On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 16:06, Joe wrote:
>
>
> The topic of sunspots is certainly familiar from long ago. We had a
> 7513
> that crashed unexpectedly, upon a review of the data available, it was
> determined
> that a parity error had occurred. I can't remember the exact error as it was
> s
The topic of sunspots is certainly familiar from long ago. We had a
7513
that crashed unexpectedly, upon a review of the data available, it was
determined
that a parity error had occurred. I can't remember the exact error as it was
several
years ago, but upon a quick search this article
ing my GCI BlackBerry
- Original Message -
From: Leigh Porter
To: Warren Bailey; valdis.kletni...@vt.edu ;
wavetos...@googlemail.com
Cc: vi...@isc.org ; r...@seastrom.com ;
na...@merit.edu
Sent: Sun Apr 11 12:39:39 2010
Subject: Re: Solar Flux (was: Re: China prefix hijack)
There is a guy
; Robert E. Seastrom ;
na...@merit.edu
Sent: Sun Apr 11 08:36:05 2010
Subject: Re: Solar Flux (was: Re: China prefix hijack)
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 16:58:40 BST, Michael Dillon said:
> Would a Faraday cage be sufficient to protect against cosmic ray bit-flipping
> and how could you retrofit a F
2010
Subject: Re: Solar Flux (was: Re: China prefix hijack)
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 16:58:40 BST, Michael Dillon said:
> Would a Faraday cage be sufficient to protect against cosmic ray bit-flipping
> and how could you retrofit a Faraday cage onto a rack or two of gear?
Scientists build ne
On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 7:07 AM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
> We've seen great increases in CPU and memory speeds as well as disk
> densities since the last maximum (March 2000). Speccing ECC memory is
> a reasonable start, but this sort of thing has been a problem in the
> past (anyone remember
lock on
it, the odds of its random noise being something decipherable are much more
acceptable than normal.
- Original Message -
From: "Robert E. Seastrom"
To: "Paul Vixie"
Cc:
Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2010 9:07 AM
Subject: Solar Flux (was: Re: China pref
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 16:58:40 BST, Michael Dillon said:
> Would a Faraday cage be sufficient to protect against cosmic ray bit-flipping
> and how could you retrofit a Faraday cage onto a rack or two of gear?
Scientists build neutrino detectors in mines 8,000 feet underground because
that much rock
> That is likely to be an increasing problem in upcoming months/years.
> Solar cycle 24 started in August '09; we're ramping up on the way out
> of a more serious than usual sunspot minimum.
I wonder what kind of buildings are less susceptible to these kinds
of problems. And is there a good way to
Paul Vixie writes:
> i'm more inclined to blame the heavy solar wind this month and to assume
> that chinanet's routers don't use ECC on the RAM containing their RIBs and
> that chinanet's router jockeys are in quite a sweat about this bad publicity.
> --
> Paul Vixie
> KI6YSY
That is likely t
On Apr 10, 2010, at 12:17 AM, Paul Vixie wrote:
> are we all freaking out especially much because this is coming from china
> today, and we suppose there must be some kind of geopolitical intent because
> china-vs-google's been in the news a lot today?
There's been a fair amount of speculation
"Martin A. Brown" writes:
> Just a note of confirmation that 23724 originated as many as 31847
> prefixes during an 18 minute window starting around 15:54 UTC.
> They were prepending their own AS, and this is several orders of
> magnitude more prefixes than they normally originate.
a couple
Hi Jul, list
.-- My secret spy satellite informs me that at 08/04/10 1:57 PM jul wrote:
So, how each one has assess the impact of this on his network ? How
could we check where route's propagation stop(ed) ?
Thanks to Renesys and Team Cymru for the stats of how many
prefixes/countries where af
I also see some of this from France.
On this incident/error, even if tools like BGPMon, watchmy.net and
others exactly did their roles, I asking myself if there are some other
public tools which can help.
CIDR returns Chinanet as the biggest announcer (but could be the case
previously)
97074688
On Apr 8, 2010, at 11:45 AM, Martin A. Brown wrote:
> Just a note of confirmation that 23724 originated as many as 31847
> prefixes during an 18 minute window starting around 15:54 UTC.
> They were prepending their own AS, and this is several orders of
> magnitude more prefixes than they norm
Hi, team.
Joe wrote:
> Just wondering if this was a "Fat fingered" mistake or intentional...
I'm thinking "oops."
Looking only for prefixes with the aspath " 4134 23724 23724 ," and
only on 2010-04-08 UTC, we see 15210 prefixes announced.
Of those, 9598 are allocated to CN, 11017 are allocated
Hello,
Just a note of confirmation that 23724 originated as many as 31847
prefixes during an 18 minute window starting around 15:54 UTC.
They were prepending their own AS, and this is several orders of
magnitude more prefixes than they normally originate.
-Martin
--
Martin A. Brown --- Ren
On 08/04/10 13:27 -0400, Joe wrote:
Just wondering if this was a "Fat fingered" mistake or intentional...
If it was a mistake, I hope he fares a bit better than his counterparts
in other Chinese industries...
--
Dan White
Just wondering if this was a "Fat fingered" mistake or intentional...
-J
> -Original Message-
> From: Frank Pater [mailto:fpa...@dca.net]
> Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 1:20 PM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: China prefix hijack
>
>
> Hi,
>
Hi,
We received BGPmon notifications for all of our prefixes as well. Not sure if
it's relevant, but this is also announced upstream from us by 3491. Example:
Possible Prefix Hijack (Code: 10)
==
Hi Grzegorz,
.-- My secret spy satellite informs me that at 08/04/10 9:33 AM
Grzegorz Janoszka wrote:
Just half an hour ago China Telecom hijacked one of our prefixes:
Your prefix: X.Y.Z.0/19:
Prefix Description: NETNAME
Update time: 2010-04-08 15:58 (UTC)
Detected by #peers: 1
Detected prefi
On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 18:33:42 +0200, Grzegorz Janoszka said:
> Your prefix: X.Y.Z.0/19:
> Detected prefix: X.Y.Z.0/19
> Luckily it had to be limited as only one BGPmon peer saw it. Anyone else
> noticed it?
Sorry, I'm not seeing an announcement for X.Y.Z.0/19 here.
pgpP4S2yd6Lg1.
i think so yeah
AS 23724 is now announcing 63.218.188.0/22 which is historically announced
by ASes: 3491.
Time: Thu Apr 8 16:55:02 2010 GMT
Observed path: 812 174 4134 23724 23724
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 12:33 PM, Grzegorz Janoszka wrote:
>
> Just half an hour ago China Telecom hijacked one of
Just half an hour ago China Telecom hijacked one of our prefixes:
Your prefix: X.Y.Z.0/19:
Prefix Description: NETNAME
Update time: 2010-04-08 15:58 (UTC)
Detected by #peers: 1
Detected prefix: X.Y.Z.0/19
Announced by: AS23724 (CHINANET-IDC-BJ-AP IDC, China
Te
24 matches
Mail list logo
