Re: Easily confused...

2011-04-19 Thread Joel Jaeggli
On 4/19/11 3:30 AM, ML wrote: > > > With the crudiness of the IPTV middleware aimed for smaller deployments, > I'd expect nothing less than blank stares if you mention IPv6 multicast. > Not to mention it would probably not work for 5 years. NTT's deployment of globally scoped but not internet c

Re: Easily confused...

2011-04-19 Thread ML
On 4/18/2011 2:53 PM, Scott Weeks wrote: --- They are testing IPTV on Oahu in preperation for roll-out, so maybe they renumbered in order to more easily identify the segments.(?) Really, I'd have hoped they'd use their two-year-old 26

Re: Easily confused...

2011-04-18 Thread Scott Weeks
--- na...@jima.tk wrote: From: Jima On 2011-04-16 20:06, Michael Painter wrote: > Brielle Bruns wrote: >> I'm assuming your provider's network engineers (stupidly) assumed >> 123.x.x.x was a good idea for use in a private setup because it hadn't >> been assigned from the global pool (yet). >> >>

Re: Easily confused...

2011-04-16 Thread Jon Lewis
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011, Jima wrote: I was about to reply pointing that out. FWIW, they're not announcing that space, so I definitely agree with the poorly-thought-out private infrastructure theory. http://bgp.he.net/AS36149#_prefixes FWIW. Poorly thought out private IP space? Nah...it's part

Re: Easily confused...

2011-04-16 Thread Jima
On 2011-04-16 20:06, Michael Painter wrote: Brielle Bruns wrote: I'm assuming your provider's network engineers (stupidly) assumed 123.x.x.x was a good idea for use in a private setup because it hadn't been assigned from the global pool (yet). Wouldn't be the first provider or service to not us

Re: Easily confused...

2011-04-16 Thread Joel Jaeggli
On 4/16/11 6:06 PM, Michael Painter wrote: > They are testing IPTV on Oahu in preperation for roll-out, so maybe they > renumbered in order to more easily identify the segments.(?) by squating on address space that is or will be in use. joel

Re: Easily confused...

2011-04-16 Thread Michael Painter
Brielle Bruns wrote: On 4/16/11 6:03 PM, Michael Painter wrote: Thanks. What concerned me was the first hop...22ms. is ~ the distance from Maui to Oahu, but why the Chinese IP? Cruel joke? I"m using Hawaiian Telcom's ADSL service and that first hop has always been their gateway IP address. A

Re: Easily confused...

2011-04-16 Thread Michael Painter
Brielle Bruns wrote: On 4/16/11 6:03 PM, Michael Painter wrote: Thanks. What concerned me was the first hop...22ms. is ~ the distance from Maui to Oahu, but why the Chinese IP? Cruel joke? I"m using Hawaiian Telcom's ADSL service and that first hop has always been their gateway IP address. A

Re: Easily confused...

2011-04-16 Thread Brielle Bruns
On 4/16/11 6:03 PM, Michael Painter wrote: Thanks. What concerned me was the first hop...22ms. is ~ the distance from Maui to Oahu, but why the Chinese IP? Cruel joke? I"m using Hawaiian Telcom's ADSL service and that first hop has always been their gateway IP address. Another TCP trace shows

Re: Easily confused...

2011-04-16 Thread Michael Painter
Michael K. Smith - Adhost wrote: On 4/16/11 4:24 PM, "Michael Painter" wrote: Was trying to determine where this 'honolulu' speedtest was hosted: Tracing route to honolulu.speedtest.net [74.209.160.12] over a maximum of 30 hops: 122 ms ** 123.87.93.224 227 ms29 m

Re: Easily confused...

2011-04-16 Thread Michael K. Smith - Adhost
On 4/16/11 4:24 PM, "Michael Painter" wrote: >Was trying to determine where this 'honolulu' speedtest was hosted: > >Tracing route to honolulu.speedtest.net [74.209.160.12] >over a maximum of 30 hops: > 122 ms ** 123.87.93.224 > 227 ms29 ms25 ms >hawaiian-telco

Easily confused...

2011-04-16 Thread Michael Painter
Was trying to determine where this 'honolulu' speedtest was hosted: Tracing route to honolulu.speedtest.net [74.209.160.12] over a maximum of 30 hops: 122 ms ** 123.87.93.224 227 ms29 ms25 ms hawaiian-telcom-inc.gigabitethernet2-17.core1.lax2.he.net [184.105.13