov-2005, at 05:57, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Henk's slide number 5 he states:
"Each AS wants to be able to send traffic to any other AS"
This is NOT true. Many ASes explicitly do *NOT*
want to send traffic to any other AS.
Wanting to do something and wanting to be able to do someth
On 9-Nov-2005, at 16:35, Randy Bush wrote:
IX---SwitchA---SwitchB---Router
ok, i gotta ask. you folk really do this on exchanges?
I seem to think I've seen people doing this at most exchanges ISC has
installed an F-root node at. The motivation is usually the avoidance
of either expe
On 17-Nov-2005, at 10:59, Brian Kerr wrote:
On 11/17/05, Eric Gauthier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Just to make analysis easier: Which prefixes should be missing?
There seem to be larger problems,
http://www.cogent.com returns:
That does seem to be a problem for cogent.com. To complete y
On 28-Nov-2005, at 01:15, Glen Kent wrote:
to different Autonomous systems.
No, but...
Is there a central/distributed database somewhere that can tell me
that this particular IP prefix (say x.y.z.w) has been given to foo AS
number?
I tried searching through all the WHOIS records for a dom
On 29-Nov-2005, at 09:30, David Barak wrote:
I have
yet to find an organization which is concerned about
getting new PI space which would have a problem paying
that amount per year. They may exist,
They definitely exist.
Joe
On 29-Nov-2005, at 12:16, David Barak wrote:
Maybe my imagination just isn't good enough: could you
toss me an example-type of organization where that
would be problematic?
Oh, my mistake -- you're talking about new organisations looking to
acquire PI space. I was talking about organisatio
On 13-Dec-2005, at 16:28, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
In message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Sam Cr
ooks writes:
I would think you would want to drop your DNS record TTLs for all
domains being moved to something very low several days before the
switch-over period.
More precisely, you want to chan
On 14-Dec-2005, at 10:17, Joe Maimon wrote:
Joe Abley wrote:
You also want to check all the registries which are superordinate
to zones your server is authoritative for, and check that any IP
addresses stored in those registries for your nameserver are
updated, otherwise you will
On 14-Dec-2005, at 11:52, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
currently in the middle of such a safe, conservative
transition leads me to believe that there will -NEVER-
be a point w/ there are no queries to the old address.
(he says, 24 months into a transition...)
It's
On 5 Dec 2004, at 06:50, Cliff Albert wrote:
I have one question regarding the CYMRU bogon route-server. What good
is
it if more-specific bogons are going around in the BGP table ?
With OpenBSD 3.6 running pf and bgpd, you can apply a filter rule to
BGP updates received from individual peers whi
On 5 Dec 2004, at 13:31, william(at)elan.net wrote:
On Sun, 5 Dec 2004, william(at)elan.net wrote:
On Sun, 5 Dec 2004, Joe Abley wrote:
With OpenBSD 3.6 running pf and bgpd, you can apply a filter rule to
BGP updates received from individual peers which updates a pf radix
table with the network
On 13 Dec 2004, at 15:27, Steve Gibbard wrote:
On Mon, 13 Dec 2004, Simon Waters wrote:
Inspection suggests that the anycast announcements in the UK were
pointing to a server that wasn't accepting email.
I believe here the problem is using anycast, and not providing a
backup
system not using anyc
On 17 Dec 2004, at 06:33, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 17-dec-04, at 11:23, Joe Shen wrote:
is there any problem or anything must be taken
care about when anycast is employed within a DNS
server farm within MAN?
What I mean is, if we want to employ anycast in a
cache server farm which is locate
On 26 Dec 2004, at 16:39, George William Herbert wrote:
I haven't seen any reports, but a 8.9 and widespread tsunami
activity in the Indian Ocean and Bay of Bengal seem likely to
have caused undersea cable problems.
I'm no expert, but I'd imagine that any under-sea damage would be
isolated to sha
On 26 Dec 2004, at 17:13, Joe Abley wrote:
On 26 Dec 2004, at 16:39, George William Herbert wrote:
Suresh, someone mentioned you were in the affected area,
you seem to still be with us from your spam thread response,
which is a relief.
Suresh is in Madras, I think. The BBC says Madras was
1 - 100 of 497 matches
Mail list logo
