* Mark Tinka
> On 27/Aug/15 07:16, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> >
> > Or why you are looking at NAT64 instead of DS-Lite, MAP-E, or MAP-T
> > all of which are better solutions than NAT64. NAT64 + DNS64 which
> > breaks DNSSEC.
>
> Because with NAT64/DNS64/464XLAT, there isn't any "undo work" after
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 4:20 AM, alvin nanog <
nano...@mail.ddos-mitigator.net> wrote:
>
> hi ramy
>
> On 08/12/15 at 05:28pm, Ramy Hashish wrote:
> >
> > Anybody here compared Wanguard's performance with the DDoS vendors in the
> > market (Arbor, Radware, NSFocus, A10, RioRey, Staminus, F5 ..
On 27/Aug/15 07:16, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> Or why you are looking at NAT64 instead of DS-Lite, MAP-E, or MAP-T
> all of which are better solutions than NAT64. NAT64 + DNS64 which
> breaks DNSSEC.
Because with NAT64/DNS64/464XLAT, there isn't any "undo work" after the
dust settles.
There is v
Thank you Alvin, I have just remembered that I wanted to reply to your
previous input on Wanguard versus the other vendors in the market, I will
reply this there.
I can't get exactly what you are doing, do you have your own mitigation SW?
If so I would like to know more about it.
On Wed, Aug 26
In message <20150827065346.58554...@echo.ms.redpill-linpro.com>, Tore Anderson
writes:
> Hi Mark,
>
> * Mark Tinka
>
> > In our deployment, we do not offer customers private IPv4 addresses. I
> > suppose we can afford to do this because a) we still have lots of
> > public IPv4, b) we are not a
On 27/Aug/15 06:53, Tore Anderson wrote:
> Why wait until then?
I didn't say that we're waiting :-)...
>
> Any particular reason why you cannot already today provide IPv6
> addresses to your [new] customers in parallel with IPv4?
As a standard delivery of service, all our customers (BGP- and
Hi Mark,
* Mark Tinka
> In our deployment, we do not offer customers private IPv4 addresses. I
> suppose we can afford to do this because a) we still have lots of
> public IPv4, b) we are not a mobile carrier. So any of our customers
> with IPv4 will never hit the NAT64 gateway.
>
> When we do
On 27/Aug/15 03:21, Jared Mauch wrote:
>
> Sure...
>
> For DS, I could send IPv6 native and IPv4 via NAT. I suspect this
> actually the most common home setup at this point. It's certainly the
> way mine looks.
>
> I have noticed that IPv4 "feels" slow on my t-mobile usa co
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 04:39:11PM +0200, Mark Tinka wrote:
> On 26/Aug/15 16:32, Jared Mauch wrote:
> > This for me is an important note, because if your site only gives out an A
> > address,
> > it’s going to be slowed by the NAT process. I have noticed the IPv4
> > penalty getting
> > worse w
We continue to see 10 to 20 percent packet loss crossing TW border and even
between clients in the same region (e.g. LA and Santa Barbara). No news from
the NOC yet.
-mel
From: NANOG on behalf of Jason Hellenthal
Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2015 5:33
Cleared up here in WI TW/Level3 COLO between 19:00 - 19:20 CST - 3235 Intertech
Dr. Brookfield
> On Aug 26, 2015, at 16:44, Ryan K. Brooks wrote:
>
> Seems to be impacting their entire network now.
>
> On 8/26/15 4:41 PM, Rafael Possamai wrote:
>> I have been seeing the same issues, but haven'
Seems to be impacting their entire network now.
On 8/26/15 4:41 PM, Rafael Possamai wrote:
I have been seeing the same issues, but haven't heard anything back
yet. It has improved in the last 30 minutes or so, see below.
http://imgur.com/KVAzetA
*
*
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 4:34 PM, Ryan K.
I have been seeing the same issues, but haven't heard anything back yet. It
has improved in the last 30 minutes or so, see below.
http://imgur.com/KVAzetA
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 4:34 PM, Ryan K. Brooks wrote:
> Seeing packet loss on AS4323 since 2:30 Central time. NOC is
> unresponsive to
Seeing packet loss on AS4323 since 2:30 Central time. NOC is
unresponsive to phone and email. Anyone have an idea what's going on
over there?
I have a customer with a fiber outage with some Zayo IPs, Zayo is adverting the
/24, would love to have someone contact me from zayo; as we need that
advertisement turned off so we can get inbound though another provider until
the fiber is fixed.:(
Thanks,
[DennisBurgessSignature]
www.linktech
hi ramy
On 08/26/15 at 12:54pm, Aftab Siddiqui wrote:
>
> > Anybody here has experienced a PoC for any anti DDoS appliance, or already
> > using a anti DDoS appliance in production and able to share his user
> > experience/review?
> >
>
> only interested in appliance? why not scrubbing services
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 26/Aug/15 18:42, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
>
> Actually, the point is that if you're a content provider, there's a good
> chance that turning up IPv6 will result in happier eyeballs, which can
> probably be leveraged into a competitive ad
On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 17:59:24 +0200, Mark Tinka said:
> The point is you need a transition tech. solution if you are serious
> about providing a service to your customers. Assuming you don't is
> living in denial.
Actually, the point is that if you're a content provider, there's a good
chance that
You can try Ericsson SSR or SE.
On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 9:58 PM, Ahad Aboss wrote:
> Julian
>
> If you have budget constraints, try getting 2 x ASR1004, else ASR1006 with
> dual RP would take care of your needs.
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Ahad
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On 15 Aug 2015, at 1:06 am, Julian
Sorry, wrong thread!
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 12:29 PM, Tomas Lynch wrote:
> Ericsson SSR or SE.
>
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 5:38 PM, Bryan Ignatow wrote:
>
>> Nathan,
>>
>> I know someone. Contact me off list and I will get you and he connected.
>>
>> Bryan
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 4:33 P
Ericsson SSR or SE.
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 5:38 PM, Bryan Ignatow wrote:
> Nathan,
>
> I know someone. Contact me off list and I will get you and he connected.
>
> Bryan
>
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 4:33 PM Nathan Anderson wrote:
>
> > Is there anybody here who is fluent in LTE/3GPP networks a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 26/Aug/15 17:16, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
>
> So I'm guessing that 75% of the traffic flows with better latency than
> the 25% IPvhorse-n-buggy traffic? ;)
Practically, when we've tested NAT64 at reasonable scale, it does not
add any no
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 8:16 AM, wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 07:28:08 -0700, Ca By said:
>
> > Another relevant metric, less than 25% of my mobile subscribers traffic
> > require NAT64 translating. 75+% of bits flows through end-to-end IPv6
> > (thanks Google/Youtube, Facebook, Netflix, Yahoo,
Hello Aftab,
Sure we are interested in scrubbing centers, and we will have an on premise
appliance as well, but let's make the scope of this thread limited to the
on premise appliances.
If you want to discuss a certain scrubbing center subscription, let's have
this chat offline.
Thanks,
Ramy
O
On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 07:28:08 -0700, Ca By said:
> Another relevant metric, less than 25% of my mobile subscribers traffic
> require NAT64 translating. 75+% of bits flows through end-to-end IPv6
> (thanks Google/Youtube, Facebook, Netflix, Yahoo, Linkedin and so on ...).
So I'm guessing that 75%
On 26/Aug/15 16:32, Jared Mauch wrote:
> This for me is an important note, because if your site only gives out an A
> address,
> it’s going to be slowed by the NAT process. I have noticed the IPv4 penalty
> getting
> worse with many locations.
But you only need to hit the NAT64 gateway "if" y
On 26/Aug/15 16:28, Ca By wrote:
>
>
> From largish deployment ...
>
> Another relevant metric, less than 25% of my mobile subscribers
> traffic require NAT64 translating. 75+% of bits flows through
> end-to-end IPv6 (thanks Google/Youtube, Facebook, Netflix, Yahoo,
> Linkedin and so on ...).
> On Aug 26, 2015, at 10:28 AM, Ca By wrote:
>
>
>> From largish deployment ...
>
> Another relevant metric, less than 25% of my mobile subscribers traffic
> require NAT64 translating. 75+% of bits flows through end-to-end IPv6
> (thanks Google/Youtube, Facebook, Netflix, Yahoo, Linkedin and
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 7:19 AM, Mark Tinka wrote:
>
>
> On 26/Aug/15 16:13, Izaac wrote:
>
> > Yes, I'm curious about this too. I'd like a solid list of providers to
> > avoid.
>
> NAT64 is opt-in.
>
> It will mostly be used for customers that can no longer obtain IPv4
> addresses.
>
> Service
On 26/Aug/15 16:13, Izaac wrote:
> Yes, I'm curious about this too. I'd like a solid list of providers to
> avoid.
NAT64 is opt-in.
It will mostly be used for customers that can no longer obtain IPv4
addresses.
Service providers do not like NAT64 anymore than you do, but there needs
to be so
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 07:44:10AM -0600, Jawaid Shell2 wrote:
> Who out there is using production-scale NAT64? What solution are you using?
Yes, I'm curious about this too. I'd like a solid list of providers to
avoid.
--
. ___ ___ . . ___
. \/ |\ |\ \
. _\_ /__ |-\ |-\ \__
Hi,
> Anybody here has experienced a PoC for any anti DDoS appliance, or already
> using a anti DDoS appliance in production and able to share his user
> experience/review?
>
only interested in appliance? why not scrubbing services? is it for own use
(industry reviews before purchase) or some ar
On 08/26/2015 05:40 AM, Ramy Hashish wrote:
Anybody here has experienced a PoC for any anti DDoS appliance, or already
using a anti DDoS appliance in production and able to share his user
experience/review?
We need to collect good reviews from people whom got their hands dirty with
the configura
Good day all,
Anybody here has experienced a PoC for any anti DDoS appliance, or already
using a anti DDoS appliance in production and able to share his user
experience/review?
We need to collect good reviews from people whom got their hands dirty with
the configuration/attack mitigation, real ex
34 matches
Mail list logo
