And they will never listen (TELEM).
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 12:01 PM, Curtis Maurand wrote:
>
> I don't understand why DSL providers don't just administratively down the
> port the customer is hooked to rather than using PPPoE which costs bandwidth
> and has huge management overhead when you have
Gents,
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 5:30 PM, Dave Plonka wrote:
>
> Hi Crist,
>
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 05:12:04PM -0700, Crist Clark wrote:
>>
>> Has anyone found any value in examining network utilization
>> numbers with Fourier analyses? After staring at pretty
In short, yup!
>> there are some
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 2:48 PM, Anton Kapela wrote:
> Indeed, there are. Interesting things emerge in frequency (or phase)
> space - bits/sec, packets/sec, and ave size, etc. - all have new
Forgot to mention one point - since packets/bits/etc data is more
monotonic than not (math wizards, plea
Hi all,
What is everybody's favourite combination rack-mount VGA/USB KVM-over-
IP and serial console concentrator in 2009?
I'm looking for something that will accommodate 8 or so 9600bps serial
devices and about 12 VGA/USB devices, all reachable over IP via sane
means (ssh, https, etc). Be
Leigh Porter wrote:
>
> Could you have two instances of RADIUS, one for the middle-man and
> ignore the accounting from that server?
Well...
First I'd like to thank all of those who responded off-list. To not
waste everyone's time, I'd like to throw out there that this message can
technically be
Chris Grundemann wrote:
"They" is YOU. ARIN policy is created by the community - "Your voice,
your community." ...
If you participated in the ARIN PDP (1)...
Ok, so am I the only one who missed which policy proposal this was that
generated the new requirement that an officer sign off on th
> Net-Admin: This IPv6 stuff is important, we should already be deploying
>it full-tilt.
> Manager:Some IPv6 testing should be reflected in next years budget.
>
> Director: I hear IPv6 is the future, but customers just aren't
>demanding it.
> VP Network: Humm, may
"Bill Woodcock" writes:
> ... Nobody's arguing against VLANs. Paul's argument was that VLANs
> rendered shared subnets obsolete, and everybody else has been rebutting
> that. Not saying that VLANs shouldn't be used.
i think i saw several folks, not just stephen, say virtual wire was how
they'd
In a message written on Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 01:48:28AM +, Paul Vixie wrote:
> i think i saw several folks, not just stephen, say virtual wire was how
> they'd do an IXP today if they had to start from scratch. i know that
> for many here, starting from scratch isn't a reachable worldview, and
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> It's the technological equvilient of bringing everyone into a
> conference room and then having them use their cell phones to call
> each other and talk across the table. Why are you all in the same
> room if you don't want a shared medium?
Because you
Leo Bicknell wrote:
The value of an exchange switch is the shared vlan. I could see
an argument that switching is no longer necessary; but I can see
no rational argument to both go through all the hassles of per-peer
setup and get all the drawbacks of a shared switch. Even exchanges
that took t
I wasn't aware that LECs have the money to provide a DSLAM port per pair. =)
PPPoA/E wasn't invented to prevent DSL sharing (not possible), but was the
result of extending the dial-up approach of PPP with usernames and passwords
to provide end-users IP connectivity. As Arie mentions in his posting
As IP traffic is assumed to be self-similar, my EE origins tell me to
look for parameters that could measure it from stochastic process
theory. On a Google search this paper sounded interesting:
http://www.sparc.uni-mb.si/OPNET/PDF/IWSSIP2007Fras.pdf
(...) We estimated
the Hurst parameter (H) for t
> Shin SHIRAHATA wrote:
> >>> 192.88.99.0/24, 2002::/16, and 2001::/32 are some
> >>> notable examples of heterogeneous origin AS.
> >> And those prefixes (6to4 & Teredo) all come with annoying problems as
> >> one never knows which relay is really being used and it is hard to debug
> >> how the pa
On Apr 21, 2009, at 5:23 PM, Matthew Palmer wrote:
Oh, you lucky, lucky person. We've got a couple of customers at the
day job
that constantly come back to us for more IP addresses for bandwidth
accounting purposes for their colo machine(s). Attempts at
education are
like talking to a part
On 24.04.2009 03:48 Paul Vixie wrote
> "Bill Woodcock" writes:
>
>> ... Nobody's arguing against VLANs. Paul's argument was that VLANs
>> rendered shared subnets obsolete, and everybody else has been rebutting
>> that. Not saying that VLANs shouldn't be used.
>
> i think i saw several folks, n
On Apr 21, 2009, at 5:20 PM, Matthew Palmer wrote:
Then they come back with a request for IPs for SSL certificates,
which is a
valid technical justification. BTDT. People will find a way to do
the
stupid thing they want to do.
Most of the stupid people don't, actually. That's the funny
On Apr 21, 2009, at 6:50 PM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
FTP? Who uses FTP these days? Certainly not consumers. Even Cisco
well, pretty much anyone who has large datasets to move around.
that default 64k buffer in the openssl libs pretty much sucks
rocks for
On Apr 22, 2009, at 7:42 AM, Joe Greco wrote:
While HTTP remains popular as a way to interact with humans,
especially if
you want to try to do redirects, acknowledge license agreements,
etc., FTP
is the file transfer protocol of choice for basic file transfer
Speak for yourself. I haven't
> Is ARIN, who won't even take back large blocks of space from people
> who have long ago stopped using it and aren't paying anything for it,
> prepared to start filing civil suits against people who were assigned /
> 24's (and paid for them) due to inaccurate declaration?
it's a real shame t
On 22 apr 2009, at 23:39, Jack Bates wrote:
What really would help is more people who are not on NANOG pushing
vendors to support IPv6. Even my Juniper SE has mentioned that I'm
one of 2 people he's had seriously pushing for IPv6 features. Other
vendors have just blown me off all together (
Integration with the billing system is a big one, but remember that not
everybody is in control of the DSLAM or whichever device connects to the
access network and touches the end user directly. They may instead rely
on a wholesale provider for that if they don't have the reach themselves.
Fro
On 23/04/2009, at 8:37 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 22 apr 2009, at 23:39, Jack Bates wrote:
Serious input and participation means work and money.
You can participate on mailinglists without attending meetings, so
in that sense it doesn't have to cost money. As an operator, it
woul
On 23 apr 2009, at 12:23, Nathan Ward wrote:
Just participating in mailing lists is good for keeping up to date,
but not so good for getting things changed.
That's what I've found, anyway. Might not always be true.
Depends on the issue. Sometimes bad ideas get traction in the IETF,
it's
>> It appears that ARIN wants to raise the IP addressing space issue to
>> the CxO
>> level -- if it was interested in honesty, ARIN would have required a
>> notarized statement by the person submitting the request.
>
> No. Those are two entirely different problems.
>
> A notary signs only that t
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
Depends on the issue. Sometimes bad ideas get traction in the IETF, it's
hard to undo that.
That's an understatement.
Also don't expect too much from IETF participation: if doing X is going
to make a vendor more money than doing Y, they're going to favor X,
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009, Nathan Ward wrote:
After trying to participate on mailing lists for about 2 or 3 years, it's
pretty hard to get anything done without going to meetings.
Just participating in mailing lists is good for keeping up to date, but not
so good for getting things changed.
That's
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009, William Allen Simpson wrote:
> Some wag around here re-christened it the IVTF (V stands for Vendor, not
> Victory). ;-) I haven't bothered to go in years
If the people with operational experience stop going, you can't blame the group
for
being full of vendors.
Methink
My understanding of the PPPoA/E deal is that SPs (originally) wanted to
prevent some yahoo with a DSL modem from just being able to hook in to
someone's existing DSL connection and using it, so they decided to
implemement PPPoA and require some sort of authentication to prevent this
scenario.
At l
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 08:17:07PM +0800, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009, William Allen Simpson wrote:
>
> > Some wag around here re-christened it the IVTF (V stands for Vendor, not
> > Victory). ;-) I haven't bothered to go in years
>
> If the people with operational experience
On 24/04/2009, at 12:14 AM, Pekka Savola wrote:
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009, Nathan Ward wrote:
After trying to participate on mailing lists for about 2 or 3
years, it's pretty hard to get anything done without going to
meetings.
Just participating in mailing lists is good for keeping up to date,
On 24/04/2009, at 12:23 AM, William McCall wrote:
My understanding of the PPPoA/E deal is that SPs (originally) wanted
to
prevent some yahoo with a DSL modem from just being able to hook in to
someone's existing DSL connection and using it, so they decided to
implemement PPPoA and require some
You need also to remember that in many cases the DSL link is not provided by
the actual ISP. In many cases this is a wholesale scenario which uses L2TP
to forward the PPP session from the telco/DSL provider to the ISP.
In many cases there would also be another L2TP hop to another
sub-ISP/customer.
Arie Vayner wrote:
> You need also to remember that in many cases the DSL link is not provided by
> the actual ISP. In many cases this is a wholesale scenario which uses L2TP
> to forward the PPP session from the telco/DSL provider to the ISP.
> In many cases there would also be another L2TP hop to
Good point.
Oliver Eyre wrote:
Integration with the billing system is a big one, but remember that
not everybody is in control of the DSLAM or whichever device connects
to the access network and touches the end user directly. They may
instead rely on a wholesale provider for that if they don'
On 23 apr 2009, at 14:17, Adrian Chadd wrote:
Methinks its time a large cabal of network operators should represent
at IETF and make their opinions heard as a collective group.
That would be how change is brought about in a participative
organisation,
no? :)
Why don't you start by simpling
Would there be interest in trying to organize a day long
mini-nanog with the ietf in March 2010?
The regular nanog mtg is scheduled for Feb 22 2010 so this
would have to be an extra meeting. and would require all
sorts of help and interest from the ietf to put together.
Perhaps the NANOG SC ca
> it's a real shame that there is no mailing list for the endless arin
> policy disease threads.
Ohh, you can merge it with the one about the ICANN governance outcry
nonsense, that way will be easier to filter or delete.
My .02
Jorge
Could you have two instances of RADIUS, one for the middle-man and
ignore the accounting from that server?
--
Leigh
Steve Bertrand wrote:
> Arie Vayner wrote:
>
>> You need also to remember that in many cases the DSL link is not provided by
>> the actual ISP. In many cases this is a wholesale
Word up arin-annou...@arin.net; arin-p...@arin.net
Jay Murphy
IP Network Specialist
NM Department of Health
ITSD - IP Network Operations
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87502
Bus. Ph.: 505.827.2851
"We move the information that moves your world."
-Original Message-
From: Jorge Amodi
Apologies for a somewhat latent response - I was attending an IPv6
Seminar (of which ARIN was a sponsor) the last two days and am just
getting to nanog mail today.
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 15:42, Shane Ronan wrote:
> I'm not sure if anyone agrees with me, but these responses seem like a big
> cop
41 matches
Mail list logo
