Did you fix it?
My traceroute shows last hop is 64.119.128.44.
On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 12:07 AM, Rick Altmann wrote:
> Is there anyone from AT&T on the list that could help with a likely
> misconfiguration? I have not received any response yet to my complaint (see
> below) submitted to the abus
I heard a few days ago this might happen through another carrier who depends on
a local loop from VZ. If you are waiting on circuit installs or someone has to
swap out an NI card this may impact you.
Thanks for the link.
Zaid
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 6, 2011, at 10:14 PM, Jay Ashworth wro
As of midnight, 45,000 IBEW and CWA members are striking Verizon, as their
contract has expired.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/07/us-verizon-labor-idUSTRE7760C320110807
It's not clear how this might affect what we do, but it might, and I
figured the heads up would probably be useful.
C
Qwest uses 80 for peers; 100 for customers. As I'm sure Qwest had AT&T as a
peer prior to today (and you tagged as a customer), it probably should have
been 80 since the beginning. What was the local pref to AT&T before? Maybe
they found a misconfiguration on a router.
If your only objective is
I can confirm the report is about DNS providers that are doing hijacking by
sending the traffic through dedicated proxies, either in the ISP's network
or in the DNS provider's network.
If you didn't see this happening, it might be because you were testing on
www.google.com rather than on Yahoo or
Hi folks,
Anyone else noticed a localpref change on Qwest network in regards to AT&T
prefixes? I noticed my AT&T assigned prefixes dropping to 80, causing my
backup transit peering with Centurylink to take preference with Qwest
originators ... All was working fine with my prepends .. But not any
In message , Owen DeLong write
s:
> On Aug 5, 2011, at 6:03 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> >=20
> > In message <4e3c9228.4050...@paulgraydon.co.uk>, Paul Graydon writes:
> >> On 08/05/2011 02:53 PM, Brielle wrote:
> >>> Until they start MitM the ssl traffic, fake certs and all. Didn't a =
> certai
Not trying to be obtuse, but none of the technical docs you cite appear
to talk about HTTP proxies nor does the newswire report have any
technical details. I have tested several of the networks listed in the
report and in none of the cases I saw was there HTTP proxy activity.
Picking up on WC
On Aug 6, 2011, at 1:14 PM, Jeff Wheeler wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 12:36 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> On Aug 6, 2011, at 3:15 AM, Jeff Wheeler wrote:
>>> Note that in this thread, you advocate three things that are a little
>>> tough to make work together:
>>> * hierarchical addressing plan /
North American Corporation (domiciled in Nevada) is for sale.
All non-IPv4 assets and debts (and other liabilities) have been transferred
to another related corporation.
IPv4 Assets include:
1 - ASN; and
3 - /20 networks (12,288 IP Addresses) direct allocations (non-legacy).
Multiple options ava
On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 12:36 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> On Aug 6, 2011, at 3:15 AM, Jeff Wheeler wrote:
>> Note that in this thread, you advocate three things that are a little
>> tough to make work together:
>> * hierarchical addressing plan / routing
>> * nibble-aligned addressing plan
>> * minimu
On Aug 6, 2011, at 11:44 AM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 1:28 PM, William Herrin wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 12:17 PM, Brian Mengel wrote:
>>
>
>
>> On the flip side, /56 allows for 16M end-users in your /32 ISP
>> allocation. After which you can trivially get as many
On 8/6/11 11:08 AM, Joe Provo wrote:
Belief has nothing to do with it. The article is vaguely referring
to 'search' and incorrectly jumps to https. Disappointing that
nanog readers can't readhttp://www.paxfire.com/faqs.php and get
a clue, instead all the mouth-flapping about MItM and https. Whil
On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 1:28 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 12:17 PM, Brian Mengel wrote:
>
> On the flip side, /56 allows for 16M end-users in your /32 ISP
> allocation. After which you can trivially get as many additional /32's
> as you want. Is there any reason you want t
On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 12:17 PM, Brian Mengel wrote:
> In reviewing IPv6 end user allocation policies, I can find little
> agreement on what prefix length is appropriate for residential end
> users. /64 and /56 seem to be the favorite candidates, with /56 being
> slightly preferred.
Hi Brian,
/
On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 12:08 PM, Joe Provo wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 06, 2011 at 10:41:10AM -0400, Scott Helms wrote:
> > Correct, I don't believe that any of the providers noted are actually
> [snip]
> Disappointing that nanog readers can't read
> http://www.paxfire.com/faqs.php and get
a clue, ins
On Aug 5, 2011, at 3:56 PM, Frank Bulk wrote:
> Let's clarify -- /48 is much preferred by Owen,
It's is also supported by RIR policy, and the RFC series. It would unfair to
characterize owen as the only holder of that preference.
> but most ISPs seem to be
> zeroing in on a /56 for production.
On Sat, Aug 06, 2011 at 10:41:10AM -0400, Scott Helms wrote:
> Correct, I don't believe that any of the providers noted are actually
[snip]
Belief has nothing to do with it. The article is vaguely referring
to 'search' and incorrectly jumps to https. Disappointing that
nanog readers can't read h
I prefer running my own resolver. It's pretty trivial to do on a Mac and I
would tend to
think wouldn't be all that hard on Windows, though I have no idea.
A resolver doesn't get much more local than ::1/128.
Owen
On Aug 6, 2011, at 7:41 AM, Scott Helms wrote:
> Correct, I don't believe that a
On Aug 6, 2011, at 3:40 AM, Mukom Akong Tamon wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 11:18 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
>> For example, if you reserve a /48 per customer but actually use the
>> first /56 out of it, you are safe if _you_ need the other /56 for some
>> reason, or if the customer needs to expan
On Aug 6, 2011, at 3:15 AM, Jeff Wheeler wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 5:21 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> At least don't make your life miserable by experimenting with too many
>>> different assignment sizes,
>>> or advocate /64s or something, that's considered a design fault which will
>>> com
Correct, I don't believe that any of the providers noted are actually
hijacking HTTP sessions instead all of these are DNS based tricks.
Since the service providers are also providing DNS (via Paxfire and
others) users don't have a lot of choice. You can switch to using a
known public name se
On Aug 6, 2011 2:11 AM, "Owen DeLong" wrote:
>
> I'm not the only person who prefers /48 and hopefully most ISPs will
eventually
> come around and realize that /56s don't really benefit anyone vs. /48s.
>
> Hurricane Electric has been handing out /48s upon request to our customers
and
> users of o
On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 11:18 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
> For example, if you reserve a /48 per customer but actually use the
> first /56 out of it, you are safe if _you_ need the other /56 for some
> reason, or if the customer needs to expand into the full /48.
+1. Be generous in planning and then a
On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 5:21 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> At least don't make your life miserable by experimenting with too many
>> different assignment sizes,
>> or advocate /64s or something, that's considered a design fault which will
>> come back to you some day.
>> Read the RfCs and RIR policy
On Aug 6, 2011, at 12:47 AM, Sascha Lenz wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
>> Let's clarify -- /48 is much preferred by Owen, but most ISPs seem to be
>> zeroing in on a /56 for production. Though some ISPs are using /64 for
>> their trials.
>
>
> IIRC, there's RfC6177 - covering almost exactly what the orig
On Aug 5, 2011, at 6:03 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> In message <4e3c9228.4050...@paulgraydon.co.uk>, Paul Graydon writes:
>> On 08/05/2011 02:53 PM, Brielle wrote:
>>> Until they start MitM the ssl traffic, fake certs and all. Didn't a certai
>> n repressive regime already do this tactic with f
I'm not the only person who prefers /48 and hopefully most ISPs will eventually
come around and realize that /56s don't really benefit anyone vs. /48s.
Hurricane Electric has been handing out /48s upon request to our customers and
users of our IPv6 tunnel services. We do not anticipate changing th
Hi,
> Let's clarify -- /48 is much preferred by Owen, but most ISPs seem to be
> zeroing in on a /56 for production. Though some ISPs are using /64 for
> their trials.
IIRC, there's RfC6177 - covering almost exactly what the original poster asked
for.
Not sure if it was mentioned already.
/4
29 matches
Mail list logo
