Re: [NANOG] Unique v6 (video) content

On Tue, 20 May 2008 14:52:24 +0300 Max Tulyev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> mentioned: > Hello Michael, > > I'm getting the permanent error message: > Works fine here. You should try different URL. The page you're requesting contains an actual URL to the video, http://cdn4.nacevi.cz//CT24-PAL in IPv6 cas

Re: [NANOG] Unique v6 (video) content

Hello Michael, I'm getting the permanent error message: Works fine here. You should try different URL. The page you're requesting contains an actual URL to the video, http://cdn4.nacevi.cz//CT24-PAL in IPv6 case. Server name is generated dynamically - depends on your IP/IPv6 addres

Re: [NANOG] Unique v6 (video) content

I wonder when IPv6porn.com is coming online. We're all waiting on Kevin Day @ Your.org. The latest mailing list updated was positive [This morning 5 AM PST8PDT]. Seems DNS has dissapeared for it though. It should give a decent boost to IPv6 traffic. We're all going to have a fun time dealing with

Re: [NANOG] Unique v6 (video) content

On May 21, 2008, at 10:56 AM, Sargun Dhillon wrote: I wonder when IPv6porn.com is coming online. We're all waiting on Kevin Day @ Your.org. It honestly is coming soon! :) As I mentioned on the mailing list ( http://mail.your.org/pipermail/v6test/2008-May/65.html ), there are some copy

Cisco Security Advisory: Cisco IOS Secure Shell Denial of Service

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Cisco Security Advisory: Cisco IOS Secure Shell Denial of Service Vulnerabilities Advisory ID: cisco-sa-20080521-ssh http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/707/cisco-sa-20080521-ssh.shtml Revision 1.0 For Public Release 2008 May 21 1600 UTC (GMT

Re: [NANOG] Multihoming for small frys?

William Herrin wrote: Hi folks, An administrative question about multihoming: I have a client who needs to multihome with multiple vendors for reliability purposes, currently in the Northern Virginia area and later on with a fail-over site, probably in Hawaii. They have only a very modest need

RE: [NANOG] Multihoming for small frys?

I got a /22 from ARIN last year; ASN 36516. Is the /20 only rule relatively new? Not multi-homed yet because my 2nd provider does not support it yet. Best Regards, Edward Ray -Original Message- From: Tony Varriale [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 9:32 PM To: Andy

Re: [NANOG] Multihoming for small frys?

On Tue, 20 May 2008, Tony Varriale wrote: AFAIK, ARIN doesn't give out /22s anymore. It's a recent change in the past couple of years. Still current: "However, for multi-homed organizations, the minimum allocation size is a /22" http://www.arin.net/registration/guidelines/ipv4_initial_al

Re: [NANOG] Multihoming for small frys?

For multihomed, /22 is still the rule. Owen DeLong ARIN AC On May 21, 2008, at 11:16 AM, Security Admin (NetSec) wrote: I got a /22 from ARIN last year; ASN 36516. Is the /20 only rule relatively new? Not multi-homed yet because my 2nd provider does not support it yet. Best Regards, Edwa

Re: [NANOG] Multihoming for small frys?

Thanks for the info. We needed larger than /22 anyways. I am a bit surprised that they will hand out a small allocaiton for multihomers. These days it's very easy to do. And, could be a easy way to horde some v4. Notice the caveats: To qualify under the IPv4 Multi-homing policy, your orga

Re: Renumbering, was: [NANOG] Multihoming for small frys?

Can we all agree that while renumbering sucks, a /24 (or less) is a pretty low-pain thing to renumber (vs. say, renumbering a /20 or shorter prefix?) In an ideal world, you never have to renumber because your allocations were perfect from the get-go. We've all been to the other, more realist

Re: Renumbering, was: [NANOG] Multihoming for small frys?

Deepak Jain wrote: Can we all agree that while renumbering sucks, a /24 (or less) is a pretty low-pain thing to renumber (vs. say, renumbering a /20 or shorter prefix?) In an ideal world, you never have to renumber because your allocations were perfect from the get-go. Depends - If you're an En

Re: [NANOG] Multihoming for small frys?

William Herrin wrote: I have a client who needs to multihome with multiple vendors for reliability purposes, currently in the Northern Virginia area and later on with a fail-over site, probably in Hawaii. They have only a very modest need for bandwidth and addresses (think: T1's and a few dozen

Re: Renumbering, was: [NANOG] Multihoming for small frys?

David Coulson wrote: Depends - If you're an Enterprise where 90% of the equipment is managed by people who work in the same building, it's not horrible. I renumbered a bunch of /20s onto a /18 where 75% of the equipment was not in my (or the company's) control. That sucked big time. I had the

Re: [NANOG] Multihoming for small frys?

Tony Varriale wrote: Thanks for the info. We needed larger than /22 anyways. I am a bit surprised that they will hand out a small allocaiton for multihomers. These days it's very easy to do. And, could be a easy way to horde some v4. Nope, you can horde a /24 for a single device, but it's

Re: Renumbering, was: [NANOG] Multihoming for small frys?

David Coulson wrote: Deepak Jain wrote: Can we all agree that while renumbering sucks, a /24 (or less) is a pretty low-pain thing to renumber (vs. say, renumbering a /20 or shorter prefix?) In an ideal world, you never have to renumber because your allocations were perfect from the g

Re: Renumbering, was: [NANOG] Multihoming for small frys?

Jack Bates wrote: I had the same issue. Add to that recursive DNS servers and the support issues of everything that depends on them in and not in your direct control. Indeed. I recall Proxy ARP and a lot of NAT was involved :) At least you can keep track of the people who didn't update their co

Re: [NANOG] Multihoming for small frys?

Sean Figgins wrote: Now, I have a question about this... Is the customer using the sites for redundancy, and will have both upstream providers in each site? Honestly, a small operation like this may be better served by multiple connections to the same provider. Such a setup can usually be

Nortel 4450T switches and QoS?

Does anyone have any experience with switches of this ilk - and how well they do throttling P2P traffic? The sales material purports that these switches "filter" at L2 which sounds groovy and all, but I'd really like to hear from someone who has used these for this purpose. And how well that a

Re: [NANOG] Limiting ICMP

On Sat, 17 May 2008 23:53:00 -0400 Drew Weaver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm wondering if anyone else has run into this/has heard of/(is responsible > for)/knows the reason behind large IP providers limiting ICMP on outbound > connections to the same amounts regardless of the size of the circ

Re: [NANOG] Limiting ICMP

Yep, agreed, we need to update those docs. The basic ICMP filtering guide still resides here, and comments are welcome: John Kristoff wrote: On Sat, 17 May 2008 23:53:00 -0400 Drew Weaver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I'm wondering if any

[NANOG-announce] Lightning Talk submissions open for NANOG42

/me dons the NANOG PC Chair hat again Lightning talk submissions for NANOG42 are now open: http://nanogpc.org/lightning/ Lightning talks are short talks of interest to the audience in line with the rest of the program. They are strictly limited to 10 minutes (including questions). Lightning ta

[NANOG-announce] New socials for NANOG 42 Brooklyn -- Register

howdy, NANOG42 will take place in brooklyn, NY in about a week and a half. there are two new socials (you can read "socials" as "free drinks and snacks") that have been added to the agenda at http://nanog.org/mtg-0806/agenda.html * equinix is sponsoring a social on tuesday evening: ht

[NANOG-announce] Program Committee Vacancy Call for Volunteers Extension

. o O ( i'm thinking about just leaving this program committee chair hat on) the call for volunteers to the nanog program committee (originally sent: http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2008-April/000153.html ) has been extended through the end of the weekend (to sunday, 25 may 2008). ther

Re: [NANOG] Multihoming for small frys?

Seth Mattinen wrote: About two years ago, maybe less, Sprint was doing some maintenance in California and was moving stuff through an alternate path in Arizona. However, while the CA path was off, someone took a backhoe to the AZ path. Neither the planned outage, the cut, nor myself were in th

Re: [NANOG] Multihoming for small frys?

Yup. You can horde. You can easily justify a /23 these days and not be multihomed still get a /22. tv - Original Message - From: "Pete Templin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Tony Varriale" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 3:32 PM Subject: Re: [NANOG] Multihoming for

RE: Renumbering, was: [NANOG] Multihoming for small frys?

I worked for an ISP that was bought by another ISP and had to assign all new IP's roughly a /16 worth. Good times. Only one ASN thank goodness -Original Message- From: Deepak Jain [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 4:09 PM To: nanog list Subject: Re: Renumbering, wa

Re: [NANOG] Multihoming for small frys?

It's always been possible to get resources by lying or committing fraud - the common law crime of obtaining property by false pretenses predates the Internet by a substantial margin. ---rob "Tony Varriale" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Yup. You can horde

RE: [NANOG] Multihoming for small frys?

I got a /22 in January, and was told by someone from ARIN that the policy below only applied to allocations to ISP's, not to assignments for end customers. At the time, they said an end user must show at least 25% immediate usage (so a /24) and that there was no requirement for future usage. In m