Nice exercise in what-ifs, but with 90% reporting and a ten point "No,
thank you" majority, the decision to stay as one UK has clearly prevailed.
..Not that I'm up at 0240 Eastern to check on the vote of course.
Source: BBC World News.
-j
--
jamie rishaw // .com.arpa@j <- reverse it. ish.
"...le
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 12:23 AM, Roland Dobbins wrote:
>
> On Sep 16, 2014, at 10:33 PM, Andy Litzinger
> wrote:
>
>> I appreciate any ideas!
>
> My idea mainly centers around the operational complexity and difficulty of
> troubleshooting a setup of this nature.
>
yes, this.
> Why not just l
On Sep 16, 2014, at 10:33 PM, Andy Litzinger
wrote:
> I appreciate any ideas!
My idea mainly centers around the operational complexity and difficulty of
troubleshooting a setup of this nature.
Why not just let routing take its natural course? Or at most, play some simple
preference games w
I would suggest starting with this form:
https://www.maxmind.com/en/correction
More here: http://nanog.peeringdb.com/index.php/GeoIP
Frank
-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Jose Damian Cantu
Davila
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 5:18 PM
To:
On 9/17/2014 16:59, Jay Ashworth wrote:
Original Message -
From: "Nick Crocker"
Can someone shed some light on how you might be accomplishing this, I have
a hard time believing that customers are being told they cannot dial TF
numbers in their own country.
In the US, it's always b
On 9/18/14 11:06 AM, John Kristoff wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 13:53:52 -0400
> Daniel Corbe wrote:
>
>> Is there anything in the air about widening the adoption base? Cisco?
>> Brocade?
>
> I've seen some suggesting that increased support, but even at Juniper,
> actions seem to speak larger t
The more specific objects are more cosmetic issue.
The main problem is the missing object for your /22. As well as your
AS23034 does not seem to be listed in AS-ROGERS:AS-CUSTOMERS
http://bgp.he.net/AS812#_irr
Karsten
2014-09-18 23:54 GMT+02:00 Brock Massel :
> Karsten,
> Thank you I am not sur
Hi,
looks like you mainly use one transit provider (AS812) or your other
transit providers correctly filter that prefix.
According to
https://stat.ripe.net/data/prefix-routing-consistency/data.json?preferred_version=0.7&resource=192.250.24.0%2F22
there is no route object for the 192.250.24.0/22.
We are seeing issues on our Savvis Internet connections in New York to
users in London and Sweden. Not many details yet, just seeing slow and
sporadic connectivity.
--Vincent
From: Todd Lyons
To: NANOG list
Date: 09/18/2014 05:21 AM
Subject:Outbound traffic from 208.89.136.
The download was ~1.1GB, the installer requires almost 5GB free to proceed.
Tyler.
On 9/17/14 9:04 PM, JoeSox wrote:
Grant,
Do you have a reference? Someone just told me it is more around 5GB.
--
Later, Joe
On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Grant Ridder
wrote:
For those that are curious, i
Hi, Im new here, so any advice would be very appreciated.
Is someone from Maxmind IP Geolocation available, that I can talk to offline?
Its regarding to a block we assigned to a client. The client and its customers
are located in Mexico but the IP Geolocation services says they are located in
B
Depending on the device used, the zip file can range from
Length: 1515061530 (1.4G) [application/octet-stream]
To
Length: 2119504233 (2.0G) [application/octet-stream]
Parsed from
http://mesu.apple.com/assets/com_apple_MobileAsset_SoftwareUpdate/com_apple_MobileAsset_SoftwareUpdate.xml
On 16/09/2014 16:26, Jay Ashworth wrote:
What kind of timeframe would a new ccTLD for a major country roll out on?
The main issue wouldn't be the timeframe for a rollout of a Scottish
ccTLD but rather the disengagement from the .UK ccTLD. The legislative
part will take time and there might al
Hello,
I have a Load Balancer that uses a default route to a VRRP IP hosted
between two Juniper MX80 routers. Each MX router has a single BGP feed
from the same provider and each session is currently receiving only a
default route.
I'd like to load balance my outbound traffic across the two link
Karsten,
Thank you I am not sure why those 702 and 19294 old entries would still be
there.
We have engaged 812 for help.
Shall I assume cleaning up the old entries will solve the problems?
-Original Message-
From: Karsten Elfenbein [mailto:karsten.elfenb...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursda
Hum, Traceroute is not as nice
traceroute to 192.250.24.1 (192.250.24.1), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets
1 GW (192.168.0.2) 0.459 ms 0.435 ms 0.422 ms
2 * * *
3 10.170.182.81 (10.170.182.81) 18.417 ms 18.711 ms 18.702 ms
4 216.113.124.126 (216.113.124.126) 16.611 ms 17.774 ms 17.774
FWIW ...
http://techcrunch.com/2014/09/18/ios-8-adoption-off-to-a-slower-start-than-ios-7-say-multiple-usage-trackers/
Pingable from Montreal area as well
Gary Baribault
Courriel: g...@baribault.net
GPG Key: 0x685430d1
Fingerprint: 9E4D 1B7C CB9F 9239 11D9 71C3 6C35 C6B7 6854 30D1
On 09/18/2014 05:08 PM, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
>>> The 192.250.24 addresses have been reachable for several months in the
>>> curren
-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of sth...@nethelp.no
Sent: Friday, 19 September 2014 9:09 a.m.
To: bmas...@descartes.com; j...@instituut.net
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: 192.250.24.0/22 (as 23034) not reachable from Verizon, tinet,
global cros
On Thu 2014-Sep-18 23:08:55 +0200, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
> The 192.250.24 addresses have been reachable for several months in the
> current configuration with no reported issues. Since the 16th we have
> been hearing reports that destinations in that block are unavailable
> for some.
>
> Seve
> > The 192.250.24 addresses have been reachable for several months in the
> > current configuration with no reported issues. Since the 16th we have
> > been hearing reports that destinations in that block are unavailable
> > for some.
> >
> > Several looking glass' report network not in table.
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 08:42:23PM +, Brock Massel wrote:
> The 192.250.24 addresses have been reachable for several months in the
> current configuration with no reported issues. Since the 16th we have
> been hearing reports that destinations in that block are unavailable
> for some.
>
> Seve
Hi folks,
I'm hoping someone can shed some light on the situation.
The 192.250.24 addresses have been reachable for several months in the current
configuration with no reported issues. Since the 16th we have been hearing
reports that destinations in that block are unavailable for some.
Several
On 9/18/14 1:19 PM, Job Snijders wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 03:12:29PM -0400, Daniel Corbe wrote:
>
>>> a) you're paying less, as you're not receiving the traffic
>>
>> This ventures into the realm of an operator doing something responsible
>> to protect me vs routing me unwanted traffic and
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 03:12:29PM -0400, Daniel Corbe wrote:
> > a) you're paying less, as you're not receiving the traffic
>
> This ventures into the realm of an operator doing something responsible
> to protect me vs routing me unwanted traffic and going "lol, bill."
>
> If you want to start
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 03:15:41PM -0400, Daniel Corbe wrote:
> Also, if I'm buying full line rate commit from you then you're not
> actually losing any money on the deal whether or not you route me the
> traffic.
Ha, I wish all customers would buy in full line rate commits! :-)
- Job
Also, if I'm buying full line rate commit from you then you're not
actually losing any money on the deal whether or not you route me the
traffic.
-Daniel
Daniel Corbe writes:
> Saku Ytti writes:
>
>> On (2014-09-18 13:53 -0400), Daniel Corbe wrote:
>>
>> Hi Daniel,
>>
>>> This seems like it w
Saku Ytti writes:
> On (2014-09-18 13:53 -0400), Daniel Corbe wrote:
>
> Hi Daniel,
>
>> This seems like it would be a godsend for small operators like
>> myself who don't have
>> access to unlimited bandwidth and are put off by off-site scrubbing
>> services.
>>
>> As far as I can tell thoug
On (2014-09-18 13:53 -0400), Daniel Corbe wrote:
Hi Daniel,
> This seems like it would be a godsend for small operators like myself who
> don't have
> access to unlimited bandwidth and are put off by off-site scrubbing
> services.
>
> As far as I can tell though the only platforms that offer
Envoyé de mon iPhone
> Le 18 sept. 2014 à 19:53, Daniel Corbe a écrit :
>
>
> I was perusing RFC5575 after reading a presentation that ALU did
> (presumably during some previous NANOG conference). Reference:
> https://www.nanog.org/sites/default/files/wed.general.trafficdiversion.serodio.10.
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 1:53 PM, Daniel Corbe wrote:
> And once that happens, what are the chances of services providers
> adopting this for their customers to make use of on as wide of a scale
> as (for example) blackhole community strings.
>
> I'd certainly *love* to have a way to mitigate an at
On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 13:53:52 -0400
Daniel Corbe wrote:
> Is there anything in the air about widening the adoption base? Cisco?
> Brocade?
I've seen some suggesting that increased support, but even at Juniper,
actions seem to speak larger than words. There seems to be very little
interest for a
I was perusing RFC5575 after reading a presentation that ALU did
(presumably during some previous NANOG conference). Reference:
https://www.nanog.org/sites/default/files/wed.general.trafficdiversion.serodio.10.pdf
This seems like it would be a godsend for small operators like myself who don't
h
The issue was seemingly fixed about 30 minutes ago, and has been
confirmed to be fixed by multiple parties. Many thanks for the
response Vincent. Have a fantastic day!
...Todd
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 2:30 AM, Vincent Aniello wrote:
> We are seeing issues on our Savvis Internet connections in
Hi,
> Do you have a reference? Someone just told me it is more around 5GB.
It seems to depend on the device. IIRC my iPhone 4S downloaded ±0.9GB and my
iPad Mini ±1.3GB. That might be because the 4S is still a 32-bit device.
Cheers,
Sander
I'm seeing some weird routing outbound for *some* destinations.
Testing from 208.89.139.252.
google.com resolves for me to 74.125.239.112 and the outbound path is
fast and appears to stay in the US.
yahoo.com resolves for me to 98.138.253.109, but the outbound path
goes through Savvis London, the
In article <23734767.2066.1410991191470.javamail.r...@benjamin.baylink.com> you
write:
> Original Message -
>> From: "Nick Crocker"
>
>> Can someone shed some light on how you might be accomplishing this, I have
>> a hard time believing that customers are being told they cannot dial TF
>>
37 matches
Mail list logo
