In a message written on Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 08:14:40PM -0500, Chris
Adams wrote:
<..>
> What about web-hosting type servers? Right now, I've got a group of
> servers in a common IPv4 subnet (maybe a /26), with a /24 or two
routed
> to each server for hosted sites. What is the IPv6 equivalent?
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
For the v6 'Net to be used, customers - you know the people who pay for
those router things and that fiber stuff and all our salaries and such -
need to feel some comfort around it actually working. This did not help
that comfort level. And I believe it is valid to
On 14/10/2009, at 7:23 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
DS-Lite is there for when the ISP runs out of IPv4 addresses to
hand one to each customer. Many customers don't need a unique IPv4
address, these are the ones you switch to DS-Lite. Those that do
require a unique IPv4 you leave on full dual stack
> I think you are stretching things to make a pithy post. More
> importantly, you are missing the point.
and hundreds of words do not cover that you accused HE of something for
which you had no basis in fact. type less, analyse and think more.
randy
In message , Nathan Ward writes
:
>
> On 14/10/2009, at 7:23 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> > DS-Lite is there for when the ISP runs out of IPv4 addresses to
> > hand one to each customer. Many customers don't need a unique IPv4
> > address, these are the ones you switch to DS-Lite. Those that do
On Oct 14, 2009, at 9:32 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
I think you are stretching things to make a pithy post. More
importantly, you are missing the point.
and hundreds of words do not cover that you accused HE of something
for
which you had no basis in fact. type less, analyse and think more.
Please explain how this would be possible:
1 sender
1 mcast group
1 receiver
= no data loss
1 sender
1 mcast group
2+ receivers on same VLAN and physical segment
= data loss
which mode?
-Original Message-
From: Philip Lavine [mailto:source_ro...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 11:20 AM
To: nanog
Subject: multicast nightmare #42
Please explain how this would be possible:
1 sender
1 mcast group
1 receiver
= no data loss
1 send
Philip Lavine wrote:
Please explain how this would be possible:
1 sender
1 mcast group
1 receiver
= no data loss
1 sender
1 mcast group
2+ receivers on same VLAN and physical segment
= data loss
Probably a crappy switch.
--
Best regards,
Adrian Mint
> As for accusations, I challenge you to show where I accused them of
> anything.
> From: patr...@ianai.net (Patrick W. Gilmore)
> Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 12:09:58 -0400
> Subject: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering
> In-Reply-To:
> References:
> Message-ID: <0a37fd5d-d9d1
You really can't read, can you?
And I spoke to Martin about it personally. If he's OK with it,
perhaps you should clam down?
--
TTFN,
patrick
On Oct 14, 2009, at 11:47 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
As for accusations, I challenge you to show where I accused them of
anything.
From: patr...@ian
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009, Adrian Minta wrote:
> >1 sender
> >1 mcast group
> >2+ receivers on same VLAN and physical segment
> >
> >= data loss
> Probably a crappy switch.
specifically, is your switch doing frame replication on ingress
or egress? :)
adrian
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
As for facts, there is lots of basis. HE has run a network for decades
and has never let a v4 bifurcation happen so long. Ever. They've run
v6 for a few years yet it happened.
News flash, IPv6 is new.
News flash, every single IPv6 network that gets configured th
Patrick W. Gilmore (patrick) writes:
> You really can't read, can you?
>
> And I spoke to Martin about it personally. If he's OK with it,
> perhaps you should clam down?
I know Randy to be a bit taciturn and hard to get through to sometimes,
but never of being a shellfish.
>> You really can't read, can you?
>> And I spoke to Martin about it personally. If he's OK with it,
>> perhaps you should clam down?
> I know Randy to be a bit taciturn and hard to get through to sometimes,
> but never of being a shellfish.
i am from the pacific northwest. so shellfish is good.
Randy Bush wrote:
As for accusations, I challenge you to show where I accused them of
anything.
From: patr...@ianai.net (Patrick W. Gilmore)
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 12:09:58 -0400
Subject: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID: <
More info if this helps:
Switch Platform:
4500 SUPII+
with gig line cards
Data rate is <100Mbps
Server OS: Windows 2003 R2 (please withhold snickering).
- Original Message
From: Philip Lavine
To: nanog
Sent: Wed, October 14, 2009 8:19:51 AM
Subject: multicast nightmare #42
Pleas
Philip Lavine wrote:
More info if this helps:
Switch Platform:
4500 SUPII+
with gig line cards
Data rate is <100Mbps
Server OS: Windows 2003 R2 (please withhold snickering).
Multicast traffic is routed ?
--
Best regards,
Adrian Minta
Hello and sorry to bother you with my OT query.
I'm looking for a technical contact at netsolmail.net or
networksolutionsemail.com to troubleshoot an issue. It seems their SMTP
servers can't join mine and I can't see what's wrong on my side.
Thank you very much in advance,
Denis
On 10/14/09 8:11 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
Typing less does not mean you are actually thinking. You should try the
latter before your next pithy post. Or at least read the post to which
you are replying.
Now now boys and girls. Settle down and be civil. :)
Is the packet loss uniform for each receiver? Or is there a pattern to
the loss, e.g. each receiver hears a different / non-overlapping 50%
of the packets?
Off the cuff, I'd suspect a problem with IGMP snooping.
Cheers,
-Benson
On 14 Oct 09, at 12:36 PM, Adrian Minta wrote:
Philip Lavi
So you're saying moving away from PPPoA/E and just going bridged?
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Dan White [mailto:dwh...@olp.net]
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2009 9:15 AM
To: Justin Shore
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: ISP customer assignments
On 12/10/09 21:34 -0500, Justin Shore wro
22 matches
Mail list logo
