On Apr 29, 2014, at 7:54 PM, Jeff Kell wrote:
> On 4/29/2014 2:06 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> If everyone who had 30+ inaggregable IPv4 prefixes replaced them with 1 (or
>> even 3) IPv6 prefixes…
>>
>> As a bonus, we could get rid of NAT, too. ;-)
>>
>> /me ducks (but you know I had to say it)
On 4/29/2014 11:37 PM, TheIpv6guy . wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 7:54 PM, Jeff Kell wrote:
>> On 4/29/2014 2:06 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> If everyone who had 30+ inaggregable IPv4 prefixes replaced them with 1 (or
>>> even 3) IPv6 prefixes…
>>> As a bonus, we could get rid of NAT, too. ;-)
>
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 7:54 PM, Jeff Kell wrote:
> On 4/29/2014 2:06 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> If everyone who had 30+ inaggregable IPv4 prefixes replaced them with 1 (or
>> even 3) IPv6 prefixes…
>>
>> As a bonus, we could get rid of NAT, too. ;-)
>>
>> /me ducks (but you know I had to say it)
On 4/29/2014 2:06 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> If everyone who had 30+ inaggregable IPv4 prefixes replaced them with 1 (or
> even 3) IPv6 prefixes…
>
> As a bonus, we could get rid of NAT, too. ;-)
>
> /me ducks (but you know I had to say it)
Yeah, just when we thought Slammer / Blaster / Nachi / Wel
On Apr 29, 2014, at 10:48 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Owen DeLong"
>
>> What is absolutely contrary to the public interest is allowing $CABLECO to
>> leverage their position as a monopoly or oligopoly ISP to create an
>> operational disadvantage in access
On Apr 28, 2014, at 6:59 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> Composed on a virtual keyboard, please forgive typos.
>
>> On Apr 28, 2014, at 19:41, Chris Boyd wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 28, 2014, at 2:27 AM, Andy Davidson wrote:
>>>
>>> now aggregate it back down again, please. :-)
>>
>> I'm
RedIT
--
Paul Norton
Carlos Kamtha wrote:
Hi everyone,
I am currently not happy with out MX server provider, and so, inquiring
with anyone that can give a recommendation based on experience?
I found this list via google.
http://www.webhostingsearch.com/dedicated-server/mexico.php
I wonderi
It was pointed out privately to me that I may
have caused some confusion here with my
variable substitution. $BB_provider was
intended to be "BroadBand provider", *not*
"BackBone provider", as some people have
(understandably) misread it. So--to clarify,
this was not meant as any type of characte
On 14-04-29 13:48, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> So, how do you explain, and justify -- if you do -- cablecos who use
> IPTV to deliver their mainline video, and supply VoIP telephone...
In Canada, our "net neutrality" rules are called the ITMP, for Internet
Traffic Management Practices which occured as
I have no experience with dedicated hosting providers in Mexico, but
that list is incorrect. I know that Steadfast does not have servers
located in Mexico. I believe other providers are also incorrectly listed.
You should search for providers on Web Hosting Talk,
http://www.webhostingtalk.co
Hi everyone,
I am currently not happy with out MX server provider, and so, inquiring
with anyone that can give a recommendation based on experience?
I found this list via google.
http://www.webhostingsearch.com/dedicated-server/mexico.php
I wondering if anyone can speak to any of the provid
- Original Message -
> From: "Owen DeLong"
> What is absolutely contrary to the public interest is allowing $CABLECO to
> leverage their position as a monopoly or oligopoly ISP to create an
> operational disadvantage in access for that competing product.
I was with you right up til here
There are many actually doing this, to be honest.
From the top of my head, in the greater Dallas area, 54540 comes to mind.
http://bgp.he.net/AS54540#_asinfo
For large ASNs like these, aggregation would really help the table size.
That said, working on reducing our own as well.
On 4/29/2014 1
At one time Covad stated they announce everything as /24 to make
hijacking more difficult. Looks like Covad (now MEGAPATH) hasn't
changed that policy.
On 4/29/2014 12:29 PM, Kate Gerry wrote:
Already working on aggregating as much as I can. I was checking my tables the
other day and I th
On Apr 28, 2014, at 12:13 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Barry Shein wrote:
>> I think the problem is simply a lack of competition and the rise of,
>> in effect, vertical trusts. That is, content providers also
>> controlling last-mile services.
>>
>> What exists is rife with conflict of interest
Already working on aggregating as much as I can. I was checking my tables the
other day and I think I saw another provider advertising their /18 as /24s, it
made me sick.
--
Kate Gerry
Network Manager
k...@quadranet.com
1-888-5-QUADRA Ext 206 | www.QuadraNet.com
Dedicated Servers, Colocation,
> The remainder of the prefixes (45%) shares the same origin AS and the same
> path.
> The could be TE prefixes, but as they are identical to their covering
> aggregate its hard to appreciate exactly what the engineering intent may be.
> I could
> make a wild guess and call these 45% of more spec
On 4/28/2014 4:18 PM, Cliff Bowles wrote:
(accidentally sent this to nanog-request earlier, sorry if there is a double
post)
We are an enterprise and we do not yet have a sophisticated service-provider
model yet for billing, capacity-management, or infrastructure consumption. We
have a few v
On 29 Apr 2014, at 12:39 pm, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 21:59:43 -0400, "Patrick W. Gilmore" said:
>>> On Apr 28, 2014, at 19:41, Chris Boyd wrote:
>>> I'm in the middle of a physical move. I promise I'll take the 3 deagg'd
>>> /24s out as soon as I can.
>> Do not laug
19 matches
Mail list logo
