On May 12, 2011, at 8:31 PM, Roy wrote:
> On 5/12/2011 4:03 PM, George Herbert wrote:
> >
> > Large end-user companies generally multihomed by that time, and you
> > generally did that by BGP4 at the time (post-1994), and before that
> > BGP3, and before that EGP, and before that... well, th
On Feb 2, 2011, at 3:15 PM, George Herbert wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 8:55 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum
> wrote:
>> On 2 feb 2011, at 17:14, Dave Israel wrote:
>>
I understand people use DHCP for lots of stuff today. But that's mainly
because DHCP is there, not because it's the bes
On Feb 2, 2011, at 3:12 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> On 2 feb 2011, at 20:37, John Payne wrote:
>
>>>> DHCP fails because you can't get a default router out of it.
>
>>> If you consider that wrong, I don't want to be right.
>
>> Hey, I tho
On Feb 2, 2011, at 2:54 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On Feb 2, 2011, at 11:40 AM, John Payne wrote:
>
>>
>> On Feb 2, 2011, at 6:18 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
>>> NAT66 is different. NAT66 breaks things in ways that impact sites outside
>>> of the
On Feb 1, 2011, at 6:15 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On Feb 1, 2011, at 2:56 PM, John Payne wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Feb 1, 2011, at 4:38 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
>>> NAT solves exactly one problem. It provides a way to reduce address
>>>
On Feb 2, 2011, at 6:18 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> NAT66 is different. NAT66 breaks things in ways that impact sites outside of
> the site choosing to deploy NAT.
Examples?
On Feb 2, 2011, at 10:23 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> On 2 feb 2011, at 16:00, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>> SLAAC fails because you can't get information about DNS, NTP, or anything
>> other than a list of prefixes and a router that MIGHT actually be able to
>> default-route your packets.
>
>
On Feb 2, 2011, at 3:16 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> On 2 feb 2011, at 4:51, Dave Israel wrote:
>
>> They were features dreamed up by academics, theoreticians, and purists, and
>> opposed by operators.
>
> Contrary to popular belief, the IETF listens to operators and wants them to
> part
On Feb 1, 2011, at 4:38 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> NAT solves exactly one problem. It provides a way to reduce address
> consumption to work around a shortage of addresses.
>
> It does not solve any other problem(s).
That's a bold statement. Especially as you said NAT and not PAT.
On Jan 26, 2011, at 4:52 PM, Charles N Wyble wrote:
> Comcast is currently conducting trials:
> http://comcast6.net/ (anyone participated in this?)
Yes, and other than the fact that their 6rd implementation only gives me a /64,
I've been really happy with it. My wife doesn't even know that he
On Jan 28, 2011, at 3:14 PM, George Bonser wrote:
>
>
>> Now that the holidays are over and IANA v4 depletion is likely days
>> away, perhaps its time to consider stripping your bogon lists down to
>> the bare minimum, and as someone else said, declare bogons dead and
>> move to martians?
>>
>
On Dec 17, 2010, at 4:06 PM, John Payne wrote:
> With the holiday freezes approaching, it might be worth making sure that the
> recently allocated /8s are not in your bogon list
>
> 23/8
> 100/8
> 5/8
> 37/8
>
> Just sayin'
105/8, 2/8, etc etc
Now tha
With the holiday freezes approaching, it might be worth making sure that the
recently allocated /8s are not in your bogon list
23/8
100/8
5/8
37/8
Just sayin'
On Nov 3, 2010, at 10:08 AM, "Adcock, Matt [HISNA]" wrote:
> To my knowledge Simplex Grinnell fire detection systems currently use token
> ring.
I can't believe I got through is thread (unless the iPhone threading is more
broken than usual) without anyone mentioning the fibre channel over to
On Apr 23, 2010, at 8:42 AM, Jared Mauch wrote:
>
> On Apr 23, 2010, at 5:49 AM, Dave Hart wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 08:26 UTC, Steve Bertrand wrote:
>>> - in WHOIS, I have ns1 and ns2.onlyv6.com listed as the authoritative
>>> name servers
>>>
>>> - both of these servers *only* hav
On Apr 8, 2010, at 5:38 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
*I* am personally convinced that IPv6 is great, but on the other
hand,
I do not see so much value in v6 that I am prepared to compel the
budgeting for ARIN v6 fees, especially since someone from ARIN just
described all the ways in which they
On Apr 8, 2010, at 5:14 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 4:51 PM, John Payne wrote:
>> On Apr 8, 2010, at 4:44 PM, William Herrin wrote:
>>> I think you'll find that the guy deploying the IPv6-only client -or-
>>> server is going to be in the
On Apr 8, 2010, at 4:44 PM, William Herrin wrote:
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 4:27 PM, John Payne wrote:
On Apr 8, 2010, at 4:01 PM, William Herrin wrote:
Because when WE haven't deployed IPv6 yet and YOU have trouble
finding
a free IPv4 address for your new server, it'll be YOUR p
On Apr 8, 2010, at 4:14 PM, Joe Greco wrote:
>> On Apr 8, 2010, at 11:36 AM, Joe Greco wrote:
>>
>>> IPv6-only content won't be meaningful for years yet, and IPv6-only
>>> eyeballs will necessarily be given ways to reach v4 for many years
>>> to come.
>>
>> So again, why do WE have to encourage
On Apr 8, 2010, at 4:01 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 3:49 PM, John Payne wrote:
>> So again, why do WE have to encourage YOU to adopt IPv6?
>> Why should WE care what you do to the point of creating
>> new rules so YOU don't have to pay like e
On Apr 8, 2010, at 11:36 AM, Joe Greco wrote:
> IPv6-only content won't be meaningful for years yet, and IPv6-only
> eyeballs will necessarily be given ways to reach v4 for many years
> to come.
So again, why do WE have to encourage YOU to adopt IPv6?
Why should WE care what you do to the point
On Apr 8, 2010, at 8:51 AM, Joe Greco wrote:
>> On Apr 7, 2010, at 12:09 PM, John Palmer (NANOG Acct) wrote:
>>
>>> Was looking at the ARIN IP6 policy and cannot find any reference to those
>>> who have
>>> IP4 legacy space.
>>>
>>> Isn't there an automatic allocation for those of us who have
On Apr 7, 2010, at 12:09 PM, John Palmer (NANOG Acct) wrote:
> Was looking at the ARIN IP6 policy and cannot find any reference to those who
> have
> IP4 legacy space.
>
> Isn't there an automatic allocation for those of us who have legacy IP space.
> If not, is ARIN
> saying we have to pay th
On Mar 26, 2010, at 9:24 PM, Mark Foster wrote:
or reboot is problematic in many cases. Many systems drop link-
state during reboot for a long-enough period that the bridge-port
restarts its spanning tree process, making results across reboots
consistently bad.
Interesting; Windows ten
On Mar 26, 2010, at 9:24 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> InterNetX - Lutz Muehlig wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> has someone experience in anycast ipv4 networks (to support DNS)?
>
> "Never been done" "Dangerous" "TCP does not work" etc etc etc.
Can't really tell if you're being serious here due to caffein
On Feb 3, 2010, at 3:10 PM, Joel M Snyder wrote:
>
>> Having this data is useful, but I can't help to think it would be
>> more useful if it were compared with 27/8, or other networks. Is
>> this slightly worse, or significantly worse than other networks?
>
> I have only anecdotal information
On Jan 14, 2010, at 1:41 PM, Kevin Loch wrote:
> Ketan Mangal wrote:
>> Yes there is a Newyork to Philadelphia fiber cut is there It might not be an
>> outage it might be high latency due to multiple
>> routes going out via there buffalo POP.
>
> That fiber cut was at 9:30EST this morning, the
On Oct 22, 2009, at 4:32 PM, Ray Soucy wrote:
Knowing about it the
instant it happens might even be better than slowly coming to the
realization that you're dealing with one.
Might just be me, but I'm more worried about the rogue RA (or DHCPv4)
server that does not disrupt communication at
On Jul 18, 2009, at 4:03 PM, Simon Lockhart wrote:
On Sat Jul 18, 2009 at 09:31:56PM +0200, Marc Manthey wrote:
hey peoples sorry for my question
but a buddy in wales have massive problems with internet connectivity
can someone confirm ?
I'm just on the welsh border, and I've not seen any
On May 21, 2009, at 12:03 PM, Patrick Darden wrote:
Whois query gets us:
NS2.FACEBOOK.COM 204.74.67.132
DNS05.SF2P.TFBNW.NET DNS04.SF2P.TFBNW.NET
NS1.FACEBOOK.COM 204.74.66.132
both 204.74.67.132 and 204.74.66.132 are pingable, but DNS queries
on them directly get various
On Apr 10, 2009, at 4:27 PM, "Fouant, Stefan"
wrote:
Hi folks,
I am trying to compile data on which providers are currently
supporting
BGP Flowspec at their edge, if there are any at all. The few
providers
I've reached out to have indicated they do not support this and have
no
int
This is an important point in this discussion. There are a lot of
comments being made that are just simply wrong and causing confusion
because of slips in terminology regarding the path attribute.
Thanks Kris - exactly what I was getting to.
Kris
-Original Message-----
From: John Payne
On Jan 14, 2009, at 10:50 AM, Michienne Dixon wrote:
Interesting - So as a cyber criminal - I could setup a router, start
announcing AS 16733, 18872, and maybe 6966 for good measure and their
routers would ignore my announcements and IP ranges that I siphoned
from
searching IANA? Hm... Wo
On Jan 13, 2009, at 12:05 AM, Paul Wall wrote:
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 7:29 PM, Leo Bicknell
wrote:
You really should make some friends Randy.
He is, on Second Life.
Seriously though... I've not seen any discussion of the application of
"allowas-in", a valid neighbor configuration under c
On Aug 1, 2008, at 11:13 AM, Craig Pierantozzi wrote:
* Jon Lewis was thought to have said:
If someone from Level3 could tell me why routes tagged with
65000:0 and/or 65000:1239 don't actually stop those routes from being
advertised to 1239, I'd appreciate it.
You should start to see them
On May 15, 2008, at 10:28 PM, 袁智辉 wrote:
>
> How is the state of arts of NETCONF (RFC 4741) protocol?
>
> Is there any Network Management System Deployed which is base on
> NETCONF?
I've personally been waiting for the data modeling to be
standardized. Yes, it's great and wonderful to have
36 matches
Mail list logo
