On 11/30/2017 07:38 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
I did a draft of a double signing thing that let the sender say who's
expected to sign a modified forwarded version. The big mail systems
weren't interested. They want the recipient system to decide.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-levine-
Hi Guys,
Is anyone knows about a Monitoring tool for OSPF ??
~~( ŊëŌ )~~
On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 12:35:13PM -0500, Aliaksei Sheshka wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 3:07 PM, Job Snijders wrote:
> > I re-implemented the venerable 'aggregate' tool (by Joe Abley & co)
> > in python under the name of 'aggregate6'. The 'aggregate6' tool is
> > faster and also has IPv6 suppo
On 01/12/2017 18:24, Ryan Finnesey wrote:
I was wonder if anyone within the group has done this research and might be
able to save me a bit of time. I am in the process of putting together a new
Registrar and we would like complete ccTLD coverage. I know for example CIRA
(.ca) has a Canadia
>wow, 256 of 539 report "no" for DNSSEC.
Having a look at the link, it seems it's representing the options of the
opensrs system and not necessarily the options of the registry.
For .de e.g. the registry DENIC provides DNSSEC.
Just my 2 Cent,
Marco
That's why we're working on DNSSEC automation, to let the DNS Operator sign the
zone and automate the provisioning of DS record into the registry without
registrant or registrar intervention. Multiple methods and approach being work
on.
API for DNS Operator:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draf
http://rick.eng.br/dnssecstat/ is more on topic of we what discussing,
although the monitor is interesting too.
Rubens
On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 5:35 PM, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 5:20 PM, Christopher Morrow <
> morrowc.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 1, 2017
On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 5:20 PM, Christopher Morrow
wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 1:45 PM, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
>
>>
>> .br also has such requirements. OpenSRS reference chart has a good hint of
>> which ccTLDs have such requirements:
>> http://bit.ly/OpenSRS_TLD_Reference_Chart
>
>
> wow, 25
> > I am hoping to find what other TLD operators may have similar requirements.
> >
>
> .br also has such requirements. OpenSRS reference chart has a good hint of
> which ccTLDs have such requirements:
> http://bit.ly/OpenSRS_TLD_Reference_Chart
It might be advisable to verify the data. For insta
On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 1:45 PM, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
>
> .br also has such requirements. OpenSRS reference chart has a good hint of
> which ccTLDs have such requirements:
> http://bit.ly/OpenSRS_TLD_Reference_Chart
wow, 256 of 539 report "no" for DNSSEC.
It appears there is a major outage in the CenturyLink Network for voip
customers, potentially on the SS7 side of the network.
Nothing has been confirmed except certain CenturyLink reps have informed me
that everything West of Colorado is down. I know this to be true for 3 of my
sites, LAX, SFO,
On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 4:24 PM, Ryan Finnesey wrote:
> I was wonder if anyone within the group has done this research and might
> be able to save me a bit of time. I am in the process of putting together
> a new Registrar and we would like complete ccTLD coverage. I know for
> example CIRA (.ca
Anyone know if they're having trouble? I can't seem to get through to
their NOC using a pair of toll frees I have or any of the individual
contacts we have numbers for. If someone from there can contact me off
list, I just need some info for a new turnup (vlan, port on CPE, etc).
--
Bryon Adams
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 3:07 PM, Job Snijders wrote:
> Dear NANOG,
>
> I re-implemented the venerable 'aggregate' tool (by Joe Abley & co) in
> python under the name of 'aggregate6'. The 'aggregate6' tool is faster
> and also has IPv6 support.
>
> https://github.com/job/aggregate6
>
Nice!
"-t
Need to get ahold of a CTL VoIP tech,
Phone queues seem to be down. Any Help is appreciated.
While I am personally a fan of mikrotik for their ridiculously inexpensive
MPLS features, their total and complete lack of ISIS is a show stopper in a
lot of cases (and makes me sad) and their v6 support is
mostly-ok-but-still-wonky(which also makes me sad) - and ROS 7 has been
"coming soon" in the
I was wonder if anyone within the group has done this research and might be
able to save me a bit of time. I am in the process of putting together a new
Registrar and we would like complete ccTLD coverage. I know for example CIRA
(.ca) has a Canadian Presence Requirement and we have formed a
> On Dec 1, 2017, at 2:16 AM, Elmar K. Bins wrote:
>
> na...@studio442.com.au (Julien Goodwin) wrote:
>
>>> The first optimisation is to remove any supplied prefixes which are
>>> superfluous because they are already included in another supplied
>>> prefix. For example, 2001:67c:208c:10::/64 wo
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, SANOG, PacNOG, SAFNOG, CaribNOG
TZNOG, MENOG, BJNOG, SDNOG, CMNOG, LACNOG, IRNOG and the RIPE Routing WG.
Daily listings are sen
I'm looking for a contact at CenturyLink knowledgeable on one of their routes
that originally was built by Midwest Fiber Optic Networks (was a part of
LightCore's network).
I got conflicting stories from a sales engineer as to the status on the route.
We may have better options elsewhere, but
> On Dec 1, 2017, at 04:16 , Vincent Bernat wrote:
>
> ❦ 1 décembre 2017 15:02 +0300, Nikolay Shopik :
>
>>> DHCP and neighbor discovery can also provide the information of the
>>> login page: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7710
>>
>> I don't think it got support in any os.
>
> It's support
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 7:36 PM, Romeo Czumbil
wrote:
>
> So do we have any Arista L3 people out here that can share some negatives
or positives?
We're using the Arista 7280R with Jericho(+) chips as PE routers.
We're happy with them.
Stable operation, no serious issues so far.
Feature wise they
Public shaking seems to work. They are no longer advertising those
prefixes.
On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 10:30 AM, Nathan Brookfield <
nathan.brookfi...@simtronic.com.au> wrote:
> The remainder of the advertisements being more /16’s from China Seems
> very very bogus.
>
> Nathan Brookfield
> Chief
On an IX, without next-hop-self peer A leaking peer B's routes they receive to
C will have C send direct to B on the IX (assuming flat layer 3 addressing,
and not multiple little /30s or /96s everywhere or something - do any
exchanges do that?)
This may seem more efficient than sending C's traffic
The remainder of the advertisements being more /16’s from China Seems very
very bogus.
Nathan Brookfield
Chief Executive Officer
Simtronic Technologies Pty Ltd
http://www.simtronic.com.au
On 2 Dec 2017, at 02:27, Carlos M. Martinez
mailto:carlosm3...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hello all,
I’m try
Hello all,
I’m trying to reach anyone at AS 6589, “Beneficial Technologies”.
They are announcing large chunk of LACNIC unallocated space, as can be
seen here: https://bgp.he.net/AS6589
Although I usually give people the benefit of doubt, in this case we are
talking about 5 /16 prefixes. Talk
Hi All,
We have continued our investigation and data seem to show a more focused issue
at the peering between Level 3 (CenturyLink) and MSN in LA. Can someone look
at our data (new data below) and see if this seems like a reasonable conclusion?
>From our network (San Diego) to an MSN Azure sev
Hello everyone,
Question, what are the true benefits to using the next-hop self feature,
doesn't matter what vendor.
Most information I see is just to make sure you have reach-ability for external
routes via IBGP, but what if all your IBGP knows the eBGP links?
Is there a added benefit to usi
❦ 1 décembre 2017 15:02 +0300, Nikolay Shopik :
>> DHCP and neighbor discovery can also provide the information of the
>> login page: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7710
>
> I don't think it got support in any os.
It's supported on Linux by Network Manager.
--
All things that are, are with mo
On 01/12/17 09:32, Vincent Bernat wrote:
> DHCP and neighbor discovery can also provide the information of the
> login page: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7710
I don't think it got support in any os.
Current take on that is capport WG
https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/capport/documents/
> On Nov 30, 2017, at 11:56 PM, Colton Conor wrote:
>
> Jared,
>
> Which Arista box do you use for FTTH features? Whats the cost like as FTTH
> boxes are usually inexpensive, and Arista is not know to be inexpensive
> compared to something like Calix or Adtran.
I use the DCS-7050S-52-F.
On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 09:09:38PM +1100, Julien Goodwin wrote:
> Will it catch cases like:
> 10.0.0.0/24 10.0.1.0/24 10.0.2.0/23 -> 10.0.0.0/22
Yes it does!
hanna:~ job$ echo 10.0.0.0/24 10.0.1.0/24 10.0.2.0/23 | aggregate6
10.0.0.0/22
hanna:~ job$
Kind regards,
Job
na...@studio442.com.au (Julien Goodwin) wrote:
> > The first optimisation is to remove any supplied prefixes which are
> > superfluous because they are already included in another supplied
> > prefix. For example, 2001:67c:208c:10::/64 would be removed if
> > 2001:67c:208c::/48 was also supplied.
On 01/12/17 07:27, Job Snijders wrote:
> Someone suggested I should clarify what 'aggregate6' actually does :-)
>
> aggregate6 takes a list of IPv4 and/or IPv6 prefixes in conventional
> format, and performs two optimisations to attempt to reduce the length
> of the prefix list.
>
> The first opt
Their L3 stuff is as stable as their L2 stuff, in general.
MP-BGP and VRFs are a tiny bit bleeding edge/lacking features, however for
plain OSPF/BGP, they're great.
/Ruairi
On 30 November 2017 at 18:36, Romeo Czumbil
wrote:
> So I've been using Arista as layer2 for quite some time, and I'm p
35 matches
Mail list logo
