On Mar 22, 2010, at 10:27 PM, Mark Newton wrote:
>
> On 23/03/2010, at 3:43 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
>> With the smaller routing table afforded by IPv6, this will be less
>> expensive. As a result, I suspect there will be more IPv6 small multihomers.
>> That's generally a good thing.
>
> Puz
Conclusion : if you can't reply to these fundamental questions, hire a
CISO and build a CSIRT.
I *so* hate making an argument from authority (other than "I think smb
published a paper on that already"), but in your case I'll make an exception.
Go read http://www.sans.org/dosstep/roadma
Hi
I don't see on google a list of MPLS Provider at New York City.
Anyone know a small mpls provider in this city ?
Bye
Stephane
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 3:40 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> On Mar 22, 2010, at 10:27 PM, Mark Newton wrote:
>> On 23/03/2010, at 3:43 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> With the smaller routing table afforded by IPv6, this will be less
>>> expensive. As a result, I suspect there will be more IPv6 small multih
On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 11:13:48 BST, Guillaume FORTAINE said:
> I have read with interest this document.
(lots of irrelevant commentary elided - the vast majority of which merely
confirms the point that a lot of people have been doing further research on
issues that we identified a decade and more a
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 8:17 AM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 3:40 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> On Mar 22, 2010, at 10:27 PM, Mark Newton wrote:
>>> On 23/03/2010, at 3:43 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
With the smaller routing table afforded by IPv6, this will be less
expensiv
On 23/03/2010 12:59, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> And now, you're still acting like you've got new unique insights and going out
> of your way to irritate the very same more experienced people that you
> probably
> should be trying to learn from, when you haven't bothered to find out that
> yo
Hello,
Does anyone have any hands on experience with Cisco's Unified Computing System?
Knowing some of the issues it purports to address the solution seems
compelling but the devil is in the details. I generally lean towards the "best
of breed" approach and am wary of any solution that claims
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 6:43 AM, Stephane MAGAND
wrote:
> I don't see on google a list of MPLS Provider at New York City.
>
> Anyone know a small mpls provider in this city ?
It would probably help if you'd provide particulars such as desired
A/Z locations and connection speeds.
Drive Slow,
Paul
"IPv6 routing table 7-10 times smaller than the IPv4 routing table"
http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2009-May/014240.html
:-)
a bit of old stuff to get to the bottom line
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-49/presentations/ripe49-plenary-bgp.pdf
- Original Messa
On Mar 23, 2010, at 5:17 AM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 3:40 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> On Mar 22, 2010, at 10:27 PM, Mark Newton wrote:
>>> On 23/03/2010, at 3:43 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
With the smaller routing table afforded by IPv6, this will be less
expensive.
inetnum: 59.52.0.0 - 59.55.255.255
netname: CHINANET-JX
descr:CHINANET Jiangxi province network
descr:China Telecom
Anyone from China Telecom , can you please contact me off-list?
Thanks
Mehmet
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 10:27 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> I think that the additive nature of the IPv6/IPv4 routing tables will be the
> driving factor for deprecation of IPv4 pretty quickly once IPv6 starts to
> reach critical mass. The problem is that we are so early on the IPv6
> adoption curve
On Mar 23, 2010, at 10:40 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 10:27 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>> I think that the additive nature of the IPv6/IPv4 routing tables will be the
>> driving factor for deprecation of IPv4 pretty quickly once IPv6 starts to
>> reach critical mass.
On Mar 23, 2010, at 10:27 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> With 30,000 active AS right now, assuming an average of 2 instead of 9.5,
You appear to be assuming ISPs (like the ones that have received /18s, /19s,
/20s, etc.) aren't going to deaggregate for traffic engineering purposes. Or
do I misundersta
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
[ (Non-cross)posted to NANOG, PPML, RIPE IPv6 wg, Dutch IPv6 TF. Web version
for the monospace font impaired and with some links:
http://www.bgpexpert.com/addrspace2009.php ]
2009 IPv4 Address Use Report
As of January first, 2010, the number of unused IPv4 addresses
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 2:43 PM, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
> Interesting statistics.
>
> It'd be interesting to know what % of newly assigned addresses are used for
> fraudulent and illegal purposes such as spam and scamming (how soon and how
> frequently will the newly assigned 1.1.1.0/8 block star
On Mar 22, 2010, at 12:23 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
> On 3/22/2010 14:03, Mark Keymer wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> If at all possible can a AOL Postmaster please get a hold of me. I have
>> a client that co-lo's with use and we do the support for them and we
>> need some help on getting mail to be deliveri
Christopher Morrow wrote:
it's not clear that 1.1.1.0/24 is actually assigned to anyone,
RIPE/APNIC were just using for some experiments. Did you actually mean
1.0.0.0/8?
Uhm, yes of course. Thanks :-)
Does anyone have any experiences good/bad/indifferent with this company and
their products? They claim 2x the performance at ½ the cost and am a bit leery
as you can imagine.
We are looking to replace our aging F5 BigIP LTM's and will be evaluating these
along with the Netscaler and new genera
On 24/03/2010, at 4:10 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
>
> it seems to me that we'll have widespread ipv4 for +10 years at least,
How many 10 year old pieces of kit do you have on your network?
Ten years ago we were routing appletalk and IPX. Still doing that
now?
Ten years ago companies were s
tell me Mark,
when will you turn off -all- IPv4 in your network?
no snmp/aaa, no syslog, no radius, no licensed s/w keyed to a v4
address,
no need to keep logs for leos' (whats the data retention law in your
jurisdiction?)
etc...
simple switching of dat
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 10:59 PM, Mark Newton wrote:
> Only until v4 becomes more expensive (using whatever metric matters to
> you) than v6.
>
> After you pass that tipping point, v4 deployment will stop dead.
Mark,
You offer an accurate but incomplete assessment. IPv4 allocation's
upcoming tra
On 24/03/2010, at 1:46 PM, wrote:
>
> tell me Mark,
>
> when will you turn off -all- IPv4 in your network?
I don't imagine there'll be a date as such; We'll just enable
IPv6 versions of the services you've mentioned on equipment which
supports it, and note that over time the number of
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 02:24:45PM +1030, Mark Newton wrote:
>
> On 24/03/2010, at 1:46 PM, wrote:
>
> >
> > tell me Mark,
> >
> > when will you turn off -all- IPv4 in your network?
>
> I don't imagine there'll be a date as such; We'll just enable
> IPv6 versions of the services you've m
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 7:59 PM, Mark Newton wrote:
>
> On 24/03/2010, at 4:10 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
>>
>> it seems to me that we'll have widespread ipv4 for +10 years at least,
>
> How many 10 year old pieces of kit do you have on your network?
it's not my network anymore (or not the one
26 matches
Mail list logo
