Possibly not what you are looking for, might be more than you are looking
for, but SOMA Networks has a 3G'ish wireless platform which does land-line
quality voice and very respectable data rates. You need a chunk of
spectrum though.
http://www.somanetworks.com
On Tue, 16 Apr 2002 [EMAIL PR
is anybody else receiving this spam when they advertise a new AS nowadays?
(i'm trying to figure out which whois information is being policy-violated
and who to complain about, but if i'm the only one receiving it, i may JHD.)
re:
# From: "Antony Gullusci" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
# To: <[EMAIL PROTE
i quoted somebody as saying:
> >> :0
> >> * ^From:.*<[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> /dev/null
and was told by an actual procmail user the following:
> That regex needs some work (the left-angle bracket excludes messages sent
> with a bare address), and:
>
> > it does no good for me to filter out the
of implementation right out of the gate. I am sure you probably thought of
this, but what happens if I spoof an ICMP Go Away? Keeping things like this
within the protocol that takes care of authorization (of transmissions) is a
logical choice, I would think.
Paul
- Original Message
I'm looking for a company whom can deliver a 2mb SDH, MPLS VPN, ATM or
10mb EoMPLS connection between Oregon/Salem and Telehouse North, London
Please contact me off list.
--
Paul Watson #
Oninit Ltd # Growing old is mandatory
Tel: +44 1436 672201# Gr
country I happen to live in, you do not need
'authority' to express your opinions. If your country is different, I offer
my condolences.
Paul
andy,
From: "Andy Dills" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> On 23 Dec 2003, Paul Vixie wrote:
>
> > > You'd be hard pressed to frame what NJABL does in terms of "abuse",
> > > because of the intent, and because of the actual bit volume involved.
andy,
From: "Andy Dills" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, Paul wrote:
>
> > if i parsed paul's post correctly, that is exactly what he is saying. i
> > agree. his logic and the statement you consider ridiculous make perfect
> >
daniel,
they are a cw customer - http://www.fixedorbit.com/AS/20/AS20473.htm
some of their gear is in the cw dc in jersey city.
paul
- Original Message -
From: "Daniel Roesen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, January 02, 2004 8:50 AM
no need to look closer, im reasonably familiar with who they do business
with. i was merely correcting the 'they are not a cw customer' statement. i
wish whoever tries good luck in getting this filtered.
paul
- Original Message -
From: "Richard Cocks" <[EMAI
michael,
imagestream does this, afaik. not too familiar with their offerings though.
paul
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 5:02 AM
Subject: Re: /24s run amuck
>
> >Why vendors feel the
gt; almost all times I hear people saying there is problem with Zebra or
Quagga,
> more than half of all times it is problem with their OS, not the daemon.
... and we care because? the router is a black box. if the output is not
what is expected, it matters not why. though understandable, it is still not
acceptable.
paul
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "james" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Danny
Burns" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, Januar
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "james" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Danny
Burns" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, Januar
thread was
> XO. Do I take it then that XO provides for DDoS downtime in its SLA?
correct me if i am wrong, but uunet's sla extends to response time - the
efficacy of the response is not guaranteed, yes? hence, it is not downtime
that is compensated for, but rather unavailability of support.
paul
forwarded with permission.
> From: "Bob Bradlee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Paul Vixie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 11:16:17 -0400
> X-Mailer: PMMail 2000 Professional (2.20.2717) For Windows 2000 (5.1.2600;2)
> Subject: Re: rack po
> I have a need for a 1U that will just act as a backup (higher MX) mailserver
> and, occasionally, deliver some large .iso images at under 10Mbit/Sec
> :) And I'm sure that there are other technically saavy users just like me
> that could help you out with this "surplus" space! :)
see http
. That's handled internally here. When EP.Net receives a request
for a PAIX-handled block, they forward the request to us.
--
Paul Vixie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
President, PAIX.Net Inc. (NASD:MFNX)
http://www.spambouncer.org
I have no connection to this software other than being a satisfied user.
-Paul
At 07:29 PM 2/28/2002, Nicole Harrington wrote:
> Hi
> Does anyone know of a program that can flag such things and alter mail
> headers
>on the fly like this?
>
>
s many customers as long as we can for added shareholder value",
you can have a look at my brand new shiny ticket of today's episode of
NetSol, 1-17GPVQ.
Paul, convinced that by the time he dies, Verisign will have problems
doing his grave locatinregistration for the NL.
--
"It ta
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Constantinos A. Kotsokalis") writes:
> What other options can you think of?
http://www.rhyolite.com/dcc/
e kind words. And if you've ever got a problem with PAIX,
you know who to yell at.
--
Paul Vixie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
President, PAIX.Net Inc. (NASD:MFNX)
; once it is built?
Speaking for PAIX, we build where our customers tell us to.
--
Paul Vixie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
President, PAIX.Net Inc. (NASD:MFNX)
> > you know who to yell at.
>
> Until MFN sells them in coming months in their attempts to pay off
> billions of dollars of debt...
No change is expected in "who you yell at if PAIX isn't doing a good job."
(That is, "me.")
--
Paul Vixie <
how is your "collector" attached to your network
as well as to the outside world?
At 09:14 AM 3/26/2002, Chris Pace wrote:
>Yes, it is forwarding bgp routes. However, it has no serial lines connected.
>Do you think it is causing unnecessary traffic ?
>Thanks
>
>- Original Message -
>
not seen anything official from ICANN (not that
> anyone cares what ICANN thinks).
I'm not certain that this is entirely accurate. Certainly, ns0.ja.net has
had two IP addresses for as long as I can remember (at least for the last
five years...) and has been happily reflected in the whois and .net zone.
--
Paul
> The MAE in Phoenix was originally constructed by Dave Siegel
> and it ran from 1996 through 1998/9.
and if anybody thinks phoenix still/again needs an exchange point,
i'd thank you very much for contacting me about it off-list.
--
Paul Vixie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Pr
* To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Subject: Legal Recourse
* From: "Nick Catalano" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2002 19:07:46 -0600
Recently my personal system has been attacked by
someone from the IRC
channel #nanog on EFNet. This along with multiple
instances of
showing/provi
> I seem to remember fast switching was per-destination, and CEF was
> round robin. But it seems CEF is now per-destination as well in IOS 12.2.
> Round robin is optional.
CEF is flow-hashed, and the hash seems to include both source and
destination, and seems to include the port numbers. This
> packet reordering at MAE East was extremely common a few years ago. Does
> anyone have information whether this is still happening?
more to the point, does anybody still care about packet reordering at
exchange points? we (paix) go through significant effort to prevent it,
and interswitch tru
> H. You're right. I lost sight of the original thread...
> GigE inter-switch trunking at PAIX. In that case, congestion
> _should_ be low, and there shouldn't be much queue depth.
indeed, this is the case. we keep a lot of headroom on those trunks.
> But this _does_ bank on current "re
We used to pay $150 or so to attend NANOG conferences.
Why are we charged $300 now? Where is our $150,000+
going?
Inflation?
Are we paying for the salaries and RIPE attendance of
MERIT employees, and to what tune?
Conference space is free or greatly subsidized in
return for room blocks. C
> Routers are not non-blocking devices. When an output port is blocked,
> packets going to that port must be either buffered or dropped. While it's
> obviously possible to drop them, like ATM/FR carriers do, ISPs have found
> they have much happier customers when they do a reasonable amount of
> While acknowledging that a data center may make any rules it likes, I
> am asking nanog how common this practice is.
"data center" is too amorphous a term to be used here. private data centers
owned by banks or insurance companies aren't relevant at all. telco motels
aren't really data c
> > there's no answer to the question, as posed. "can you be more specific?"
>
> I think the poster was inquiring as to common practice.
Yes, but there isn't going to be a common practice for "data centers" as
a whole. There's going to be a common practice for telco/fiber hotels,
and a common
> ... So - that is the larger picture, but was not my question to NANOG.
>
> We wish to be able to provide this peering, but we find that UUnets
> cross-connect policy interferes with our aims - as it requires potential
> peers in the data center to separately purchase connectivity to us (in
> t
according to http://root-servers.org/, dns transactions concerning rfc1918
address space are now being served by an anycast device near you (no matter
who you might be, or where.) there will eventually be official statistics,
but i thought i'd give everybody a chance to clean up their houses fir
> > now as to who's responsible, first off you have to understand that we block
> > rfc1918-sourced packets at our AS boundary. (otherwise these numbers would
> > be Much Higher
>
> are you sure? i suspect they are windows 2000 systems behind NATs. so
> the dynamic update is for the 1918 addr
> > according to http://root-servers.org/, dns transactions concerning rfc1918
> > address space are now being served by an anycast device near you ...
>
> And right you are. However, pray tell, why doesn't bind feature a simple way
> to not log these spurious updates? As far as I can tell lots
here's another one that was sent personally but that i'm answering to the list:
> > i apologize for indicating that an AS owner ought to have been capturing
> > DNS updates for rfc1918 PTR's, since up until we put the servers into an
> > anycast block, this wasn't possible. now that it's possib
(received privately, answering publically)
> > any AS owner who wants to localize these updates can do so by simply
> > anycasting the 192.175.48/24 netblock and serving dns on .1,=20
> > .6, and .42.
>
> Will it be a _bad_ thing if I just null-route those addresses in a
> controlled/documented
> Why do we bother having "public" nameservers answering for this space at all?
>
> Why don't we have "blackhole-[12].iana.org" have A records of "127.0.0.1"?
127.0.0.1 is a convention, not a standard. and to the extent that it is ever
upgraded to a standard, i don't think putting A RR's point
On Mon, 22 Apr 2002, J.D. Falk wrote:
> Spam has reached such epic porportions
Indeed. I recently plotted my entire spam collection from 1997-now,
and it looks like an exponential problem :(
See http://www.xtdnet.nl/paul/spam/
Paul
--
"One liners are no liners."
--- Fenrir
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Eric A. Hall") writes:
> Clayton Fiske wrote:
>
> > [bind question]
>
> [bind answer]
this is nanog, you probably want bind-users[-request]@isc.org.
> Replacing the hints file with the top level zone speeds up lookups,
nope. there are less than 300 top level delegations, and a proper
caching implementation will only hit the roots once a week per tld.
> and removes the burden from the root servers:
wrong again. (consider the impact of all
as a coauthor of rfc2136, my curiousity is always
piqued when spammers use the technology. can i get
private forwards of other similar messages? (see
below.)
(and yes, i'll also be in touch with level3, who
serves 166.90.15.236, from whence this message came.)
(time was, anyone who could use
> I hate to sound like the big idiot here, but what exactly in the email
> you received indicates no-ip.com spammed? It looks to me like you just
> have some secret "admirer" who thought you wanted a no-ip.com account,
> and no-ip.com emailed you to confirm that you do want the account.
spam is
> ... I'm not sure entirely what the big deal with spam is. Honestly sure
> I get it like everyone else, in some of my accounts more than others
> ... I have a delete key ...
in the time between when you sent the above, and when i read it, the
following messages were added to my mailbox:
1+
> ... not only does it cost usually very little to receive these messages ...
even if i granted to a third party the right to determine the value of my
time, which i don't, the fact is that an hour or more of my time per day is
too high a price to pay "to receive these messages", by _any_ standa
> > Anyone have a good NOC contact for DEC, AS33? I checked Jared's NOC page
> > and I don't see them listed.
> when you find it, send it to me :)
you need number 6.
in order, as33 was maintained by:
1. brian reid
2. richard johnsson
3. me
4. stephen stuart
5. drew kramer
number six is
>
>
> What do you guess for the amortized cost/spam?
>
>
a cost that you are forced to pay in order to enrich somebody else is
theft, no matter how microscopic the payment might be. "we all know what
(they) are, now we're just arguing about the price."
> I do find it amusing that nobody re
> "There will be a day when folks will need to pay to transit email"
> (Paul Vixie, 1998).
>
> Still working on that better mouse trap?
well, other than that i wish i could charge _you_ for the spam i get
that's due to the several MAILTO:[EMAIL PROTECTED]'s on
> So far, other than Jared Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>'s calculation where
> he neither confirmed nor disputed $.02/email, I've yet to see *one*
> quantified per-message price bandied about..
I didn't even try. As a matter of principle, I reject the possibility that
others ought to be allowed to
f the expire date of the domain is only a week
away works wonders too.
Paul
ack
> > and realizing that PAIX services are OUTRAGEOUSLY priced vs the
> > competition. Some big carriers are turning down their PAIX switch
> > ports, even at Palo Alto.
>
> Which is why I was surprised that Paul offered PAIX-seattle connectivity
> for a $300 one-ti
> > It's not a rumour. PAIX is interconnecting with NYIIX as soon as the
> > fiber engineering people say that the photons will travel end to end.
>
> Will PAIX be around as an entity capable of providing any services in 3
> month?
PAIX is modestly profitable and has been for years. We are q
ds of climbing down into manholes that has to happen. I'm no fiber expert,
but the parent company (MFN) does employ such experts, so let's remain calm.
--
Paul Vixie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
President, PAIX.Net Inc. (NASD:MFNXE)
tions,
several Switch and Data locations, Dataplex (in Hungary), and e-exchange
at 200 Paul St in San Francisco. With more to come.
We have exchange agreements in place with SIX (active) and NYIIX (pending),
with more to come.
I welcome any further questions about PAIX's health or future. Wh
e working on the PAIX/NYIIX path who know a lot more
about fiber in general AND this plant in particular than I do.
--
Paul Vixie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
President, PAIX.Net Inc. (NASD:MFNX)
ring purposes and that multilaterals are kind of swampy. but
if there's interest, we'll find the old paperwork and shuffle it anew.
--
Paul Vixie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
President, PAIX.Net Inc. (NASD:MFNXE)
because it means they had INCOME to pay taxes on.
--
Paul Vixie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
President, PAIX.Net Inc. (NASD:MFNX)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Daniel Golding") writes:
> PAIX shares MFN/Abovenet's peering agreements? That's quite a trick. ...
No. PAIX has no peering agreements of any kind.
> This is not to slam PAIX or Paul Vixie - I'm a big PAIX fan, and Paul has
> done a supe
mentors nor been a mentor to any of the folks
who count me as having been one?
Is that how a college degree would have improved my career by age 39?
Sounds like a bad deal to me.
--
Paul Vixie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
President, PAIX.Net Inc.
I guess I've got a little bit of a mad on about this topic. Hit "D" now.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Paul A Flores") writes:
> What you have to remember is that having a degree or certification allows
> the non-clue full out in the 'real' world to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Randy Bush) writes:
> well, za and some of its principal subdomains are the highest error
> rate zones i secondary or use. but i can imagine a different part
> of the government doing an even funkier job. the contest is likely
> keen.
ISC has had very little in the way of p
of speakeasy.net, which I think resells internap
I'm sure there's a few other national networks, these are just the ones
I have heard of off the top of my head.
-Paul
On Thu, 2002-05-30 at 19:27, Brian wrote:
>
> Surprised there isnt much connectivity in the Detroit area, I
jdsu.com/site/images/products/pdf/Model1280GbX_092101.pdf
...which Pac*Bell SBC is using for its new "GigaMan" product.
--
Paul Vixie
> I am looking for a ballpark count concerning amount of current internet
> nodes. ( obviously not exact ) With data relevant to this year. Feel free
> to contact off-list.
http://www.isc.org/ds/
--
Paul Vixie
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Daniska Tomas") writes:
> a brief summary of responses up to now:
in response to my earlier reply on this topic, i was also pointed at
http://www.nbase-xyplex.com/products.html
which indeed shows how to do 65Km regen points. pretty cool other stuff too.
ere're also
Equinix and S&D facilities within a quarter mile of that intersection.
--
Paul Vixie
> : when this situation has existed in other industries, gov't intervention
> : has always resulted. even when the scope is international. i've not
> : been able to puzzle out the reason why the world's gov'ts have not
> : stepped in with some basic interconnection requirements for IP carriers.
> > ... A broadband provider who takes a "hell no, I won't buy" attitude
> > with a large tier 1 can drive Gigabits of traffic away from the tier
> > 1's revenue stream by peering around that provider and directing
> > traffic down paths that avoid the tier 1.
>
> "Peering around" only works if
r job on peering architecture than
is being done now. when i added my comments to the parent thread, i only
meant to indicate my surprise that such isn't being tried -- NOT any
disappointment.
--
Paul Vixie
o me that it's more likely to happen after paix has been sold,
or after mfn has completed its chapter 11 restructuring, or after both.
> Paul?
note that i'm a victim of the new economy. mfn axed the "president of paix"
job about a month ago, and so i am presently just a co
e subjects, but I was wondering if there are groups for people
> who have to handle the complaints.
I'd go for either alt.sysadmin.recovery, or if you're afraid your clients are
reading that, go for the bofh.* newsgroups :)
Paul
--
"Movie scripts no longer write, George Lucas shall"
> Hmm.. surely emailing everyone hoping for a quick change over for roots
> on parts of a fragmented root namespace is just asking for the fragments
> to fragment up some more?
>
> :)
it's a joke. i know it isn't april 1, so you have to look for subtleties.
> > For those of you who add the OR
> > > Sorry Paul, I guess you don't understand how those TLDTAG records work.
john's right, of course. there must've been a protocol upgrade while i
wasn't paying attention, so that a zone cut could have RR's other than
NS and various DNSSEC things. got an rf
> What is the connection between unregulated peering and the financial
> difficulties we have seen?
>
> The problems have been caused by:
>
> - Bad business models
> - Greed
> - Corporate officers who have shirked their fudiciary responsibilities to
> the stockholders
>
> If you can somehow
hods
were found to get something that looked an awful lot like "both peering and
transit", but for the most part abovenet was always seen by its customers
as an *alternative* to having to build a wide area network and employ BGP
engineers, since there would be just as much path splay at probably less
total cost and without the hassle of directly employing anybody who has
ever posted to NANOG. (for the most part we don't dress nicely and are a
surely a surly lot, but don't call me shirley.)
--
Paul Vixie
from that 3 second power outage, which
happened after 2pm I think. Perhaps it was the result of the bogus
routes being advertised by AS1200?
Makes you wonder, where did 25200Gb of traffic disappear to? :)
Paul
--
"Movie scripts no longer write, George Lucas shall"
ow this might work. "More later."
--
Paul Vixie
> ... beyond that, security and anycast don't mix well without the data
> being authenticated, e.g. dnssec.
i won't disagree. anycast's cost:benefit analysis is compellingly against
its use in most situations. root name service may be one of them. now, if
the ops community can figure out a wa
trongly hope that UUNT won't share WCOM's fate, if negative.
--
Paul Vixie
r a moment, the hamster dance multihoming
doesn't make the parent upstream need to _originate_ anything of the sort.
Paul
e not to honor this
community and why. If anyone on the list chooses not to I'd be
interested to hear (either on-list or off) the reasonings behind it.
Paul
one small note, in passing:
> In other words..intermittent intergap delay?
when PAIX sells what it calls Fractional Gig E, it's just Gig E with
rate limiting. nothing special at the link level.
will be
> able to grasp the purpose of the 2 BGP sessions (one of them
> ebgp-multihop) let alone fix it if something goes wrong?
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2519.txt
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1771.txt
Typically one does not call another a "NOC monkey" unless they have
demostrated to have a higher level understanding of the technologies at
play.
- Paul
ligent. I do. I guess
> you can call me stupid.
Carriers is a plural word.. How does that not accomplish redundancy again?
- Paul
x27;t know/care about/have to deal with it.
draft-ietf-ptomaine-bgp-redistribution-00.txt has some really good knobs
to twist in order to engineer your traffic without making the rest of the
world suffer. If/when it goes RFC getting people to actually make use of
it will be painful, but atleast the horse is being taken to water.
- Paul
m the kpn/qwest deal
saw it as a good thing, but older customers probably wish it hadn't happened.)
--
Paul Vixie
quot; and the answers were apparently non-pretty.
(disclaimer: i've got nothing against Q or WCOM per se.)
--
Paul Vixie
f /24's out there. Multihomers with slightly larger
basements (6-10 /24's) account for 10% of the total. That leaves the
remaining 70% of /24's in the DFZ announced by people pushing out over 10
/24's from their AS. Interpret however you will (I tend to lean
towards Richard's take on the situation.)
- Paul
P's are grossly negligent for not doing
edge RPF since at least 1996 is not debatable. Cut Mr. Clark *that* slack,
even if you must (righteously, I might add) blast him on other issues.
--
Paul Vixie
> > When I tell USG how I feel, they seem to ignore me. Your mileage may vary.
>
> True enough. But their machines could always be removed from the
> list of known root servers, and I don't think that there's much they
> could do about it.
that is absolutely false, in several different
ve with LMI.
If on the other hand the MTBF is best measured in months or years, then when
it does fail the failure is likely to be *in* the extra complexity you added.
--
Paul Vixie
st got added with Neighbor
> Discovery on IPv6.
if so, then, you misunderstand.
--
Paul Vixie
> I suppose the discussion is what do you want from your exchange pt
> operator and what do you NOT want.
At the IXP level, "bits per month" always trumps "bits per second",
and usually trumps "pennies per bit" as well. There are now a number
of companies trying to sell wide area ethernet -- e
after six reports that 192.5.5.241's address has been forged as the source
of a tcp "fragmented scan" probe, i'm ready to have it stop. but just in
case it doesn't, this is fair warning to the community: F's address is in
unlawful use by as-yet-unidentified third parties.
re:
--- Forwarded
> How about <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>?
> Wasn't this set up for this very purpose?
Nobody goes there any more, it's too crowded.
--
Paul Vixie
totalitarian regime". Save it, please -- I can
write, have written, and will write that whitepaper myself. This is not
the same topic. I want to know what the homeland security department is
likely to do about all this, not what is good/bad for the citizens of
hostile nations or even nonhostile nations.)
--
Paul Vixie
1 - 100 of 1622 matches
Mail list logo
