For folks that might be in the southwest US (and any that want to
visit!), we're going to hold an operators group meeting on May 4,
2023 in Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Come to the land of green chile chessburgers, and meet some of the
local operators. This inaugural meeting is free. We hope to
see
On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 01:04:28PM -0600, Mike Hammett wrote:
> I don't even know where this conversation has gone anymore.
You have reached a terminal point in the NANOG mailing list state
machine: NOP-ARGUE
Many paths lead to this state, and it isn't unique to NANOG.
The sub-state is: I-TH
On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 12:22:14PM -0700, Jay Hennigan wrote:
> On 3/15/22 12:19, Dave wrote:
> >Ending DST is a really good idea.
> >
> >Moving 15 degrees East not so much but let’s face it, the environmental
> >impact statement will take forever to write
>
> Moving 15 degrees east would put Was
On Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 04:02:02PM -0500, Mike Hammett wrote:
[...]
> Getting the incumbents on-board certainly isn't a requirement. The
> post I was replying to favored a future where all providers converged
> on one infrastructure. I was saying that wasn't likely to happen.
If there's any regu
On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 08:05:39AM +0300, Töma Gavrichenkov wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2020, 12:45 AM Randy Bush wrote:
>
> > sad. http://nanog.org used to be the brilliant example of a fully
> > featured web site sans javascript, flash, ...
> >
>
> That was long ago now. It was using Cvent for
I've got a need to look for some announcements from the mid 1990s.
The oldest I've found at at the University of Oregon Route Views
Project, but the earliest I can find there appears to be November of
1997.
Anyone have pointers to date from earlier?
On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 04:12:27PM -0500, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
[...]
> There's the additional factor that security is always about trade-offs - for
> many sites, the dangers of using social media logins are *far* outweighed
> by being able to just have a big shiny "Log in using Facebook"
On Sat, Jul 14, 2018 at 08:54:25AM -0600, Miles Fidelman wrote:
[...]
> I find myself driving down Route 66. On our way through Arizona, I
> was surprised by what look like a lot of old-style microwave links.
> They pretty much follow the East-West rail line - where I'd expect
> there's a lot of
On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 12:54:05AM -0400, John R. Levine wrote:
> >You *can* get a fax across a G.711 connection if your throughput,
>
> My SIP provider supports T.38. How much difference does that make?
It can make a great deal of difference.
You change the dynamics from:
fax
On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 11:14:12PM -0400, John Levine wrote:
[...FAX over IP...]
> I don't really care if it's flaky. For one fax a month a few retries
> are not a big deal. But hellofax's free 5 pages a month will probably
> do the job.
For folks that have made it this far, you might be interes
On Sat, Mar 03, 2018 at 12:38:58AM -0600, Matt Harris wrote:
> I'm not sure where you're getting the $100 figure from, ARIN's minimum fee
> for an allocation is $250/year [...]
End Users have a different fee structure:
Annual maintenance fees are $100 for each IPv4 address block, $100 for
eac
> My point was that consumers voted out thousands of independents by
> taking service from incumbents instead of independents. Thousands have
> closed up shop. Where independents are available, it's still tough
> getting customers if the incumbents have a service that mostly works
> (over say 5 to
> > From: "Chuck Anderson"
> > To: nanog@nanog.org
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 12:47:17 PM
> > Subject: Re: Vendors spamming NANOG attendees
> >
> > I've started keeping a list of companies who make unsolicited
> > calls/emails. I tell them that I put them on my list of companies
> > n
On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 04:52:46AM +, Carlos Alcantar wrote:
> Hey Samual,
>
>
> you might want to check out the voice ops mailing list, might be a bit more
> relevant over there.
>
>
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
Aside from voiceops, here's decade (or more?) old web
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 11:27:53PM +, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:
> Thanks for the explanation,
> I am still trying to figure out the realistic business case where
> doing something like this would make sense to any party.
> (unless purely malicious or in error).
I'm sure others will reply as well
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 11:32:23PM -, John Levine wrote:
[...]
> With the "legal content" rule, I expect some bottom feeding bulk
> mailers to sue claiming that their CAN SPAM compliant spam is legal,
> therefore the providers can't block it.
Yeah... I've had a recurring nightmare for a while
On Wed, Aug 06, 2014 at 10:23:55AM -0500, Leo Bicknell wrote:
[...]
> By drawing an (admittedly somewhat arbitrary) boundary between L1/L2 and
> L3-L7,
> I think a situation can be created where there is maximum flexibility on both
> sides of that boundary, and the least chance of "stupidity" from
Anyone know how to summarize this end game well enough for state/federal
legislators?
Or raise enough money and direction to provide sufficient
"lobbying?"
Wasn't KC asking for a dept of the Internet at the NANOG 20 in DC?
On Fri, Aug 01, 2014 at 09:44:28AM +0200, Mark Tinka wrote:
> On Friday,
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 09:55:39AM -0500, Steven Saner wrote:
[...]
> Now, it is tempting to suggest that the electric cooperative should take
> on the project.
I've seen that exact scenario happen in rural New Mexico. The Co-op
members wanted dial-up access, and couldn't get it. They asked the
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 05:36:13PM -0400, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> As I noted in a long thread last year, I think that providing noncompetitive
> L2 aggregation as well -- on the same type of terms -- is productive in
> reducing barriers to entry.
Qwest had a great DSL product that did just this. Th
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 01:34:58PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On Jul 21, 2014, at 11:38 , William Herrin wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
>
> > The only exception I see to this would be if localities were
> > constrained to providing point to point and poin
On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 03:54:52PM -0400, Barry Shein wrote:
>
[...]
>
> And then the bandwidth catches up and it's no big deal anymore.
>
I think I want this on a T-shirt.
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 09:50:22AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
[...]
> I'm always surprised that folks at smaller exchanges don't form
> consortiums to build a mutually beneficial transit AS that connects to
> a larger remote exchange.
In my experience, the price of buying transit from established p
On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 10:48:03AM -0700, Octavio Alvarez wrote:
> On 10/11/2013 10:27 AM, William Waites wrote:
> > I'm having a discussion with a small network in a part of the world
> > where bandwidth is scarce and multiple DSL lines are often used for
> > upstream links. The topic is policy-ba
rque.
While it never became an importan IX, from the outside it looked like it
was a successful bandwidth co-op with several local ISPs buying from it
and benefiting from the local connectivity.
Perhaps others can make a go at it?
--- IXNM Opening e-mail -
Date: Tue
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 06:04:19PM -0400, Tony Tauber wrote:
> All this goes to the point that the original question was poorly worded and
> I daresay ill-conceived.
Are you saying there *are* dumb questions? :-)
On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 02:35:00PM -0400, br...@pobox.com wrote:
[...]
> I know nothing of the legalities outside of the US, however I never
> said anything about the convention center restricting irghts to use
> RF, I said they won't let you on the roof without paying a lot of
> money. I strongly
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 07:58:10AM +1100, Karl Auer wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-02-14 at 08:08 -0500, Jared Mauch wrote:
> > I recommend keeping your network as congruent between IPv4 and IPv6 as
> > possible, with dual-stack.
>
> Why?
I asked a similar question a few years ago:
http://seclists.or
Thanks Scott. Even if you can't name names, having those points stored
somewhere searchable is going to help someone build a useful case when
deciding to deploy or not.
On Sun, Feb 03, 2013 at 04:55:41PM -0500, Scott Helms wrote:
>On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 4:38 PM, John Osmon
naccurate, and the controversy caused the city
>council to change the rules for the city at the last minute.
>
>On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 12:44 PM, John Osmon <[1]jos...@rigozsaurus.com>
>wrote:
>
> On Sun, Feb 03, 2013 at 09:04:43AM -0800, Leo Bicknell wrote:
On Sun, Feb 03, 2013 at 09:04:43AM -0800, Leo Bicknell wrote:
[...]
> People are doing this, and it does work, it's just being done in
> locations the big telcos and cablecos have written off...
To re-iterate this point, and get a note into the archives -- Muni
networks *can* work.
Idaho Falls, I
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 10:22:43PM -0500, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> VZF's ONTs can't even do *ARP* right, or at least they couldn't as of
> last March. We expect them to do v6?
Perfect! We don't *need* ARP for v6!
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 07:53:34PM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
[...]
> It really isn't. You'd be surprised how many uncompensated truck rolls
> are eliminated every day by being able to talk to the ONT from the
> help desk and tell the subscriber "Well, I can manage your ONT and
> it's pretty clear t
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 07:54:15PM +, Warren Bailey wrote:
> Does anyone know the lead time for ARIN to issue OrgID and subsequently an AS?
Generally a day or so after getting them the proper information.
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 12:07:33AM -0500, Jimmy Hess wrote:
> Assume you have a public IPv4 assignment, and someone else
> starts routing your assignment... "legitimately" or not, RIR allocation
> transferred to them, or not.
>
> There might be a record created in a database, and/or internet ro
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 01:10:42PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
[...]
> +1 for ubiquity. I've had excellent results with their products though
> I have not used the Air Fiber product specifically and haven't
> tested any of the long-haul 1Gbps products.
I've many friends that are happy with ubiquity
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 10:16:28PM -0800, Chaim Rieger wrote:
> Apple stickers
I've got half a sheet of NeXT stickers left. Is that a reasonable
substitute?
On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 07:12:01PM +1100, Julien Goodwin wrote:
> The old colo at $JOB[-1] used to have an old Wyse 50 kicking around
> which I was happy enough to use (yes they can still be made to snarf
> credentials, but it's less likely) once or twice when I forgot my
> USB-Serial.
At my $JOB[
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 10:18:57AM -0500, Steve Clark wrote:
> I agree with this 100%.
>
> Having worked with many people over the last 40 years, the good trouble
> shooters understood how things
> were suppose to work. This helps immeasurably in determining where to start
> looking.
Don't forg
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 10:30:33AM -0500, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> - Original Message -
> > From: "Paul Graydon"
>
> > Anecdotally, I had an interview years ago for a small-ish futures
> > trading company based in London. The interviewer had to pause the
> > interview part way through whilst
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 11:44:07AM -1000, Paul Graydon wrote:
> [...] I don't mind new TLDs, but company ones are crazy
> and going to lead to a confusing and messy internet.
Maybe we could demote the commercial ones to live under a single
TLD to make things simpler/neater... :-)
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 07:45:44AM +1000, Jeffrey S. Young wrote:
> No matter where you go, there you are.
> [--anon?]
Oliver's Law of Location
Kinda usurped by Buckaroo Banzai in the movie by the same name. It
always annoys me when attributed to that character.
Go back to your regular programm
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 10:17:46AM -0800, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
[...]
> The fact that I can get a wavelength to county dump in Eugene OR the
> composting facility in Palo Alto doesn't really do anything for the
> residential access market.
Why not?
You have to start with connectivity *somewhere*.
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 08:22:00PM +0100, Leland Vandervort wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> Apologies if off topic, but hoping that one of you gurus out there might have
> some tips on this.
>
> I have a rather "unusual" application for DNS which I need to figure
> out a way to make it work, but runnin
[... learning about path prepending ...]
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 03:39:31PM -0500, Greg Whynott wrote:
> thanks all, this makes sense now.and i just showed the internet how
> ignorant I am?
Ignorance can be cured with knowledge -- as you've just proven.
Keep showing people how ignorant you
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 04:11:38PM +0100, Mathias Wolkert wrote:
[...]
> I like the idea of having one physical version showing cables and devices
> (CDP/EDP/LLDP view pretty much) and one logical view showing IP subnets.
> Many times I found *documented* networks where this is all combined making
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 02:16:10PM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> In message <00df01c98b27$3181b7e0$948527...@com>, "TJ" writes:
[...SOX auditor stuff...]
> > When the compliance explicitly requires something they are required to check
> > for it, they don't have the option of ignoring or waving r
On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 11:36:25AM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
[...]
> WII's should be able to be directly connected to the network
> without any firewall. If they can't be then they are broken.
Amen brother Mark! Can I get a hallelujah from the chorus?
(Meanwhile, I'll continue to l
This is falling outside of the IPv6/RFC-1918 discussion, so
I'll only answer questions with questions... If there's need for
a real discussion, I'll let someone change the subject, and continue
on...
On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 01:11:13AM +0100, Sven-Haegar Koch wrote:
[...]
> > The flip side shows u
On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 04:44:58PM -0500, Ricky Beam wrote:
> [...] I've lived quite productively behind a single IPv4 address for
> nearly 15 years. I've run 1000 user networks that only used one IPv4
> address for all of them. I have 2 private /24's using a single public
> IPv4 address ri
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 06:35:12PM +0100, Sam Stickland wrote:
> Can someone give an example of how to use source routing to check a
> peers routing policy?
Channelling from a similar private conversation I had many years ago:
Seeing if packets directed to prefixes that you're not announcing
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 10:42:22PM +0800, Adrian Chadd wrote:
[...]
>
> If only there was a way for a SP to run a BitTorrent type service for
> their clients, subscribing the BT server(s) to known-good (ie, not warez-y)
> torrents pre-seeded from trusted sources and then leaving it the hell
> alon
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 09:46:38AM -0400, Jim Popovitch wrote:
> Looks can sometimes be deceiving. ;-) I've seen Comcast drop packets
> left and right, but show 8Mbs/2Mbs on speed test sites. Other times
> I've seen the opposite, zero PL but extremely high latency (seconds,
> double digits!)...
53 matches
Mail list logo
