On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 00:58, David Conrad wrote:
> On Nov 1, 2010, at 6:42 PM, Nathan Eisenberg wrote:
>>> My guess is that the millions of residential users will be less and
>>> less enthused with (pure) PA each time they change service providers...
>> That claim seems to be unsupported by curre
On Nov 1, 2010, at 6:42 PM, Nathan Eisenberg wrote:
>> My guess is that the millions of residential users will be less and
>> less enthused with (pure) PA each time they change service providers...
> That claim seems to be unsupported by current experience. Please elaborate.
Currently, most resi
> My guess is that the millions of residential users will be less and
> less enthused with (pure) PA each time they change service providers...
That claim seems to be unsupported by current experience. Please elaborate.
Nathan
On Nov 1, 2010, at 5:23 PM, Karl Auer wrote:
> It's not a one size fits all situation.
Right. There are folks who are more than happy (in fact demand) to pay the
RIRs for PI space and pay their ISPs to get that space routed. There are
(probably) folks who are perfectly happy with PA and accept
In message <7e9af5e9-7b3a-4767-a1d3-8eab64031...@delong.com>, Owen DeLong write
s:
>
> On Nov 1, 2010, at 4:40 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> >=20
> > In message =
> , Mich
> > el de Nostredame writes:
> >> On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 6:06 PM, Jeroen van Aart =
> wrote:
> >>> I battled for a few hours
On Mon, 2010-11-01 at 20:03 -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Interesting... I guess controlling your own internet fate hasn't been a
> priority for the companies where you've worked. Not one of my clients
> or the companies I have worked for has even given a second thought
> to approving the cost of ad
On Nov 1, 2010, at 4:40 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> In message ,
> Mich
> el de Nostredame writes:
>> On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 6:06 PM, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
>>> I battled for a few hours getting IPv6 rDNS to work. The following tool
>>> proved to be quite helpful:
>>> http://www.fpsn.net/?pg=
Owen,
On Nov 1, 2010, at 4:59 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Yes, one time.
>
> Truly one time.
>
> No other fees.
Let's say you returned all your IPv4 address space.
What would happen if you then stopped paying?
Regards,
-drc
On Nov 1, 2010, at 4:12 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>>> It cost me $625 (or possibly less) one-time when I first got it.
>
> one time? truely one time? no other fees or strings?
>
> randy
Yes, one time.
Truly one time.
No other fees. The $100/year I was already paying for my other resources
cove
On Nov 1, 2010, at 4:19 PM, Karl Auer wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-11-01 at 15:26 -0700, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
>> Karl Auer wrote:
>>> That was with the waivers in force. It will soon cost a one-time US
>>> $1250. We could argue till the cows come home about what proportion of
>>> the population would
Thank you Richard your reply was very helpful.
Cheers
Ryan
-Original Message-
From: Richard A Steenbergen [mailto:r...@e-gerbil.net]
Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 10:37 PM
To: Ryan Finnesey
Cc: NANOG list
Subject: Re: Equinix of Candia?
On Mon, Nov 01, 2010 at 06:31:34PM -0700, Ryan F
On Mon, Nov 01, 2010 at 06:31:34PM -0700, Ryan Finnesey wrote:
> Equinix only has one center within Toronto. Is there someone with a
> larger number of centers across the country?
I'm assuming when you say "like Equinix" you mean a carrier neutral colo
where you can buy from, sell to, and inter
We have national coverage on several cities with common companies with the
same company.
Please let me know your locations of interest.
Kevin L. Karch
Network Specialist
Direct: 847-833-8810
Fax: 847-985-5550
Email: kevinka...@vackinc.com
Web: www.vackinc.com
The Optical Network Specialists
-
Equinix only has one center within Toronto.Is there someone with a
larger number of centers across the country?
-Original Message-
From: Paul WALL [mailto:pauldotw...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 8:56 PM
To: Ryan Finnesey; NANOG list
Subject: Re: Equinix of Candia?
Equi
Yes sorry it has been a long day. Canada. Is the only Switch & Data
center in Toronto?
-Original Message-
From: Kevin Karch [mailto:kevinka...@vackinc.com]
Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 9:16 PM
To: 'David DiGiacomo'
Cc: Ryan Finnesey
Subject: RE: Equinix of Candia?
We do have seve
>>>
>> He may or may not be. I don't think it's such a bad idea.
>>
>
> How about algorithmically generating these addresses, so that
> they're near unique, instead of having the overhead of a central
> registry, and a global routability expectation?
>
Why not just keep a low-overhead central r
On Nov 1, 2010, at 11:20 AM, Michel de Nostredame wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 6:06 PM, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
>> I battled for a few hours getting IPv6 rDNS to work. The following tool
>> proved to be quite helpful:
>> http://www.fpsn.net/?pg=tools&tool=ipv6-inaddr
>> Just in case anyone el
...somehow my email got cutoff
Equinix is in 151 Front Street in Torono
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 1, 2010, at 8:59 PM, "David DiGiacomo" wrote:
> If you mean Canada, Equinix bought out Switch & Data so Equinix is directly
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Nov 1, 2010, at 8:04 PM, "Ryan Finnes
If you mean Canada, Equinix bought out Switch & Data so Equinix is directly
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 1, 2010, at 8:04 PM, "Ryan Finnesey"
wrote:
> Who if anyone is the Equinix of Candia?
>
> Cheers
> Ryan
>
>
Equinix at 151 Front?
Drive Slow,
Paul Wall
On 11/1/10, Ryan Finnesey wrote:
> Who if anyone is the Equinix of Candia?
>
> Cheers
> Ryan
>
>
>
--
Sent from my mobile device
On Nov 1, 2010, at 9:07 AM, Mark Smith wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Nov 2010 10:24:31 + (GMT)
> Tim Franklin wrote:
>
>>> Surely your not saying "we ought to make getting PI easy, easy enough
>>> that the other options just don't make sense" so that all residential
>>> users get PI so that if their I
Who if anyone is the Equinix of Candia?
Cheers
Ryan
In message , Mich
el de Nostredame writes:
> On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 6:06 PM, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
> > I battled for a few hours getting IPv6 rDNS to work. The following tool
> > proved to be quite helpful:
> > http://www.fpsn.net/?pg=tools&tool=ipv6-inaddr
> > Just in case anyone else would ru
On Mon, 2010-11-01 at 15:26 -0700, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
> Karl Auer wrote:
> > That was with the waivers in force. It will soon cost a one-time US
> > $1250. We could argue till the cows come home about what proportion of
> > the population would consider that "prohibitive" but I'm guessing that
>> It cost me $625 (or possibly less) one-time when I first got it.
one time? truely one time? no other fees or strings?
randy
Karl Auer wrote:
On Thu, 2010-10-21 at 18:48 -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
Uh, no... You're misreading it.
Yes - I read the ISP bit, not the end user bit.
It cost me $625 (or possibly less) one-time when I first got it.
That was with the waivers in force. It will soon cost a one-time US
$1250.
Gary E. Miller wrote:
See also sipcalc.
Thanks, I wasn't aware of the various commandline tools available yet.
Except the dig option to convert IPv6 rDNS. But the tool I mentioned
also creates a whole zone file for you based on what you entered, which
I then used to correct the zone file I c
Registration is now open for the 51st Meeting of the North American
Network Operators' Group. NANOG 51 will be held January 30 through
February 2, 2011, at the InterContinental Miami on Biscayne Bay. The
meeting will be hosted by Terremark.
See http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog51 for com
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 6:06 PM, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
> I battled for a few hours getting IPv6 rDNS to work. The following tool
> proved to be quite helpful:
> http://www.fpsn.net/?pg=tools&tool=ipv6-inaddr
> Just in case anyone else would run into similar problems. It's not as
> straightforward
On Tue, 02 Nov 2010 03:46:55 +1030, Mark Smith said:
> How about algorithmically generating these addresses, so that
> they're near unique, instead of having the overhead of a central
> registry, and a global routability expectation?
Go re-read RFC4193, section 3.2.3:
3.2.3. Analysis of the Uni
EXFO also sells the BRIX SLA verifier, which calculates RTT, packet
loss, and jitter for various applications running on top of the link
layer.
-Original Message-
From: Tim Jackson [mailto:jackson@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 6:54 PM
To: Diogo Montagner
Cc: nanog@nanog
Hi,
>> >> 2) ULA brings with it (as do any options that include multiple
>> >> addresses) host-stack complexity and address-selection issues... 'do I
>> >> use ULA here or GUA when talking to the remote host?'
>> >>
>> >
>> > There's an app for that (or rather a library routine called
>> > getaddr
On Mon, 1 Nov 2010 09:20:41 -0700
Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On Nov 1, 2010, at 2:28 AM, Mark Smith wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 21:32:39 -0400
> > Christopher Morrow wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 3:10 PM, David Conrad wrote:
> >>> On Oct 31, 2010, at 6:45 AM, Christopher Morrow wr
Halloween is over, why do you have to keep saying scary things like that..
(even if it is true, unfortunately)
-Richard
-Original Message-
From: Nick Hilliard [mailto:n...@foobar.org]
Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 12:48 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Token ring? topic hijack: wa
On 01/11/2010 15:21, Greg Whynott wrote:
you recently converted from token ring to ethernet? i had no idea
there was still token ring networks out there, or am i living in a
bubble?
Sadly, you're living in a bubble. As long as there are banks and very
large commercial institutions, there w
oops, I clipped a little too much from the message before replying...
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 5:28 AM, Mark Smith
wrote:
>
> Permanent connectivity to the global IPv6 Internet, while common,
> should not be essential to being able to run IPv6, and neither should
> PI. All you should need to run IP
> This isn't to do with anything low level like RAs. This is about
> people proposing every IPv6 end-site gets PI i.e. a default free zone
> with multiple billions of routes instead of using ULAs for internal,
> stable addressing. It's as though they're not aware that the majority
> of end-sites on
On Nov 1, 2010, at 2:28 AM, Mark Smith wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 21:32:39 -0400
> Christopher Morrow wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 3:10 PM, David Conrad wrote:
>>> On Oct 31, 2010, at 6:45 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
>> "If Woody had gone straight to a ULA prefix, this would nev
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 5:28 AM, Mark Smith
wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 21:32:39 -0400
> Christopher Morrow wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 3:10 PM, David Conrad wrote:
>> > On Oct 31, 2010, at 6:45 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
>> "If Woody had gone straight to a ULA prefix, this would
On Mon, 1 Nov 2010 10:24:31 + (GMT)
Tim Franklin wrote:
> > Surely your not saying "we ought to make getting PI easy, easy enough
> > that the other options just don't make sense" so that all residential
> > users get PI so that if their ISP disappears their network doesn't
> > break?
>
> I'
Asia Pacific Regional Internet Conference on Operational Technologies
(APRICOT)
15 - 25 February 2011, Hong Kong
http://www.apricot2011.net
CALL FOR PAPERS
===
The APRICOT 2011 Programme Committee is now seeking contributions for
Presentations and Tutorials for APRICOT 2011.
We are l
On 01 Nov 2010 10:08, Jason Iannone wrote:
> Define long prefix length. Owen has been fairly forceful in his
> advocacy of /48s at every site. Is this too long a prefix? Should
> peers only except /32s and shorter?
One assumes unpaid peers will accept prefixes up to the maximum length
the RIR i
off topic…
you recently converted from token ring to ethernet? i had no idea there was
still token ring networks out there, or am i living in a bubble?
-g
On Oct 31, 2010, at 9:07 PM, Paul WALL wrote:
> I don't know what the big deal is. I've rolled at least 20 of these
> switches into my
Define long prefix length. Owen has been fairly forceful in his
advocacy of /48s at every site. Is this too long a prefix? Should
peers only except /32s and shorter?
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 1:12 PM, David Conrad wrote:
> On Oct 31, 2010, at 9:01 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> Would it help if ARIN
Since there's a thread here, I'll mention rDNS for residential users.
I'm not sure there's consensus about whether forward and reverse ought
to match (how strong a "should" is that?). I know you can't populate
every potential record in a reverse zone, as in IPv4. You can generate
records on the
> Surely your not saying "we ought to make getting PI easy, easy enough
> that the other options just don't make sense" so that all residential
> users get PI so that if their ISP disappears their network doesn't
> break?
I've seen this last point come up a few times, and I really don't get it.
I
On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 21:32:39 -0400
Christopher Morrow wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 3:10 PM, David Conrad wrote:
> > On Oct 31, 2010, at 6:45 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> "If Woody had gone straight to a ULA prefix, this would never have
> happened..."
> >>> Or better yet, if Wo
Hi,
I'm wondering if there's a reliable and public survey, statistics about
the distribution of datacenter (or cloud, if you wish) traffic,
according to protocols or traffic types? E.g. the share of
iscsi/fcoe/etc in storage, or the share of TCP/UDP, and so on.
For general, Intern
Juniper srx runs JunOS.
On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 11:31 AM, Jeffrey Lyon
wrote:
>
> Juniper Netscreen does, in case the OP is looking for alternatives.
>
> Best regards, Jeff
--
Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.li...@gmail.com)
Hahah. I love it when my hunch is correct. I swear that he ate lead paint chips
as a kid.
The b& will be visiting soon I bet
Tammy A Wisdom
Summit Open Source Development Group
-Original Message-
From: Christopher LILJENSTOLPE
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 17:52:23
To:
Subject: Clarificatio
50 matches
Mail list logo
