> On Mar 12, 2010, at 4:45 PM, Joe Greco wrote:
> > There's no way it's as widely used, and generally speaking, it appears
> > that those who have used it have done so out of ignorance and(/or?)
> > stupidity, sometimes blindly following documentation without
> > comprehending, etc.
>
> I don't kn
On 03/12/2010 01:20 PM, Axel Morawietz wrote:
> Am 12.03.2010 17:03, schrieb Nathan:
>> [...] Its
>> amazing how prolific 1.x traffic is.
>
> one reason might also be, that at least T-Mobile Germany uses 1.2.3.*
> for their proxies that deliver the content to mobile phones.
> And I'm not sure what
On Mar 12, 2010, at 4:45 PM, Joe Greco wrote:
> There's no way it's as widely used, and generally speaking, it appears
> that those who have used it have done so out of ignorance and(/or?)
> stupidity, sometimes blindly following documentation without
> comprehending, etc.
I don't know about that
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 7:52 AM, Mark Scholten wrote:
..
> It is probably the best way to get 1.x free if it is used by big websites.
> However I don't think that they will change it (to only use these IPs). I
> think they have an interest somewhere to not change it...
If they added a basic java
> -Original Message-
> From: Joe Greco [mailto:jgr...@ns.sol.net]
> Sent: Friday, March 12, 2010 10:53 PM
> To: Nathan
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: YouTube AS36561 began announcing 1.0.0.0/8
>
> > There are sizable chunks that are fairly quiet (un-in
Joe Greco wrote:
So:
I "decided" to use 5/8 for our internal networks because I felt that it
stretched my fingers too much to go all the way over to "1" and then over
to the other end of the top row to "0." 5 seemed a happier and easier
choice.
The Hamachi P2P VPN client beat you to it...
> On Fri, 12 Mar 2010, Joe Greco wrote:
> [something I didn't write]
>
> >> If 1.0.0.0/8 has been widely used as de-facto rfc1918 for many years,
> >> perhaps it is time to update rfc1918 to reflect this?
>
> I seem to recall that the WIANA project "decided" to use 1.0.0.0/8 for
> the "internal"
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010, Joe Greco wrote:
If 1.0.0.0/8 has been widely used as de-facto rfc1918 for many years,
perhaps it is time to update rfc1918 to reflect this?
I seem to recall that the WIANA project "decided" to use 1.0.0.0/8 for
the "internal" network within their meshAP project...
http
On Mar 12, 2010, at 4:34 PM, Kevin Loch wrote:
> Axel Morawietz wrote:
>> Am 12.03.2010 17:03, schrieb Nathan:
>>> [...] Its
>>> amazing how prolific 1.x traffic is.
>> one reason might also be, that at least T-Mobile Germany uses 1.2.3.*
>> for their proxies that deliver the content to mobile p
> There are sizable chunks that are fairly quiet (un-interesting
> numbers, luck of the draw, etc). Given that its mostly
> mis-configurations, laziness, ignorance, or poor planning... I suspect
> the worst ranges will need to be sacrificed, and the remaining 80-90%
> of the space used for legitim
There are sizable chunks that are fairly quiet (un-interesting
numbers, luck of the draw, etc). Given that its mostly
mis-configurations, laziness, ignorance, or poor planning... I suspect
the worst ranges will need to be sacrificed, and the remaining 80-90%
of the space used for legitimate alloca
> Axel Morawietz wrote:
> > Am 12.03.2010 17:03, schrieb Nathan:
> >> [...] Its
> >> amazing how prolific 1.x traffic is.
> >
> > one reason might also be, that at least T-Mobile Germany uses 1.2.3.*
> > for their proxies that deliver the content to mobile phones.
> > And I'm not sure what they ar
On 12 Mar 2010, at 1:34, Kevin Loch wrote:
> Axel Morawietz wrote:
>> Am 12.03.2010 17:03, schrieb Nathan:
>>> [...] Its
>>> amazing how prolific 1.x traffic is.
>>
>> one reason might also be, that at least T-Mobile Germany uses 1.2.3.*
>> for their proxies that deliver the content to mobile phon
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 1:34 PM, Kevin Loch wrote:
> Axel Morawietz wrote:
>>
>> Am 12.03.2010 17:03, schrieb Nathan:
>>>
>>> [...] Its
>>> amazing how prolific 1.x traffic is.
>>
>> one reason might also be, that at least T-Mobile Germany uses 1.2.3.*
>> for their proxies that deliver the content
Axel Morawietz wrote:
Am 12.03.2010 17:03, schrieb Nathan:
[...] Its
amazing how prolific 1.x traffic is.
one reason might also be, that at least T-Mobile Germany uses 1.2.3.*
for their proxies that deliver the content to mobile phones.
And I'm not sure what they are doing when they are going
Am 12.03.2010 17:03, schrieb Nathan:
> [...] Its
> amazing how prolific 1.x traffic is.
one reason might also be, that at least T-Mobile Germany uses 1.2.3.*
for their proxies that deliver the content to mobile phones.
And I'm not sure what they are doing when they are going to receive this
route
We've never cared about ratios... its futile!
Level3 is slow to update prefix lists this time. I simply picked a
couple networks that respond to my emails. My laziness to call others
is why the route isn't visible there. :)
,N
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 7:58 AM, Richard A Steenbergen
wrote:
>
A trace-route reaches the Youtube border... so everything is ok. The
routes are being ECMP'd to a set of capture hosts for the purpose of
spreading load, aggregating more disk-space for packets, providing
some form of redundancy for the experiment, etc. We're receiving about
175mbps of unsolicited
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 07:34:10AM -0500, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> Oh, I understand what's going on exactly. YouTube is trying to
> balance their ratios. :)
That might explain why they're only announcing it behind Cogent. :)
--
Richard A Steenbergenhttp://www.e-gerbil.net/ras
GPG Key
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 3:53 AM, William Pitcock
wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-03-11 at 22:52 -0800, Nathan wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I'm hoping to alleviate the "what's going on!?" type messages here this
>> time. :)
>>
>
>
> Any IPs we can ping and get a response back from to verify everything is
> ok?
On Mar 12, 2010, at 1:52 AM, Nathan wrote:
> I'm hoping to alleviate the "what's going on!?" type messages here this time.
> :)
Oh, I understand what's going on exactly. YouTube is trying to balance their
ratios. :)
--
TTFN,
patrick
> Here's an except from the APNIC provided LOA I provided
On Thu, 2010-03-11 at 22:52 -0800, Nathan wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm hoping to alleviate the "what's going on!?" type messages here this time.
> :)
>
Any IPs we can ping and get a response back from to verify everything is
ok? 1.2.3.4 isn't pingable, for example. :(
William
Hello,
I'm hoping to alleviate the "what's going on!?" type messages here this time. :)
Here's an except from the APNIC provided LOA I provided to a couple
networks, to carry a new announcement...
"To whom it may concern,
APNIC and YouTube are cooperating in a project to investigate the
propert
23 matches
Mail list logo
