On Jun 22, 2013, at 7:19 AM, Brandon Martin wrote:
> On 06/22/2013 12:44 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
The forwarding hardware is generally going to be the limit, and
that's going to be painful enough as we approach a half million
prefixes.
>>>
>>> True. And that's why we must avoid
On 06/22/2013 12:44 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
The forwarding hardware is generally going to be the limit, and
that's going to be painful enough as we approach a half million
prefixes.
True. And that's why we must avoid IPv6.
This is not only wrong, it makes no sense whatsoever.
So he
> The forwarding hardware is generally going to be the limit, and
>that's going to be painful enough as we approach a half million
>prefixes.
I would expect that we might finally see some pushback against
networks that announce lots of disaggregated prefixes. The current
CIDR report notes t
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jun/21/gchq-cables-secret-world-communica
tions-nsa
I suppose they really are tapping all of the fiber.. Huh?
On 6/21/13 11:42 AM, "Phil Fagan" wrote:
>I guess the moral here isdon't do anything "wrong."
>
>:-D
>
>
>On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 12:31 PM, William
>> The forwarding hardware is generally going to be the limit, and
>> that's going to be painful enough as we approach a half million
>> prefixes.
>
> True. And that's why we must avoid IPv6.
This is not only wrong, it makes no sense whatsoever.
Owen
May sound silly, but in another life I faced a similar problem and by
hosting local SpeedTest.net servers in our network we could fend off
many of these calls.
But I guess it will depend on your customers, whether they take it or not.
cheers,
~Carlos
On 6/20/13 9:45 PM, Jeffrey Ollie wrote:
> A
I know how we got here, but perhaps we can take corporate parentage and how big
.com is now to -discuss?
What happened with the registry data that caused the outage and what can /
should be done about it / to prevent it happening again still seem to me to be
operational topics.
George Willia
In article <001a01ce6ef9$bf74d4a0$3e5e7de0$@iname.com> you write:
>It's 120M if you add the .COM and the .NET's together, both of which NetSol
>is responsible for.
>http://www.verisigninc.com/en_US/products-and-services/domain-name-services/
>registry-products/tld-zone-access/index.xhtml
In late b
It's 120M if you add the .COM and the .NET's together, both of which NetSol
is responsible for.
http://www.verisigninc.com/en_US/products-and-services/domain-name-services/
registry-products/tld-zone-access/index.xhtml
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Nicolai [mailto:nicolai-na...@chocolati
>
>> The forwarding hardware is generally going to be the limit, and
>> that's going to be painful enough as we approach a half million
>> prefixes.
>
> True. And that's why we must avoid IPv6.
>
> Masataka Ohta
>
>
Great comment. :D
--
M
AT&T screwed up the porting of our DIDs and we’re completely down, account rep
has left for the weekend. Anyone have a contact?
Brent Meshier ▪ Director Information Technology ▪ Amherst Holdings LLC
7801 North Capital of Texas Hwy ▪ Suite 300 ▪ Austin, TX 78731
512.342.3010 ▪ Fax 512.342.3097▪
Majdi S. Abbas wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 01:56:02PM -0600, Michael McConnell wrote:
>> As the IPv4 space get smaller and smaller, does anyone think we'll see
>> a time when /25's will be accepted for global BGP prefix announcement.
>> The current smallest size is a /24 and generally ok for
If there is a YAHOO! Postmaster contact available, can you please
contact me off list?
I need to investigate a customer's "TS03" listing of a very large
netblock (/16) and I'm afraid regular Yahoo! forms are leading me
nowhere but frustration and no results.
Thanks.
The indications and claim are that the root cause was registrar internal
goof, not hostile action against name servers.
The story is not yet detailed enough to add up; getting from point A to
point B requires steps that so far don't really make sense. A more
detailed explanation is hopefully to b
Not sure of some of the underlying details of the mechanics right now.
http://news.softpedia.com/news/LinkedIn-Outage-Caused-by-DDOS-Attack-on-Network-Solutions-362473.shtml
- ferg
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Glen Kent wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Do we know which DNS server started leaking the pois
Hi,
Do we know which DNS server started leaking the poisoned entry?
Being new to this, i still dont understand how could a hacker gain access
to the DNS server and corrupt the entry there? Wouldnt it require special
admin rights, etc. to log in?
Glen
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Paul Ferg
Hi Shawn.
Or you could vote with your feet, and wish then a "fine" g'day.
John
John Souvestre - New Orleans LA - (504) 454-0899
-Original Message-
From: shawn wilson [mailto:ag4ve...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 10:42 pm
To: Hal Murray
Cc: North American Network Operat
On 6/21/13, Michael McConnell wrote:
> Hello all,
> As the IPv4 space get smaller and smaller, does anyone think we'll see a
> time when /25's will be accepted for global BGP prefix announcement. The
I am confident there are providers that will accept /25s from some of
their customer(s) or peer(s
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Michael McConnell
wrote:
> As the IPv4 space get smaller and smaller, does anyone think we'll
> see a time when /25's will be accepted for global BGP prefix
> announcement. The current smallest size is a /24 and generally
> ok for most people, but the crunch gets t
On 6/21/13 2:15 PM, Grzegorz Janoszka wrote:
On 21-06-13 21:56, Michael McConnell wrote:
As the IPv4 space get smaller and smaller, does anyone think we'll see a time
when /25's will be accepted for global BGP prefix announcement. The current
smallest size is a /24 and generally ok for most pe
Quite the opposite. As the technical limitations of the routing gear are
reached, shorter and shorter prefixes will be tolerated until IPv4 is utterly
unusable if we try to stay on IPv4 that long.
Owen
On Jun 21, 2013, at 9:56 PM, Michael McConnell
wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> As the IPv4 space
On Jun 21, 2013, at 8:31 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> On Jun 21, 2013, at 5:10 PM, Phil Fagan wrote:
>>> I would think this is only an issue if they throw out the Fourth in that
>>> when
>>> they use that data collected "inadvertantly" to
> Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 16:14:07 -0400
> From: "Majdi S. Abbas"
>
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 01:56:02PM -0600, Michael McConnell wrote:
>> As the IPv4 space get smaller and smaller, does anyone think we'll
>> see a time when /25's will be accepted for global BGP prefix
>> announcement. The curren
I think we need a better measure than number of domains (in this case
.COM), particularly vs total domains.
If it was 100 domains it might seem small, unless that list began with
facebook.com, amazon.com, google.com and g*d forbid theworld.com.
--
-Barry Shein
The World |
BGP Update Report
Interval: 13-Jun-13 -to- 20-Jun-13 (7 days)
Observation Point: BGP Peering with AS131072
TOP 20 Unstable Origin AS
Rank ASNUpds % Upds/PfxAS-Name
1 - AS36998 175465 8.0% 310.6 -- SDN-MOBITEL
2 - AS27947 123692 5.6% 180.6 -- T
This report has been generated at Fri Jun 21 21:13:56 2013 AEST.
The report analyses the BGP Routing Table of AS2.0 router
and generates a report on aggregation potential within the table.
Check http://www.cidr-report.org for a current version of this report.
Recent Table History
Date
On 21-06-13 21:56, Michael McConnell wrote:
> As the IPv4 space get smaller and smaller, does anyone think we'll see a time
> when /25's will be accepted for global BGP prefix announcement. The current
> smallest size is a /24 and generally ok for most people, but the crunch gets
> tighter, rout
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 01:56:02PM -0600, Michael McConnell wrote:
> As the IPv4 space get smaller and smaller, does anyone think we'll see
> a time when /25's will be accepted for global BGP prefix announcement.
> The current smallest size is a /24 and generally ok for most people, but
> the cr
Hello all,
As the IPv4 space get smaller and smaller, does anyone think we'll see a time
when /25's will be accepted for global BGP prefix announcement. The current
smallest size is a /24 and generally ok for most people, but the crunch gets
tighter, routers continue to have more and more ram w
Hah!
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Warren Bailey <
wbai...@satelliteintelligencegroup.com> wrote:
> The United States Constitution*
>
> *See Terms and Conditions for details, not all citizens apply, void where
> prohibited, subject to change at any time.
>
> On 6/21/13 11:42 AM, "Phil Fagan"
The United States Constitution*
*See Terms and Conditions for details, not all citizens apply, void where
prohibited, subject to change at any time.
On 6/21/13 11:42 AM, "Phil Fagan" wrote:
>I guess the moral here isdon't do anything "wrong."
>
>:-D
>
>
>On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 12:31 PM, Wi
I guess the moral here isdon't do anything "wrong."
:-D
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 12:31 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > On Jun 21, 2013, at 5:10 PM, Phil Fagan wrote:
> >> I would think this is only an issue if they throw out the Fourth
This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet
Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan.
The posting is sent to APOPS, NANOG, AfNOG, AusNOG, SANOG, PacNOG, LacNOG,
TRNOG, CaribNOG and the RIPE Routing Working Group.
Daily listings are sent to bgp-st...@lists.ap
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> On Jun 21, 2013, at 5:10 PM, Phil Fagan wrote:
>> I would think this is only an issue if they throw out the Fourth in that when
>> they use that data collected "inadvertantly" to build a case a against you
>> they use no other data collected
>"Registrar Primary" and "Registrar Auditor"
There are certainly registrars who are more security oriented than
Netsol. If you haven't followed all of the corporate buying and
selling, Netsol is now part of web.com, so their business is more to
support web hosting than to be a registrar.
I expec
> https://www.networksolutions.com/blog/2013/06/important-update-for-network-solutions-customers-experiencing-website-issues/
Why are they infinitely looping a script on their web server to check
for a cookie?
Are these people insane?
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 05:28:17PM -0400, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> It's relatively small when you consider there's something like 140M .com's
Just FWIW, the current size of .com is roughly 109M domains. Someday it
will reach 140M but not today.
Nicolai
Good point; apparently the doctorine does protect against the case whereby
any collected data would have been found anway "with a court order."
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 9:19 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On Jun 21, 2013, at 5:10 PM, Phil Fagan wrote:
>
> I would think this is only an issue if they
On Jun 21, 2013, at 5:10 PM, Phil Fagan wrote:
> I would think this is only an issue if they throw out the Fourth in that when
> they use that data collected "inadvertantly" to build a case a against you
> they use no other data collected under a proper warrant.
That statement ignores a longs
I would think this is only an issue if they throw out the Fourth in that
when they use that data collected "inadvertantly" to build a case a against
you they use no other data collected under a proper warrent.
If the purpose was to actually collect data on you, in the event you do
something , they
On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 23:42:24 -0400, shawn wilson said:
> I think Netsol should be fined. Maybe even a class action suite filed
> against them for lost business. And that's it.
So your contract with NetSol has an SLA guarantee in it, and you can
demonstrate that (a) said SLA has been violated and
On 06/09/13 11:10 -0500, Dan White wrote:
Let me put my gold tipped tinfoil hat on in response to your statement.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/20/fisa-court-nsa-without-warrant
If accurate, this is extremely concerning:
Top secret documents submitted to the court that oversees
On Jun 21, 2013, at 4:20 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
> On 2013-06-21 4:54 AM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
>> Again, this only matters if you place a great deal of importance both on the
>> notion that size equals fairness, and that fairness is more important than
>> efficiency.
>> ...
>>> I think th
On 2013-06-21 4:54 AM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
Again, this only matters if you place a great deal of importance both on the
notion that size equals fairness, and that fairness is more important than
efficiency.
...
I think the point is here that networks are nudging these decisions by making
cer
I remember when I used to own a small ISP and NetSOL "lost" 1/3 of the domains.
Just lost them. And it wasn't a DDOS, it was their screw up. It went on for
days
-Original Message-
From: Hank Nussbacher [mailto:h...@efes.iucc.ac.il]
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 11:10 PM
To: Richard G
(This may be Wacky Friday, but this one is not tongue in cheek -- the name
Keith Lofstrom should ring a bell).
http://server-sky.com/
Server Sky - internet and computation in orbit
It is easier to move terabits than kilograms or megawatts. Space solar power
will solve the energy crisis. Sooner
On 6/20/13, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
>
> It's relatively small when you consider there's something like 140M .com's
Yeah... I'm in agreement about that's probably what is going on...
It's relatively small, but absolutely large, and absolute numbers
matter. 5 domains is small, 50k is not,
On 6/20/13, Hal Murray wrote:
> Perhaps we should setup a distributed system for checking things rather than
> another SPOF. That's distributed both geographically and administratively
> and using several code-bases.
[snip]
I would be in favor of being able to pay two "competitive" to be
regis
On Jun 20, 2013, at 1:39 PM, Niels Bakker wrote:
> You're mistaken if you think that CDNs have equal number of packets going in
> and out.
I'm aware that neither the quantity nor the size of packets in each direction
are equal. I'm just hard-pressed to think of a reason why this matters, and
49 matches
Mail list logo
