BGP Update Report
Interval: 23-Feb-09 -to- 26-Mar-09 (32 days)
Observation Point: BGP Peering with AS131072
TOP 20 Unstable Origin AS
Rank ASNUpds % Upds/PfxAS-Name
1 - AS9583 178710 4.2% 168.3 -- SIFY-AS-IN Sify Limited
2 - AS313075459 1.8%
This report has been generated at Fri Mar 27 21:14:03 2009 AEST.
The report analyses the BGP Routing Table of AS2.0 router
and generates a report on aggregation potential within the table.
Check http://www.cidr-report.org for a current version of this report.
Recent Table History
Date
Yes I do.
I can use it but sometimes got trouble with teredo.
Retry half an hour later works :)
ipv6.google.com looks better to me than the IPv4 version does.
More comfort. It is worth the trouble with teredo.
Peter
Robert D. Scott wrote:
> http://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/
>
> http://www.n
Robert D. Scott wrote:
> http://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/
>
> http://www.networkworld.com/news/2009/032509-google-ipv6-easy.html
>
> Any one making use of Google IPV6?
It's been my Firefox home page ever since it was available.
Steve
yup... and it is nice, adwords don't work pretty well (or at least on the GeoIP
thingie), and i get less publicity to look at :-)
---
Nuno Vieira
nfsi telecom, lda.
nuno.vie...@nfsi.pt
Tel. (+351) 21 949 2300 - Fax (+351) 21 949 2301
http://www.nfsi.pt/
- "Robert D. Scott" wrote:
> http
On Fri, 2009-03-27 at 08:18 -0400, Robert D. Scott wrote:
> Any one making use of Google IPV6?
yes. We participate in the Google IPv6 trial program so our recursors
get records for www.google.com and so far it's been great, no
issues whatsoever.
dan...@jun1> traceroute www.google.com
tra
On Fri, 2009-03-27 at 13:35 +0100, Peter Dambier wrote:
> I can use it but sometimes got trouble with teredo.
> Retry half an hour later works :)
>
> ipv6.google.com looks better to me than the IPv4 version does.
> More comfort. It is worth the trouble with teredo.
Um, are you sure you are using
http://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2009/032509-google-ipv6-easy.html
Any one making use of Google IPV6?
Robert D. Scott rob...@ufl.edu
Senior Network Engineer 352-273-0113 Phone
CNS - Network Services 352-392-2061 CNS Phone Tree
On 27/03/09 11:59 PM, "Daniel Verlouw" wrote:
> yes. We participate in the Google IPv6 trial program so our recursors
> get records for www.google.com and so far it's been great, no
> issues whatsoever.
Same.
We've been participating since January and haven't had any problems:
# tracerou
On Sat, 28 Mar 2009 00:20:26 +1100
Shaun Ewing wrote:
>
> On 27/03/09 11:59 PM, "Daniel Verlouw" wrote:
>
> > yes. We participate in the Google IPv6 trial program so our
> > recursors get records for www.google.com and so far it's been
> > great, no issues whatsoever.
>
> Same.
>
> We'v
On Fri, 2009-03-27 at 09:34 -0400, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
> It's working for me, too, though I noticed that tcptraceroute (at least
> the version I have) doesn't do well with ipv6.google.com.
seems to work fine from over here:
# tcptraceroute6 www.google.com 80
traceroute to www.google.com (20
I will be out of the office starting 03/27/2009 and will not return until
03/30/2009.
I will respond to your message when I return. Please contact with
net...@dtcc.com for any production issues
-
DT
Hi folks,
NANOG46 is only a few months away and I hear many are getting their ducks in
a row to participate.
We, the Program Committee, would like to remind all who have submitted
abstracts at http://pc.nanog.org that the time has come to get your
presentation materials uploaded. For those of yo
On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 14:46:50 +0100
Daniel Verlouw wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-03-27 at 09:34 -0400, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
> > It's working for me, too, though I noticed that tcptraceroute (at
> > least the version I have) doesn't do well with ipv6.google.com.
>
> seems to work fine from over here:
Ironically, two days later, I find myself in exactly the same
position; needing an iperf box to test a 100Mb client connection
against.
In a perfect world, this box would hang off of NYIIX (or Arbinet) and
be able to sustain 100Mb of throughput for the duration of a couple of
generic iper
In a message written on Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 08:18:50AM -0400, Robert D. Scott
wrote:
> Any one making use of Google IPV6?
We are in the trial:
% traceroute6 -n www.google.com
traceroute6 to www.l.google.com (2001:4860:b002::68) from
2001:4f8:3:bb::5, 64 hops max, 12 byte packets
1 2001:4f8:3:
Daniel Verlouw wrote:
yes. We participate in the Google IPv6 trial program so our recursors
get records for www.google.com and so far it's been great, no
issues whatsoever.
Same experiences - it just works.
dan...@jun1> traceroute www.google.com
traceroute6 to www.l.google.com (2001:4
Robert D. Scott wrote:
When I posted my original note, I was not really looking for end user
feedback, but rather is anyone peering V6 with them on either a public
fabric or private peer. Any idea if they have native V6 transit, or are
tunneling, and to where.
No tuneling I think. We have with
Their press would indicate that more than www is IPV6.
When I posted my original note, I was not really looking for end user
feedback, but rather is anyone peering V6 with them on either a public
fabric or private peer. Any idea if they have native V6 transit, or are
tunneling, and to where.
Rob
> When I posted my original note, I was not really looking for end user
> feedback, but rather is anyone peering V6 with them on either a public
> fabric or private peer. Any idea if they have native V6 transit, or are
> tunneling, and to where.
They are peering over some IXPs and private peerings
Can someone from ATT contact off-list with the contact for the mail
administrator? We recently got a new CIDR from ARIN and previously
belonged to Adelphia. Needless to say, the IP's are pretty much
blacklisted everywhere as dynamic IP space. I have gotten them pretty
much cleaned up on o
On 3/27/09 8:23 AM, Chris Wallace wrote:
Can someone from ATT contact off-list with the contact for the mail
administrator? We recently got a new CIDR from ARIN and previously
belonged to Adelphia. Needless to say, the IP's are pretty much
blacklisted everywhere as dynamic IP space. I have gotten
In a message written on Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 11:03:05AM -0400, Robert D. Scott
wrote:
> When I posted my original note, I was not really looking for end user
> feedback, but rather is anyone peering V6 with them on either a public
> fabric or private peer. Any idea if they have native V6 transit,
David Ulevitch wrote:
On 3/27/09 8:23 AM, Chris Wallace wrote:
Can someone from ATT contact off-list with the contact for the mail
administrator? We recently got a new CIDR from ARIN and previously
belonged to Adelphia. Needless to say, the IP's are pretty much
blacklisted everywhere as dynamic
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 2:59 PM, Daniel Verlouw wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-03-27 at 08:18 -0400, Robert D. Scott wrote:
> > Any one making use of Google IPV6?
>
> yes. We participate in the Google IPv6 trial program so our recursors
> get records for www.google.com and so far it's been great, no
On 27/03/2009 15:26, Leo Bicknell wrote:
AFAIK you have to have native peering with them to be part of the
pilot. At least, you did when we signed up. They may have relaxed
that since.
According to a Google IPv6 talk I attended yesterday, they don't intend to
relax that rule. Tunneling ipv6
Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 14:46:50 +0100
Daniel Verlouw wrote:
On Fri, 2009-03-27 at 09:34 -0400, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
It's working for me, too, though I noticed that tcptraceroute (at
least the version I have) doesn't do well with ipv6.google.com.
seems to work fi
Robert D. Scott wrote:
http://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2009/032509-google-ipv6-easy.html
It's relatively easy to make _your own_ apps (i.e. ones you have the
source for) support IPv6.
Most companies, though, are completely reliant on their vendors, wh
Karl Auer wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-03-27 at 13:35 +0100, Peter Dambier wrote:
>> I can use it but sometimes got trouble with teredo.
>> Retry half an hour later works :)
>>
>> ipv6.google.com looks better to me than the IPv4 version does.
>> More comfort. It is worth the trouble with teredo.
>
> Um
On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 18:27:59 +0100
Peter Dambier wrote:
>
>
> Karl Auer wrote:
> > On Fri, 2009-03-27 at 13:35 +0100, Peter Dambier wrote:
> >> I can use it but sometimes got trouble with teredo.
> >> Retry half an hour later works :)
> >>
> >> ipv6.google.com looks better to me than the IPv4 v
In message <49cd0c9f.2040...@peter-dambier.de>, Peter Dambier writes:
>
>
> Karl Auer wrote:
> > On Fri, 2009-03-27 at 13:35 +0100, Peter Dambier wrote:
> >> I can use it but sometimes got trouble with teredo.
> >> Retry half an hour later works :)
> >>
> >> ipv6.google.com looks better to me th
This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet
Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan.
Daily listings are sent to bgp-st...@lists.apnic.net
For historical data, please see http://thyme.apnic.net.
If you have any comments please contact Philip Smith .
Routing
* Robert D. Scott:
> When I posted my original note, I was not really looking for end
> user feedback, but rather is anyone peering V6 with them on either a
> public fabric or private peer. Any idea if they have native V6
> transit, or are tunneling, and to where.
Google seems to aim at Tier 1 st
Yeah, I had just found that site after I posted to the list. I found
it through an old dslreports forum thread...
---Chris
On Mar 27, 2009, at 11:37 AM, David Ulevitch wrote:
On 3/27/09 8:23 AM, Chris Wallace wrote:
Can someone from ATT contact off-list with the contact for the mail
admini
On 27/03/2009, at 11:20 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
Google seems to aim at Tier 1 status for IPv6. No transit, no
tunneling.
That seems to be the case, yep. It's an interesting plan.
On 27/03/2009, at 8:03 AM, Robert D. Scott wrote:
Their press would indicate that more than www is IPV6.
Y
on Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 01:22:17AM -0400, Steven Champeon wrote:
> on Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 10:26:59AM +1030, Tom Wright wrote:
> > Don't be afraid to create zones for each
> > location, DNS lends itself to this kind of
> > hierarchy naturally.
> >
> > I find this is tidier than lengthy A records.
>
I believe there is an ITU standard for testing that could be looked at, but
if you went with the same test gear that SPs use to test their circuits, I
think you would be safe. Hence my mention of JDSU, but I could also add
Agilent (more engineering focused), Anritsu, EXFO, Fluke (more enterprise
f
Owamp?
--Original Message--
From: Frank Bulk - iName.com
To: 'Steve Bertrand'
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
ReplyTo: frnk...@iname.com
Subject: RE: Gigabit speed test anybody?
Sent: Mar 27, 2009 3:33 PM
I believe there is an ITU standard for testing that could be looked at, but
if you went with th
> From: char...@thewybles.com
> Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 22:47:17 +
>
> Owamp?
owamp is a latency measurement tool. While we find it invaluable, I'm
not sure how it fits in here. We use iperf on high-performance systems
with a lot of tuning and Myricom 10GE cards to test 10 Gig circuits
(10GE o
> From: Florian Weimer
> Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 19:20:42 +0100
>
> * Robert D. Scott:
>
> > When I posted my original note, I was not really looking for end
> > user feedback, but rather is anyone peering V6 with them on either a
> > public fabric or private peer. Any idea if they have native V6
40 matches
Mail list logo
