> They claim they will deploy IPv6 in their worldwide enterprise network, do
> away with central based enterprise firewalls and do host-to-host
> IPv6+IPSEC, Active Directory based certificates for authentication.
That's why we end up breaking end to end, to cover up for stuff that
exposes more
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
The IANA IPv4 registry has been updated to reflect the allocation
of one /8 IPv4 block to AfriNIC in October 2008: 197/8. You can
find the IANA IPv4 registry at:
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.xml
http://www
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 20:47:48 -0700
From: Paul Ferguson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [funsec] ICANN Terminates EstDomains' Registrar Accreditation
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
"Dear Mr. Tsastsin,
"Be advised that
This 100-line document contains 62% of what you need to know to avoid annoying
10,000 people in your email to the NANOG list. It also containers pointers
to another 23%. Please take 5 minutes to read it before you post [again].
General Information
===
About NANOG:http:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi
I know NANOG hates these mails but they happen anyway.. I need someone
at Comcast who can help with why their server is detecting a host (that
is not blacklisted, senderbased or anything) as spam.
The URL Comcast gives with the spam block message
Brandon Butterworth wrote:
as I am very tired of all the problems caused by multiple
layers of NATs and PAT.
Likewise but more because people keep designing stuff to try and force
others to get rid of them, ignoring why they have them.
A false sense of security? The belief that hiding behind
Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
They claim they will deploy IPv6 in their worldwide enterprise network,
do away with central based enterprise firewalls and do host-to-host
IPv6+IPSEC, Active Directory based certificates for authentication.
You kno
I am advised by someone that there's an OC3 out in California,
now being discussed/announced on the outages list.
I fell off the outages list, went to resubscribe, and the link at
http://www.isotf.org/mailman/listinfo/outages
...doesn't appear to work. I don't see email after Gadi's from
June
George William Herbert wrote:
I am advised by someone that there's an OC3 out in California,
now being discussed/announced on the outages list.
I fell off the outages list, went to resubscribe, and the link at
http://www.isotf.org/mailman/listinfo/outages
...doesn't appear to work. I don't s
George William Herbert wrote:
I am advised by someone that there's an OC3 out in California,
now being discussed/announced on the outages list.
I fell off the outages list, went to resubscribe, and the link at
http://www.isotf.org/mailman/listinfo/outages
...doesn't appear to work. I don't s
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 13:58, Chaim Rieger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> actually nobody has posted any info about this other than what you just
> posted, no details/carrier/location etc.
Perhaps not on NANOG, but on the Outages list itself it was covered quite well.
On 21-June-2008, RLVaughn
I think Chaim was talking about the OC3 cut, not the list move.
-Daniel
-Original Message-
From: Jim Popovitch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 11:32 AM
To: Chaim Rieger
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Current subscribe address for outage
Hi there...
I'm in a meeting next week to discuss settlement-free peering etc.
always an interesting time. A push is on (by myself) to get into other
physical locations and participate on the peering exchanges.
Besides costs, what other factors are benefits to peering?
I can think of some b
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 15:17:45 EDT, Paul Stewart said:
> I can think of some but looking to develop a concrete list of appealing
> reasons etc. such as:
>
> -control over routing between networks
> -security aspect (being able to filter/verify routes to some degree)
> -latency/performance
I'm surp
Thanks! That's a really good one and surprised myself I missed it..;)
_
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 3:28 PM
To: Paul Stewart
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Peering - Benefits?
* PGP Signed by a
It would only be a redundant connection if the AS your peering with is a
transit AS. The AS that I work with is a stub AS and can not function as
a fully redundant link.
Just something to watch out for.
Paul Stewart wrote:
> Thanks! That's a really good one and surprised myself I missed it..;)
>
Thanks - I believe the wording meant was "alternative path" versus
connection... in other words if an AS has issues with one or more
upstream providers for whatever reason, you have good chances the
peering connection will remain in better shape (not always granted, but
good odds)
Paul
-
But if that AS is a stub, you still can't use their up stream providers
to get data out to the rest of the world. It still wouldn't even
function as an "alternative path" it would only function for the subnets
which that AS owns.
Paul Stewart wrote:
> Thanks - I believe the wording meant was "alte
On Oct 29, 2008, at 10:32 AM, Joe Maimon wrote:
Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
They claim they will deploy IPv6 in their worldwide enterprise
network, do away with central based enterprise firewalls and do
host-to-host IPv6+IPSEC, Active Direct
Kind of a side question but we have not implemented IPv6 in our network
yet, nor have we made any plans to do this in the near future. Our
management does not see a need for it as our customer base is not
requesting it at this time.
Does anyone see any benefits to beginning a small deployment of I
actually nobody has posted any info about this other than what you just
posted, no details/carrier/location etc.
Jared was kind enough to take the hosting load, and the list is now hosted
there.
Also, following discussions on nanog-futures I removed myself as
moderator, so that we can co
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008, Gadi Evron wrote:
actually nobody has posted any info about this other than what you just
posted, no details/carrier/location etc.
Jared was kind enough to take the hosting load, and the list is now hosted
there.
Also, following discussions on nanog-futures I removed
On 30/10/2008, at 11:32 AM, Steven King wrote:
Kind of a side question but we have not implemented IPv6 in our
network
yet, nor have we made any plans to do this in the near future. Our
management does not see a need for it as our customer base is not
requesting it at this time.
Does anyone s
"chance to pick up a redundant connection".
Well, traffic will have chances to pick up an alternative AS path - mesh
peering (at the public IX). Also go via the redundant physical link if you have
one agreed w/ ure peering point, or just take the best egress path via the (or
one of the )tran
question - "beginning a small deployment of IPv6 now
even if its just for internal usage"
Sure! there are plenty of reasons .most obvious one is to feel
confortable about ipv6
--- On Wed, 10/29/08, Steven King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Steven King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subj
I personally agree with that. Now only if I can convince our management
to start work on that.
isabel dias wrote:
> question - "beginning a small deployment of IPv6 now
> even if its just for internal usage"
>
>
> Sure! there are plenty of reasons .most obvious one is to feel
> confortabl
On 30/10/2008, at 11:48 AM, Steven King wrote:
I personally agree with that. Now only if I can convince our
management
to start work on that.
isabel dias wrote:
question - "beginning a small deployment of IPv6 now
even if its just for internal usage"
Sure! there are plenty of reasons .
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 06:32:31PM -0400, Steven King wrote:
> Does anyone see any benefits to beginning a small deployment of IPv6 now
> even if its just for internal usage?
It is almost lunacy to deploy IPv6 in a customer-facing sense (note
for example Google's choice to put its on a separa
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 16:29:40 -0700
"David W. Hankins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 06:32:31PM -0400, Steven King wrote:
> > Does anyone see any benefits to beginning a small deployment of
> > IPv6 now even if its just for internal usage?
>
> It is almost lunacy to deploy I
allows geeks to go on junkets almost as cool as droids get
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 03:28:04PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 15:17:45 EDT, Paul Stewart said:
>
> > I can think of some but looking to develop a concrete list of appealing
> > reasons etc. such as:
> >
> > -control over routing between networks
> > -security aspect (be
31 matches
Mail list logo
