ouncing EPs as
from their own AS.
Cheers,
Joe
--
Joe ProvoVoice 508.486.7471
Director, Internet Planning & Design Fax508.229.2375
Network Deployment & Management, RCN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
ng you
nothing but woe.
Cheers,
Joe
--
Joe ProvoVoice 508.486.7471
Director, Internet Planning & Design Fax508.229.2375
Network Deployment & Management, RCN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
them to graze on the commons and get all in a huff when any of
us tell them they're filtered because they are causing incremental damage
to our networks. Get over it kids; stable and deterministic behavior is
required for IP to work optimally.
Stability uber alles,
Joe
--
Joe Provo
be valid? If
there is a vendor implementation that has probelems with it, that
would be a bug, and I would consider it one for anyhting past 1994
vintage code.
Cheers,
Joe
--
Joe ProvoVoice 508.486.7471
Director, Internet Planning & Design
participating
in PTOMAINE and the like. Rather than railing aginst current deployments,
network operators, or the price of bits in CA your energy would be
better spent nagging vendors to back drafts and to be ready to adopt new
well-known-communities.
Joe, thinking this belongs in a FAQ so
[This was started last month. been a little busy. unsuprisingly I
only had to *add* an incident and it still works.]
On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 02:47:30PM -0800, Randy Bush wrote:
[snip]
Yes it means what you think.
No, I don't see anyone giving a rat's patootie about aggregation.
I was starting
On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 04:33:08AM -0500, James Ashton wrote:
> I am in need of a list of community strings that REACH.COM accepts.
> Does anyone have a list of these?
Reach does, I'm sure. Contacting them would be the smart thing.
> For the last several months I have been trying to get traff
On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 01:08:39PM -0500, Patrick W Gilmore wrote:
> On Dec 13, 2004, at 6:39 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [my attribution clipped -jzp]
> >>- this month, another knee was at 150k [Dec 4th] and similarly
> >> garbled results came out. Again, no response.
> >>...in this one year
Folllowups elsewhere - this isn't nanog fodder kids.
On Sat, Dec 25, 2004 at 08:56:42PM -0800, David A. Ulevitch wrote:
> There is nobody behind the wheel at The World and they continue
> to send out this odd anti-spam spam.
Wrong and wrong; there are definitely clues at the helm, and it
sur
Looking at the current agenda, there's a "Special Community
Meeting" Sunday evening after the tutorials, but with no
details posted. Should we expected any so that attendees
flying in can determine if they should skip dinner to make it?
Cheers,
Joe
--
RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk
On Mon, Jan 03, 2005 at 07:35:20PM -0500, Tom Vest wrote:
>
> Hey, did anyone notice when UU peering policy explicitly incorporated
> a requirement for number of transit customers served, measured by
> unique AS?
It was between 18 and 28 August 2004. I believe it was on Friday
the 27th but m
On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 03:47:08PM -0500, Jared Mauch wrote:
[snip]
> I think that's a matter that seems to be already decided.
> People want multihoming, redudnancy and such and are willing
> to put the burden on the global routing table as a result.
The matter was not strictly (not eve
On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 09:37:57AM -0800, Blaine Christian wrote:
>
> Specifically, they have the ability to tickle a legacy cisco bug
> with AS path length. This bug was supposedly mitigated in code
> and I believe my previous company is still filtering AS path
> length (UUNET) of 100 or gre
On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 10:19:45PM +0200, Gadi Evron wrote:
> Scott Weeks wrote:
> >On Thu, 17 Feb 2005, Gadi Evron wrote:
> >
> >: want to see at this headache of a position, or we do it openly on the
> >
> >
> >Yes, publically. Please.
>
> Publically - on NANOG itself, please.
Please no. Spe
[Note reply-to]
On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 02:45:40PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 12:56:50 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> >
> >> Sorry, I misread that. But I still fail to see how 587 changes that.
[snip]
> Yes. Authenticated SMTP makes track
> If you run any bogon filtering, can you please check your
> border ACLs and BGP prefix filters to ensure that you're
> no longer preventing access to 58.0.0.0/8 or 59.0.0.0/8 ?
[snip]
It is useful to point out that APNIC indicates the minalloc
in 59/8 is /20 and 58/8 is /21. I see several p
On Fri, Apr 01, 2005 at 11:45:16AM -0800, Bill Woodcock wrote:
>
> ...the "reformed" NANOG list moderation committee seems to suffer
> foolishness somewhat more gladly than the old regime. Could we have a
> little more backbone in the moderation, please? I don't want to be
> reading about cr
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 10:45:15AM -0800, Harsha Narayan wrote:
[snip]
> But it appears that there are many cases where customers prefer
> to take a prefix from the ISP rather than an RIR even if it is a
> /19 or a /20 - for example from the /11 of a big ISP, there are 50
> /19s and /20s whic
On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 03:33:51PM -0800, Steve Rude wrote:
>
> I am trying to collect information about using RFC 1918 space on an ISP
> backbone. I have read the RFC several times, and I don't see where it
> says that you cannot use 10/8 space to number your backbone links (/30s).
As ment
On Mon, 25 Nov 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Can anyone think of a reason why this sort of traffic should be routed at
> all? Does anyone actually drop hosts on to addresses ending in x.x.x.0?
Generally not for end-stations since end-users tend to have broken
software with lousy assumptions
This topic came up on cisco-nsp, but was really more appropriate
here. Been meaning to post summaries when I got enough round tuits.
A suggestion was made there that the RIRs give a bgp feed of 'unused'
routes to interested parties such that they can be blackholed, etc.
Sounded like a lot
On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 12:14:51PM -0500, James Smith wrote:
> One would think that operators not updating filters to permit
> properly allocated space IS an operational issue.
To quote a friend "public shaming will only go so far". At some
point, you have to communicate to your customers and t
I find the interesting that there were immediate assumptions by
all the followup posters that the hypothectical mesh wbn suggested
would be run by an exchange point operator. Perhaps no public
statements were sent by anyone in using similar trans-atlantic
services (that are not run by the af
On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 04:58:44PM -0500, Deepak Jain wrote:
[snip]
> *IS* there a common sense number or an equation (better) anyone has
> worked out to figure whether building a backbone (national/international)
> to peering points (i.e. extending an existing, operational service
> network) t
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 01:15:14AM -0400, Alex Rubenstein wrote:
>
> Should a customer be allowed to force a carrier to allow them to announce
> non-portable IP space as they see fit to any other carriers of their
> choosing when they are no longer buying service from the original carrier
> [that
On Sat, Jul 03, 2004 at 09:24:17PM +0200, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Jul 2004, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
[snip]
> IXes are not for "top carriers"
^^^
Like the economy, perhaps this is different in .se. But this is
NAnog to which you are sending the message
On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 04:56:46PM -0400, John Curran wrote:
[snip]
> Do you take on customers at rock-bottom prices which barely cover
> your out-of-pocket expenses, your payroll, and interest payments,
> or do you let them go to your competition because no revenue is
> better than revenue whi
On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 10:09:43AM -0600, Drumm, Dan wrote:
> I thought I'd ask NANOG this, since somebody may be from a large cable
> operator and may know. I am a Comcast customer and don't want to call
> this in through tech support, as I've tried that before without any
> success.
NANOG is no
[copius snips]
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 11:16:40AM -0400, Patrick W Gilmore wrote:
> On Aug 27, 2004, at 8:58 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
> >On 27 Aug 2004, at 08:13, Rick Lowery wrote:
> >>I know?they would not be?good Internet citizen, but?if they needed to
> >>do this for a temp basis does anyone see
On Sat, Sep 11, 2004 at 11:44:10AM -0600, Todd Mitchell - lists wrote:
>
> The weekend is quiet and I know that many of the people on this list
[snip]
'Quiet' isn't a bad thing. In an operations context it is a GOOD
thing. Please don't mistake volume for value.
Followup to /dev/null.
--
On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 01:29:44PM -0400, Daniel Golding wrote:
[snip]
> Another choice is to filter port 25. Filtering port 25 has its own
> costs - some users are offended/bothered by this, since they can't
> use their own corporate mail servers, in some cases.
[snip]
SUBMIT, SASL, etc. Thi
On Sat, Nov 13, 2004 at 03:31:26AM +, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
[snip]
> Of these listed 4 are cable companies, is there something in the cable
> modem networking that requires deaggregated routes beyond their borders?
No, for the general statement about 'cable modem networking'.
> Is the
On Fri, Nov 26, 2004 at 01:02:27AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Nov 2004, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> > > Possibly, whoever are the vendors of software that recommends this
> > > practice (and authors of security handbooks) should be show the error
> > > of their ways?
Never h
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 08:35:14PM +0200, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Aug 2003, Mike Donahue wrote:
> > My company owns a class C, and we're switching ISPs. The "new"
> > provider is telling us that they can start announcing, without us
> > having to tell the old provider to stop anno
On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 12:11:48PM -0500, John Palmer wrote:
[snip]
>Yes, some providers however react improperly to certain situations
> and do not listen to their paying customers.
>
> RCN in Chicago is one example. One day, they just started blocking
> outbound port 25 on their network. Now
On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 10:17:16AM +0100, Pendergrass, Greg wrote:
[snip]
> I haven't done a long-term look at RCP and netbios traffic on the
> web so I have no way to determine how much is blaster generated,
> does anyone have baseline information on the amount of RCP and
> netbios packets wer
On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 06:35:47PM -0400, McBurnett, Jim wrote:
> -RBOCs (note, not ILECs) cannot move inter-lata traffic without being
> -approved by PUC in each state for "interstate long distance". (I believe
> -this is part of 1984 MFJ).
>
> -CLECs have no restrictions on that. Neither do no
Funny, I didn't think this was 'aol-mail-policy-list'.
This isn't new, crazy, nor out of step with generally accepted
practices. They [and many others] have been doing it for a
while. A dynamic block is generally listed as such in a service
provider's reverse DNS and also often in a volunta
On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 02:01:39PM -0400, Matt Larson wrote:
[snip]
> We are interested in feedback on the best way within the SMTP protocol
> to definitively reject mail at these servers. One alternate option we
[snip]
Wrong protocol. There should be *NO* SMTP transactions for
non-extistant d
On Tue, Nov 25, 2003 at 08:13:49AM +0100, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
>
> On Tue, 25 Nov 2003, Michael Whisenant wrote:
>
> > Well looks like that have more BOGON problems. They are sending
> > 128.161.0.0/3. These guys love claiming default gateway traffic?
>
> 168.0.0.0/6 194.85.4.249
On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 03:50:21PM -0500, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
> Jaideep Chandrashekar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[snip]
> > 11608 2914 1239 12064 22773 12064 11836
> > 1221 4637 1239 12064 22773 12064 11836
[snip]
> In many (most?) these "loops" are intentional, and a result of playing
> pr
On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 04:36:03PM +0100, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
>
> On 24.02 23:20, Randy Bush wrote:
> >
> > BGP routing table entry for 168.0.0.0/6, version 7688303
> > ...
> > 3277 13062 20485 20485 20485 8437 3303
> > 194.85.4.249 from 194.85.4.249 (194.85.4.249)
> > Origin IG
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 09:24:44PM -0500, Sean Donelan wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Mar 2004, E.B. Dreger wrote:
> > SD> They saw no _net_ savings.
> > SD>
> > SD> In the real world, it costs more to deploy and maintain
> > SD> SAV/uRPF.
[snip]
In the real word, there are different networks with different
On Sun, Apr 11, 2004 at 03:36:44AM +, Paul Vixie wrote:
[snip]
> in another thread tonight i see subjects like "lazy network
> operators" and at first glance, those are the people you're
> describing (who don't really care.)
>
> however, that's simple-minded. "because of the way tcp/ip
>
On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 02:15:45PM -0500, Nick Feamster wrote:
[snip]
> This is a losing proposition. The data in the IRR, CA, or any mechanism
> that is updated out-of-band from the protocol itself will inherently be
> out-of-sync.
Provisioning systems are out of synch with the protocol, but
On Wed, Feb 15, 2006 at 06:51:16PM -0800, John A. Kilpatrick wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Feb 2006, Edward B. DREGER wrote:
>
> >Stop. Examine. Think. Then respond.
Something about history repeating applies. those who weren't around
then should re-visit tli's ISPAC proposal from 96 and the associated
On Thu, Feb 23, 2006 at 04:27:52AM +0200, Gadi Evron wrote:
[snip]
> Hi Chris, thanks for your reply. I was just told by the admin team to
> keep DNS operational issues off-list.
I deo not believe this. You didn't notice the Monday plenary session
at NANOG 36 meeting was all DNS?
http://www.
On Sat, Feb 25, 2006 at 08:41:01AM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> robt wrote:
[snip]
> > Limit recursion to trusted netblocks and customers. Do not permit
> > your name servers to provide recursion for the world. If you do,
> > you will contribute to one of these attacks.
>
> r
On Sat, Apr 01, 2006 at 05:25:40AM -0500, Sean Donelan wrote:
[snip]
> But I think Mr. Stephenson's point was a network bottleneck is not always
> based on the access link speed some ISPs put in their advertising. Just go
> to any ISP user forum and you will see long threads complaining they can
>
On Fri, Apr 07, 2006 at 01:13:19PM +0200, Alexander Koch wrote:
>
> On Fri, 7 April 2006 07:03:09 -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> > Can you give us some examples so us "dumb Americans" can more
> > precisely explain the problem? :)
He did.
> When a random customer (content hoster) asks you
On Tue, May 02, 2006 at 10:38:22PM -0700, Robert Sherrard wrote:
>
> What make a provider a tier 2, versus a tier 1 provider...
Marketing.
The nomenclature is a completelyy irrelevant hangover of
the NSFnet days when people thought in terms of "the backbone".
If your providers' value is only
On Fri, Sep 08, 2006 at 05:57:10PM +0300, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
>
> On Fri, 8 Sep 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Strike me as curious, but this seems as if Connexion by Boeing is handing
> off a /24 from ASN to ASN as a certain plane moves over certain geographic
> areas. Or is there som
On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 02:45:58PM -0400, Daniel Golding wrote:
> Joe makes a good point. Everyone is shouting "no one owns IP
> addresses", but that is proof by assertion.
...as is asserting that marketplace economics work for any and
all things. I lean toward low-regulation myself - why wo
On Thu, Aug 16, 2007 at 10:55:59PM +0200, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
[snip]
> We've been pitching the idea to bittorrent tracker authors to include a
> BGP feed and prioritize peers that are in the same ASN as the user
> himself, but they're having performance problems already so they're not so
On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 11:02:28AM -0700, Adam Clark wrote:
[snip]
> We have some migrations to do from one space to another and having
> the ability to do some /24 advertisements during that period would
> be greatly helpful.
Always assume you have no visibility everywhere and that your
squeaki
On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 01:46:18PM -0700, Rick Kunkel wrote:
[snip]
> Is SMTP to a mobile phone a fundamentally flawed way to do this?
Yes - think of the dependency chain involved. Years ago, hacking
hylafax (or similar DTMF sources) to dial directly to pagers was
a commonplace solution.
Cheer
On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 09:03:35AM +0100, Andy Davidson wrote:
> On 19 Sep 2007, at 06:22, chk 543 wrote:
> >Is there a standard prefix length most providers filter on, or is
> >there a way to find out what each provider filters on? We have been
> >assigned a /22 and are wondering if we will h
On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 10:28:52AM -0400, NetSecGuy wrote:
>
> :~> whois 97.81.31.19
> Unknown AS number or IP network. Please upgrade this program.
>
> Is this a function of whois hardcoded to no do lookups for this
[snip]
You are running some old version of whois - thanks for providing
no OS
On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 10:00:41PM +, Paul Vixie wrote:
[snip]
> the second plain text assertion which caught my eye was:
>
> Why is this happening? There are a few possibilities. First, Cogent
> may simply want revenue from the networks it has de-peered, in the
> form of In
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 05:43:03PM -0400, [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
>
On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 08:08:47AM +0800, Adrian Chadd wrote:
[snip]
> So which ISPs have contributed towards more intelligent p2p content
> routing and distribution; stuff which'd play better with their networks?
> Or are you all busy being purely reactive?
A quick google search found the one
On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 12:55:08PM +1300, Simon Lyall wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Oct 2007, Sean Donelan wrote:
> > Its not just the greedy commercial ISPs, its also universities,
> > non-profits, government, co-op, etc networks. It doesn't seem to matter
> > if the network has 100Mbps user connections o
On Sun, Oct 21, 2007 at 10:45:49PM -0400, Geo. wrote:
[snip]
> Second, the more people on your network running fileshare network software
> and sharing, the less backbone bandwidth your users are going to use when
> downloading from a fileshare network because those on your network are
> going
On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 01:18:01PM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>
> On 22-okt-2007, at 18:12, Sean Donelan wrote:
>
> >Network operators probably aren't operating from altruistic
> >principles, but for most network operators when the pain isn't
> >spread equally across the the customer
On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 03:13:42AM +, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
>
> According to
> http://torrentfreak.com/comcast-throttles-bittorrent-traffic-seeding-impossible/
> Comcast's blocking affects connections to non-Comcast users. This
> means that they're trying to manage their upstream connect
On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 05:45:36AM -0800, Joshman at joshman dot com wrote:
> Hello all,
> As a general rule, is it best practice to assign x.x.x.0 and
> x.x.x.255 as host addresses on /23 and larger?
Yes. Efficient address utilization is a Good Thing.
> I realize that technically they are
On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 09:50:13AM -0500, Jon Lewis wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Jan 2008, Joe Provo wrote:
>
> >Yes. Efficient address utilization is a Good Thing.
> >
> >>I realize that technically they are valid addresses, but does anyone
> >>assign a node or serv
On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 03:04:37PM -0500, Deepak Jain wrote:
[snip]
> However, my question is simply.. for ISPs promising broadband service.
> Isn't it simpler to just announce a bandwidth quota/cap that your "good"
> users won't hit and your bad ones will?
Simple bandwidth is not the issue.
On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 01:44:00PM +0100, Phil Regnauld wrote:
[snip]
Also missed Middle East Network Operators Group (MENOG):
http://www.menog.net/
Better still would be some links to aggregate lists:
- http://www.nanog.org/orgs.html
- http://www.bugest.net/nogs.html
- http://nanog.cluepon.
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 12:31:33PM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 11:55 AM, Paul Ferguson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> > It should be simple -- not require a freeking full-blown "standard".
>
> Its a standard. And it allows automated parsing of these com
On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 01:07:56PM -0400, Alex Rubenstein wrote:
[snip]
> What I've never understood is, that, how a gov't issue ID (for the
> purposes of allowing entry) is of any use whatsoever.
No matter how easy to forge, *requiring* them raises the risk/reward
bar. Penalties for forging Q R
On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 09:38:10AM -0800, matthew zeier wrote:
> Are there any practical issues with announcing the same route behind
> different ASNs?
[snip]
In addition to all the sound advice already provided, I would add that
if you decide to do something unusual, make sure the documentation
According to Chungwa, Sea-Me-We3 and APCN2 are affected.
Satellite connectivity is already being mentioned for
supplanting surviving regional connectivity.
--
RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE
On Thu, Dec 28, 2006 at 02:06:30PM -0500, Daniel Golding wrote:
[snip]
> Time for a colocation reality check.
[snip]
> Until supply catches up to demand, only price and power will matter
> to most folks, along with an acceptable level of facility redundancy
> (Tier III for most).
One 'realit
On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 02:08:21PM +0100, Arnold Nipper wrote:
[snip]
> Which vendor is already shipping ASN32 capable bgp code?
When I last posed this question to folks in December, Vendor
C had it live in 3.4 IOX now and had no timing details for
'vanilla' IOS, but committed to it getting do
On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 07:05:25AM -0800, Matthew Black wrote:
[snip]
> This presupposes that corporations have a more significant claim
> to domain names than individuals.
Wrong; that kind of policy does -and did when enforced back in
the InterNIC days when the generic TLDs were meaningful- no
On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 01:39:54PM -0500, Pete Crocker wrote:
[snip]
> First, they've got a BGP full mesh of all their routers. They're
> considering moving towards route reflectors. There's 2 core routers
> per-POP. And anywhere between 5 and 15 edge/aggregation routers in a
> POP. The curr
On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 10:59:50AM -0700, Danny McPherson wrote:
[snip]
> o If you're going to use redistribution - or not - ensure that all
> external advertisement policies require explicit match of advertise
> communities and default is to deny
This should be just good security policy. I think
On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 11:16:03AM -0400, Jon Lewis wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Apr 2007, Jason Lewis wrote:
> >I'm seeing this announced at CIXP
> >
> >Collector: CIXP
> >Prefix: 128.0.0.0/2
> >Last update time: 2007-04-27 07:36:30Z
> >Peer: 192.65.185.140
> >Origin: 29222
> >
> >My question is, wh
On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 03:42:27PM -0500, Jack Bates wrote:
[snip]
> You work so hard to defend people that exploit children? Interesting. We
> are talking LEA here and not the latest in piracy law suits. The #1 request
> from a LEA in my experience concerns child exploitation.
Highly likely fo
On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 03:08:06PM +, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
[snip]
> This is sort of the point of the NRIC document/book... 'we need to
> find/make/use a directory system for the internet' then much talk of how
> "dns was supposed to be that but for a number of reasons it's not,
> google/ is
On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 06:47:30PM +0200, Daniele Arena wrote:
[snip]
> Traffic matrices (at least up to now and AFAIK) have only been built
> by traffic measurements by IXPs whose switches all support sFlow. Not
> all switches do, so not many IXPs have that feature.
>
> Several IXPs have traffic
82 matches
Mail list logo
