For general information:
http://www.radb.net
--
Larry J. Blunk
Merit Network, Inc. Ann Arbor, Michigan
- 9:30 PM to accept feedback and questions
on the IRRToolSet.
For further information or questions, please contact
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Larry J. Blunk
Merit
On Tue, 2005-03-01 at 16:40 -0600, Jeff Bartig wrote:
>
> > On 2/28/05 1:30 PM, "Dan Lockwood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I'm in a disagreement with ARIN about my application for bulk whois
> > > data. I've got a software program that needs resolve AS numbers to the
> > > Compa
On Tue, 2005-03-15 at 15:03 -0800, Bruce Pinsky wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Brett Watson wrote:
> | On 3/15/05 3:11 AM, "Ziggy David Lubowa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> |
> |
> |>
> |>On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 17:51:32 +0800 (CST), Joe Shen wrote
> |>
> |>>Yes. Can I
On Sat, 2005-05-21 at 16:03 -0400, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
> Look at it this way: do you think that (a) most
> sites will publish their policies in the registry, and (b) they'll
> remember to update them? As Randy has noted, we have a decade of
> experience suggesting that neither is true.
On Mon, 2005-05-23 at 10:11 -0400, Randy Bush wrote:
> > If you look back to the NSFNet days (prior to a decade ago) and
> > the PRDB (Policy Routing Database), you might very well draw a
> > different conclusion.
>
> indeed, one of utter disaster. it would take days or weeks
> before one could
This past April, Merit announced it's intention to begin removing
RADB registry objects due to non-payment of the annual maintainer fee.
At this point, the unpaid maintainer clean-up process is considered
complete. When the clean-up was announced, there were approximately
3150 maintainers regi
>
> Previously, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > AS690521 326 19537.4% MERIT-AS-27 Merit Network Inc
>.
>
> Come on, Susan, have your folks get with the program. :-)
>
> --
> Douglas A. Dever [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 216.373.8517 - DID
> 216.401.5888 - Cell
Regards,
Larry J. Blunk
Merit RADB
>
> On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, Ejay Hire wrote:
>
> > Er, guys... How does this fix the problem of a Malicious user
> > advertising a more specific bogon route?
>
> Come on...clearly you haven't been paying attention.
>
> You need LDAP filters. LDAP filters and a South Vietnamese revolution
> agai
> I agree.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Rick Duff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 2:09 PM
> To: 'Larry J. Blunk'; 'Andy Dills'
> Cc: 'Ejay Hire'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: 69/8...this sucks
>
>
>
> Not true. An ISP can choose to allow NAT and wireless or not allow it.
> This is the ISPs choice. The law is designed to protect the ISPs rights
> from existing technology so that the ISP can bill appropriately
> according to what service is being used. This does not mean that every
> I
> On Sun, Mar 30, 2003 at 03:58:17AM -0500, Larry J. Blunk wrote:
> >The problem is that these laws not only outlaw the use of NAT devices
> > where prohibited, but also the sale and possession of such devices.
> > Futher, I think many would disagree that the use of
> Larry J. Blunk wrote:
> >
> >I'm not trying to justify allowing the use of NAT where it is
> > prohibited by a terms of service agreement and thus grounds for
> > termination of service. However, going beyond termination of
> > service and making t
On Wednesday 24 November 2004 14:21, Paul Ryan wrote:
> Just a quick question regarding RADB - how are you guys dealing with abuse
> complaints sent to the "radb-notify" or "radb-maint" e-mail addresses. I
> have some ideas but wanted to get a concensus from the commmunity ...
>
> Thoughts anyone
.
If you'd like to discuss this further, I'd suggest we move this
to [EMAIL PROTECTED] rather than spending additional NANOG bandwidth
on it (and if there is any other interest out there, please feel free
to let us know at this address as well).
Regards,
Larry J. Blunk
Merit
On Tue, 2003-11-04 at 10:51, Randy Bush wrote:
> > Those options are not mutually exclusive, and, while I agree that
> > it would be better if the RIR's accepted generic GPG keys along
> > the lines of what RADB does, the X.509 certificate is not a bad
> > first step. At least it's better than Ma
Apologies for the issues. We had a switch failure last
night and while a replacement switch is now in place, there are
still a few transition issues being resolved.
-Larry Blunk
Merit
John van Oppen wrote:
Yep, works from my other desk machine... Same subnet, different IP as
well.
You might want to consider client side load balancing --
http://www.digital-web.com/articles/client_side_load_balancing/
Joe Shen wrote:
hi,
we plan to set up a web site with two web servers.
The two servers should be under the same domain
name. Normally, web surfing load sho
Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 6:38 PM, Jeff Aitken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
IMHO a better use of our time would be to solve the underlying technical
issue(s). Whether it's soBGP, sBGP, or something else, we need to figure
out how to make one of these proposals w
Randy Bush wrote:
I believe whoever shows off a functional NAT-PT device at the next NANOG
might get some praise. I heard it was a bit of a disaster.
by the time the show got to apnic/apricot the week after nanog, we had
the cisco implementation of nat-pt and totd working and it worked we
Randy Bush wrote:
And the NAT-PT implementation at NANOG (naptd) did seem
to work once some configuration issues were ironed out. Unfortunately,
this was not resolved until the very end of the meeting.
your made heroic efforts with the linux nat-pt, and finally got it. but
do you think
Chris L. Morrow wrote:
On Tue, 29 May 2007, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
# traceroute6 www.nanog.org
traceroute6: hostname nor servname provided, or not known
That would be a start... It took years to get the IETF to eat its own
dog food, though.
i suspect the merit/nanog folks invol
23 matches
Mail list logo
