Request for participation - Arbor 2010 Worldwide Infrastructure Security
Report.
-
Folks,
We're in the process of collecting feedback for the 2010 Worldwide
Infrastructure Security Report (WWISR); this is the Sixth Edition of the
report, and we'd really be grateful for your participatio
On Sat, 2 Oct 2010 22:27:32 -0300
jim deleskie wrote:
> If you can do a business case to support replacing routers every 3years you
> doing much better then most. IMO a router should last 5 yrs on the book,
> but I expect to get more life then then from it. You core today
> is tomorrow's edge.
On Oct 3, 2010, at 7:26 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> Do you think there is value in creating a system like this?
>
> yes. though, given issues of errors and deliberate falsifications, i am
> not entirely comfortable with the whois/bgp combo being considered
> formally authoritative. but we have to
> Do you think there is value in creating a system like this?
yes. though, given issues of errors and deliberate falsifications, i am
not entirely comfortable with the whois/bgp combo being considered
formally authoritative. but we have to do something.
> Are there any glaring holes that I miss
I ask:
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 5:47 PM, wrote:
>i find myself in need of a multiport (8-16) 1 Gig ethernet HUB.
>
>or a switch smart enough to do transparant port mirroring to at least
>
>four ports.
In message <2fb9deb1-95b5-4a26-8723-35f157f98...@arin.net>,
John Curran wrote:
>There is no problem with also marking resource records which have no valid
>POC's (even if not specifically stated by policy). It is an operational qu
>estion
>not a resource policy question, and we generally handl
On Oct 3, 2010, at 7:24 AM, "Ronald F. Guilmette"
wrote:
> I'm sitting here looking at your NRPM 3.6 and it says:
>
> Unresponsive POC email addresses shall be marked as such in the database.
>
> OK, Fine. So do you have a problem with ``marking those in the data base''
> and specifically wi
Ability to route IPv6 != ability to route IPv6 as well as IPv4. Depending on
the hardware, there will always be unavoidable tradeoffs, which tend to be
either in reduced throughput capacity, typically noticed on particularly on
software-switching platforms, or the number of routes/ACLs/etc you c
Most of the discussions around RPKI Resource Certification that have been held
up to now have largely revolved around infrastructure and policy topics. I
would like to move away from that here and discuss what kind of value and which
features can be offered with Certification for network adminis
Ronald,
A better channel for your anger would be the transit providers:
AS3257 Tinet SpA
AS3549 Global Crossing
AS577 Bell Canada
Have you tipped them off? Why are they continuing to accept and
re-advertise these prefixes?
ARIN's done nothing wrong or counter to their policies. If you don
I'm tasked to replace our core switches which run Extreme 6800's. You are right
that some older gear says they support IPv6,
but then you find out it's not 100% fully compliant. Our switch is about 6-8
years old I beleive so it's time to update them.
We're thinking about the Cisco 6504e. Anythin
> So OK, John... Can you explain yourself... please? Why did you say you
> were accepting my request into your suggestion box, when it appears that
> ARIN has already been doing exactly the thing I asked for... even if only
> haphazardly, in a disorganized way, and only within a limited number of
In message ,
John Curran wrote:
>On Oct 3, 2010, at 5:15 AM, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
>
>> Is that a "Yes, ARIN will begin immeditely putting these annotations into
>> all of the AS and IP records associated with POCs we already know are
>> uncontactable" ?
>
>That's a "No".
>
>I'd say "Yes" t
On Oct 3, 2010, at 5:15 AM, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
> Is that a "Yes, ARIN will begin immeditely putting these annotations into
> all of the AS and IP records associated with POCs we already know are
> uncontactable" ?
That's a "No".
I'd say "Yes" to "Is ARIN is implementing the policy at NR
In message <3070d3c0-513d-4cb9-8ec2-eb22ca52a...@arin.net>,
John Curran wrote:
>On Oct 3, 2010, at 3:51 AM, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
>> Comment:The information for this network has been reported to
>> Comment:be invalid. ARIN has attempted to obtain updated data, but
>> has
On Oct 3, 2010, at 3:51 AM, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
> So while I was looking at the WHOIS records for the set of blocks that were
> (apparently now past tense) being 'jacked by AS14202 earlier today (Saturday)
> I happened to come across the following annotation in one of the relevant
> IP bloc
In message <17104.1285997...@tristatelogic.com>, I wrote:
>>> If you can put an annotation into a whois records for a POC,
>>> saying explicity that you can't get ahold of this person, then it would
>>> seem to me to be a rather trivial matter of programming to transplant
>>> a very similar sort
From: "Brandon Kim"
To: fra...@genius.com, nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Saturday, 2 October, 2010 6:22:27 PM
Subject: RE: router lifetime
Well a lot of routers even 3 years ago support IPv6. You can dual-stack pretty
much any router today if you have
the right IOS. But I do understand your con
18 matches
Mail list logo
