,
> with the possible exception of some few people who work in mass media
> and/or the "news" business, such as it currently is.
As a caucasian American, born and raised in the US Midwest, I too was
offended by your postscript. I would encourage you to take a step back,
and con
egards
>--
>MiCHAEL
>
>On Sat, 24 Nov 2018 at 12:52, Jeff McAdams wrote:
>
>> On Fri, November 23, 2018 18:20, Christopher Morrow wrote:
>> > On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 6:12 PM Jeff McAdams
>wrote:
>> >> On November 23, 2018 4:48:14 PM EST, Christ
On Fri, November 23, 2018 18:20, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 6:12 PM Jeff McAdams wrote:
>> On November 23, 2018 4:48:14 PM EST, Christopher Morrow <
>> morrowc.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I think there are 3 options:
>>> ri
On November 23, 2018 4:48:14 PM EST, Christopher Morrow
wrote:
>I think there are 3 options:
> ripe validator v2 (potentially v3?) -
>https://github.com/RIPE-NCC/rpki-validator
>
>https://github.com/RIPE-NCC/rpki-validator-3
> rpki.net validator - https://github.com/dragonresearch/rpki.net
OK, I'm trying to do the responsible thing and further the progress and
deployment of RPKI. I feel like I have a pretty good handle on a path
forward for doing validation and routing-policy based on ROA validation.
However, I also feel like I'm really banging my head against a wall trying
to set
On Fri, December 30, 2016 14:26, Emille Blanc wrote:
> Ah, but who do you trust? Trump, Putin, or Xi's clock?
>
>
> That said, we use a Stratum2 clock for our AS, which syncs using GPS at
> $dayjob. So... I guess we trust Trump's clock.
>
>
> Perhaps there's a market for a device that takes GPS, G
Not quite sure whether this should go to outages, or here. I'm not
confident that there actually *is* an outage of any sort...having a tough
time characterizing it.
I have an IPSec tunnel between 64.6.220.219 (upstreams Sprint, AT&T, and
LeveL3/legacy TWTelecom) and 64.199.98.162 (upstream Windst
On Thu, June 2, 2016 15:45, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Jeff McAdams wrote:
>> Yes. I had a member of an account team for a networking vendor express
>> extreme skepticism when discussing IP address plans and work I had
>> done. When descr
On Thu, June 2, 2016 13:31, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 1:17 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
>> Yes.
>>
> âREALLY??? I mean REALLY? people that operate networks haven't haven't
> had beaten into their heads: 1) cgn is expensive
> 2) there is no more ipv4 (not large amounts for la
Congratulations, Sander, on proving Matthew's point quite consicely.
Matthew pointed out reasons that people don't like this setup, and reasons
that they *AREN'T DEPLOYING IPV6*. And you blow them off with, "but it's
not the best way." Great, I think I probably even agree with you that
using the
No.
Given that Lorenzo was posting with absolute statements about Google's
approach, and with what they would do in the future in response to hypothetical
standards developments, these questions are completely valid.
On Jun 10, 2015 5:24 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
>
> On 06/10/2015 02:51 PM, Pa
Then you need to be far more careful about what you say. When you said "Android
would still not support..." you, very clearly, made a statement of product
direction for a Google product. There is no other rational way to interpret
your statement than to be a statement of Google's position.
--
gt;>> On Feb 6, 2015, at 08:39 , Bill Thompson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Just because a cat has kittens in the oven, you don't call them
>>>
>> biscuits. A firewall can route, but it is not a router. Both have
>> specialized tasks. You can fix a
On Thu, February 5, 2015 20:02, Joe Hamelin wrote:
>> On Feb 5, 2015, at 2:49 PM, Ralph J.Mayer
>> wrote:
>> a router is a router and a firewall is a firewall. Especially a Cisco ASA
>> is no router, period.
>
> Man-o-man did I find that out when we had to renumber our network after
> we got boug
On 02/09/2011 08:38 PM, George Bonser wrote:
If you're not being heard by your vendor, you're not yelling loud
enough.
Or you aren't big enough of a customer. I was at one manufacturer
within the past few months and asked about the lack of v6 support at
layer 3 in one of their product lines a
On 02/09/2011 07:32 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
The small to middle guys are at the mercy of the large guys applying
pressure to vendors.
I'm gonna just pick on this one thing.
This just isn't true.
I've always worked in small to middle sized shops, and I have always
found that I've been able to
sized businesses.
Both my previous and current employer, in switching from IPv4 to IPv6
will drop from 7 and 4 advertisements (fully aggregated) to 1. I don't
anticipate either ever having needs larger than the single initial
allocation they have or would get. Both are multi-homed.
--
Jeff
that we could given the allocations/assignments we
had. We'll have savings from that, and if you want to filter to limit
deaggregating for TE purposes, I'm quite OK with that.
But if you cut out PI space, you're dead in the water, we just can't
have that.
--
Jeff McAdams
f how their
policy applies, or if they're making an exception for these, but they
are visible through Verizon.
--
Jeff McAdams
je...@iglou.com
gned their first /48 from 2620:0::/23), if your
announcements are only longer than /32, you should be aware that Verizon
is completely unreachable for you - even if you are a Verizon customer
directly.
--
Jeff McAdams
you above and beyond the engine, transmission, starter,
> and so on? It gets you all those things in one convenient package that you
> just buy, start, and drive. NAT provides all the advantages its component
> parts provide. Really.
And in IPv6-land, it will be trivial to build consum
22 matches
Mail list logo
