> As for LinkedIN, I have nothing against, it, but I don't use it. I don't
> have an account on it
> and not sure I ever want to. I'm already slightly on facebook, and very
> active on twitter,
> so nothing against linkedin, but there's just too many social media websites
> to keep track of
Th
On 11 feb 2011, at 17:51, William Herrin wrote:
> We can't backport ULA into IPv4 private
> addressing; there aren't enough addresses for the math to work. So we
> either make such folks jump through all kinds of hoops to get their
> networks to function, or we assign addresses that could otherwis
On Feb 17, 2011, at 7:39 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> Not that it matters because it's too late now and it would only give us a few
> more months, but:
>
> Does the US government really need more than 150 million addresses, of which
> about half are not publically routed? Non-publically ro
On 02/17/2011 01:02 AM, George Bonser wrote:
From: Mikeal Clark
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2011 3:16 PM
To: Jim Gettys
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: AT&T MPLS / BIB Routers
I'm building up to 3000-4000ms latency with these BIB routers. We
never had
this issue on the old point to points
In message <54cc2b0d-eae0-4b79-af19-20bbd233a...@istaff.org>, John Curran
writes:
> On Feb 17, 2011, at 7:39 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>
> > Not that it matters because it's too late now and it would only give =
> us a few more months, but:
> >=20
> > Does the US government really need mor
What type of hardware are they using for this BIB router?
Cheers
Ryan
-Original Message-
From: Mikeal Clark [mailto:mikeal.cl...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2011 6:16 PM
To: Jim Gettys
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: AT&T MPLS / BIB Routers
I'm building up to 3000-4000ms
On Feb 17, 2011, at 4:39 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> On 11 feb 2011, at 17:51, William Herrin wrote:
>
>> We can't backport ULA into IPv4 private
>> addressing; there aren't enough addresses for the math to work. So we
>> either make such folks jump through all kinds of hoops to get their
On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 08:08:50 EST, John Curran said:
> Rather than saying 240/4 is unusable for another three years, perhaps the
> service provider community could make plain that this space needs to be
> made usable
In other words, you're going to tell Granny she needs to upgrade to Windows 8
and
On Feb 17, 2011, at 9:32 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 08:08:50 EST, John Curran said:
>
>> Rather than saying 240/4 is unusable for another three years, perhaps the
>> service provider community could make plain that this space needs to be
>> made usable
>
> In other
- Original Message -
> From: "Michael Dillon"
> There are no perfect solutions. It seems to me that Twitter is not
> conducive to technical Q&A and given the choice between Facebook and
> LinkedIn, it seems that the professional social network is more likely
> to gain traction. Nobody has
The routers are Edgemarc. P/N EM-4608T4
http://www.edgewaternetworks.com/edgemarc_overview_page.htm
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 8:19 AM, Ryan Finnesey <
ryan.finne...@harrierinvestments.com> wrote:
> What type of hardware are they using for this BIB router?
>
> Cheers
> Ryan
>
>
> -Original Me
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
> Relevant to another post today, I've noticed that neither the
> *.ip6-servers.arpa
> nor the *.in-addr-servers.arpa allow axfr. Which leads to the following
> questions:
>
> 1. Was that a conscious decision, and if so why?
Speaking for the op
Is it possible to order a ISDN BRI line from the LEC and have them
look at the design of a DS1 and have them if possible design the ISDN
BRI lineon a devurse path or at lest different equipment within the
CO?
- Original Message -
> From: "Santino Codispoti"
> Is it possible to order a ISDN BRI line from the LEC and have them
> look at the design of a DS1 and have them if possible design the ISDN
> BRI line on a diverse path or at lest different equipment within the
> CO?
Off hand, I wouldn't
> Is it possible to order a ISDN BRI line from the LEC and have them
> look at the design of a DS1 and have them if possible design the ISDN
> BRI lineon a devurse path or at lest different equipment within the
> CO?
Effectively: No. You might find a salescritter willing to *sell* you
such a thin
On Thu, 17 Feb 2011, Santino Codispoti wrote:
Is it possible to order a ISDN BRI line from the LEC and have them
look at the design of a DS1 and have them if possible design the ISDN
BRI lineon a devurse path or at lest different equipment within the
CO?
I suspect that, particularly for someth
What you can do is (if you are important enough) apply for TSP (tsp.ncs.gov) in
conjunction with provisioning of a circuit to actually have this type of
engineering happen and persist, including emergency restoration. If your local
carrier doesn't offer the redundancy you want, your only other
Unfortunate but very true seen that many of times where a "special
engineering" fee has been charged specifically to carry a circuit in a diverse
manner (or even reasonably diverse). Then it breaks and the excuses start as
to why it was never done as promised - then a couple of years later
These "coronal mass ejections" will slam into the Earth's magnetic shield.
The biggest flares can disrupt technology, including power grids,
communications systems and satellites.
"Our current view is that the effect of the solar flare is likely to
reach Earth later today (Thursday GMT), possib
On 2011-02-16, at 21:15, David Conrad wrote:
> Congrats to all on getting this done! It's been a long time in coming. Good
> to see it finally finished.
You're very welcome :-) however, the work is not quiet yet done. Next steps are:
week of 2011-02-21: IN-ADDR.ARPA zone dropped from B, C,
This may be a great options because the network will be going into air ports.
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 10:50 AM, Jared Mauch wrote:
> What you can do is (if you are important enough) apply for TSP (tsp.ncs.gov)
> in conjunction with provisioning of a circuit to actually have this type of
> engin
On 2/17/2011 2:30 AM, Michael Dillon wrote:
Never heard of Quora and that seems to be tied to Facebook, so not
ideal.
Did you just dis Facebook while plugging linked-in?
Jack (continuing to ask stupid and redundant questions on NANOG)
On 2/17/2011 9:56 AM, andrew.wallace wrote:
These "coronal mass ejections" will slam into the Earth's magnetic shield.
The biggest flares can disrupt technology, including power grids,
communications systems and satellites.
"Our current view is that the effect of the solar flare is likely to
On Feb 17, 2011, at 9:44 04AM, John Curran wrote:
> On Feb 17, 2011, at 9:32 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 08:08:50 EST, John Curran said:
>>
>>> Rather than saying 240/4 is unusable for another three years, perhaps the
>>> service provider community could make pla
On 2/17/2011 10:24 AM, Steven Bellovin wrote:
It might be worth doing for ISP backbones, and for things like tunnel endpoints.
For anything else, it's not worth the effort -- and I suspect never was.
I think several people's point is that it may be useful for the CGN/LSN
numbering and other
Huh, interesting how the media didn't panic.
Leon Kaiser - Head of GNAA Public Relations -
litera...@gnaa.eu || litera...@goatse.fr
http://gnaa.eu || http://security.goatse.fr
7BEECD8D FCBED526 F7960173 459111CE F01
On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 07:56:19 PST, "andrew.wallace" said:
> The biggest flares can disrupt technology, including power grids,
> communications systems and satellites.
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12493980
Better references: http://www.spaceweather.com/
and http://www.swpc.noaa.
>
> In other words, you're going to tell Granny she needs to upgrade to
> Windows 8 and/or replace her CPE because you couldn't get your act
> together and deploy
> IPv6 - even though her friends at the bridge club who are customers of
> your clued competitor didn't have to do a thing.
Or tell he
On Feb 17, 2011, at 8:03 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
> At the end of this process every subdomain of ARPA will be fully
> DNSSEC-signed.
Cool.
> Query rates on the new servers (those operated by the RIRs and ICANN) are
> currently low, but are expected to increase as the IN-ADDR.ARPA zone is
> droppe
On Feb 17, 2011, at 11:28 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
> On 2/17/2011 10:24 AM, Steven Bellovin wrote:
>> It might be worth doing for ISP backbones, and for things like tunnel
>> endpoints.
>> For anything else, it's not worth the effort -- and I suspect never was.
>
> I think several people's point is
>
> Solar Activity Forecast: Solar activity is expected to be moderate
with
> a chance for an isolated major flare for the next three days (17-19
> February).
> Region 1158 is expected to produce more M-class flares and still has
> the potential for producing an M5 or greater x-ray event. There is
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 5:08 AM, John Curran wrote:
> On Feb 17, 2011, at 7:39 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>
>> Not that it matters because it's too late now and it would only give us a
>> few more months, but:
>>
>> Does the US government really need more than 150 million addresses, of which
Hi,
> It'll be interesting to see what the corresponding drop in traffic in the
> root servers will be...
We expect it to be around 2000qps (or ~8% of the total traffic) for
k.root-servers.net. PTR query rates are very steady and do not follow the
general diurnal cycle.
Regards,
Wolfgang
Mark Andrews writes:
> It's not usable as general purpose unicast. Both those drafts
> attempt to do that.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wilson-class-e-00 does not.
Recommend you re-read.
> It would be possible to use it as restricted purpose unicast, i.e.
> to connect from a cpe border
> If you want to go on a wild goose chase, start chasing down 240/4 and
> you might make some progress.
>
> As i have mentioned before, it was only after i gave up on 240/4 for
> private network numbering that i really earnestly took on IPv6-only as
> a strategy. Seeing 240/4 actually work would
Owen DeLong writes:
> The DoD does not seem particularly anxious to announce or explain
> their usage of those blocks to the rest of the community.
>
> They have much larger quantities of significantly more sophisticated
> armaments than ARIN.
>
> I agree it would be nice if they would voluntari
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 9:46 AM, George Bonser wrote:
>> If you want to go on a wild goose chase, start chasing down 240/4 and
>> you might make some progress.
>>
>> As i have mentioned before, it was only after i gave up on 240/4 for
>> private network numbering that i really earnestly took on IP
On Feb 17, 2011, at 12:48 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
>> 240/4 has been enabled in Linux since 2.6.25 (applied on January 21,
>> 2008 by David Miller) so that's like three years already.
>
> Yep, and that's great. Let me know when a Cisco 7600 will route a
> packet like this.
So, it won't work for
> >
> > 240/4 has been enabled in Linux since 2.6.25 (applied on January 21,
> > 2008 by David Miller) so that's like three years already.
> >
>
> Yep, and that's great. Let me know when a Cisco 7600 will route a
> packet like this.
>
> Cameron
Considering how small of a change it is, simply re
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 9:51 AM, John Curran wrote:
> On Feb 17, 2011, at 12:48 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
>
>>> 240/4 has been enabled in Linux since 2.6.25 (applied on January 21,
>>> 2008 by David Miller) so that's like three years already.
>>
>> Yep, and that's great. Let me know when a Cisco 7
On Feb 17, 2011, at 12:46 PM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
> Owen DeLong writes:
>> ...
>> I agree it would be nice if they would voluntarily return whatever
>> is appropriate to the community, but,
>
> You mean like they already did with 49/8, 50/8 (both formerly Joint
> Technical Command), 10/8 (
> >
>
> I am 100% pro making Class E defined as private unicast space.
>
> My only point is that people need to be realistic about the near term
> benefit. Yes, some linux may work. But, Microsoft and Cisco don't
> work today. Let's move it to not-reserved, but don't bet the farm on
> 240/4 so
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 9:52 AM, George Bonser wrote:
>> >
>> > 240/4 has been enabled in Linux since 2.6.25 (applied on January 21,
>> > 2008 by David Miller) so that's like three years already.
>> >
>>
>> Yep, and that's great. Let me know when a Cisco 7600 will route a
>> packet like this.
>>
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 9:52 AM, George Bonser wrote:
>>> >
>>> > 240/4 has been enabled in Linux since 2.6.25 (applied on January 21,
>>> > 2008 by David Miller) so that's like three years already.
>>> >
>>>
>>> Yep, and that's great. Let
> I asked 2 years ago, and i was told it was not feasible. I escalated,
> still no-go, it was a "deep" problem. And they pointed to the IETF
> saying no on the above drafts as reason to not dig into the microcode
> or whatever to fix it.
Ok, so that implies that it is burned into hardware and as
On 2/17/2011 1:31 PM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
IPv6's momentum is a lot like a beach landing at Normandy.
As in, "large, dedicated, and nigh unstoppable, but fraught with peril
and with a lot of mess and destruction to get through before it is
done," or as in "mainly opposed by aging crazy Nazis
On Feb 17, 2011, at 8:35 AM, George Bonser wrote:
>>
>> In other words, you're going to tell Granny she needs to upgrade to
>> Windows 8 and/or replace her CPE because you couldn't get your act
>> together and deploy
>> IPv6 - even though her friends at the bridge club who are customers of
>> yo
On Feb 17, 2011, at 9:57 AM, John Curran wrote:
> On Feb 17, 2011, at 12:46 PM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
>
>> Owen DeLong writes:
>>> ...
>>> I agree it would be nice if they would voluntarily return whatever
>>> is appropriate to the community, but,
>>
>> You mean like they already did with
>
> IPv6's momentum is a lot like a beach landing at Normandy.
??
Inevitably going to succeed, but, not without heavy losses in the process?
Owen
>
>> Cisco is just one example. The fact is it will likely not work in
>> cell phones, home gateways, windows PCs, Mac's, I understand
>> some progress has been made... but choose your scope wisely and pick
>> your battles and know that the weight of the world is against you
>> (cisco and m
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 2:14 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
>> IPv6's momentum is a lot like a beach landing at Normandy.
>
> ??
> Inevitably going to succeed, but, not without heavy losses in the process?
>
> Owen
>
>
Yes, and also with mass fear and confusion at the beginning.
--
Jeffrey Lyon, Lea
On 2/17/2011 1:25 PM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 2:14 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
IPv6's momentum is a lot like a beach landing at Normandy.
??
Inevitably going to succeed, but, not without heavy losses in the process?
Owen
Yes, and also with mass fear and confusion at the
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
>
>
> On 2/17/2011 1:25 PM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 2:14 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
IPv6's momentum is a lot like a beach landing at Normandy.
>>>
>>> ??
>>> Inevitably going to succeed, but, not without heavy loss
In message , Came
ron Byrne writes:
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 5:08 AM, John Curran wrote:
> > On Feb 17, 2011, at 7:39 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> >
> >> Not that it matters because it's too late now and it would only give us =
> a few more months, but:
> >>
> >> Does the US government real
In message <32ecc9cd-d927-4407-914c-751316c59...@istaff.org>, John Curran write
s:
> On Feb 17, 2011, at 12:48 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
>
> >> 240/4 has been enabled in Linux since 2.6.25 (applied on January 21,
> >> 2008 by David Miller) so that's like three years already.
> >
> > Yep, and that
George Bonser expunged (gbon...@seven.com):
> Considering the amount of linux-based CPE and other network hardware out
> there (including some Cisco gear), the extent to which it might be
> usable today could be surprising.
An how many of those embedded linux devices are running a 2.4 kernel? Jus
Mark Andrews expunged (ma...@isc.org):
> Or to ask CISCO to fix the box so it can route it? In many cases
> it is a minimal change. I don't know whether it is in Cisco 7600
They are in the business of selling new gear, not enabling features on EOL
equipment :)
-Steve
>
> You can reflash CPE devices to support this that you can't reflash
> to support IPv6 as there is no space in the flash for the extra
> code. This should be minimal. A extra PPP/DHCP option and a check
> box to enable (default) / disable setting it.
>
Reflashing most CPE amounts to forklifti
On Thursday, February 17, 2011 10:30:12 am Jay Ashworth wrote:
> Off hand, I wouldn't expect a carrier to do any special engineering on
> a BRI -- can you even *order* a BRI these days? :-)
Seems to still be in NECA Tariff5, at least the last copy I looked at. So the
rurals still are tariffed f
On Thursday, February 17, 2011 10:21:18 am Santino Codispoti wrote:
> Is it possible to order a ISDN BRI line from the LEC and have them
> look at the design of a DS1 and have them if possible design the ISDN
> BRI lineon a devurse path or at lest different equipment within the
> CO?
As I understa
Dear nanog@nanog.org subscriber:
This message is to let you know about an upcoming change in the
ownership of this mailing list.
As you may know, the ownership and management of NANOG has been been
transferred from Merit Network to NewNOG, Inc., a non-profit led by
members of the NANOG community
AT&T and Edgemarc now believe they might have shipped routers with firmware
that is causing the issues. We will upgrade the firmware on Tuesday and see
if that is the case.
Thanks everyone for the input.
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 9:04 AM, Mikeal Clark wrote:
> The routers are Edgemarc. P/N EM-4
Dear nanog-annou...@nanog.org subscriber:
This message is to let you know about an upcoming change in the
ownership of this mailing list.
As you may know, the ownership and management of NANOG has been been
transferred from Merit Network to NewNOG, Inc., a non-profit led by
members of the NANOG c
I was asked today what the difference between SFP and SFP+ is. I did really
know, so I looked it up and it seems that the SFP spec provides capabilities
for data rates up to 4.25Gb/s, whereas SFP+ supports up to 10Gb/s. Naturally,
this made me wonder whether or not an optic that supported 10Gb
Jason - there are no SFP-10G parts based off of the original SFP; they
all are based on the SFP+ standard, so there will be no issues with the
optic not being able to work at the full 10Gbps it's rated for.
Sam Chesluk
Network Hardware Resale
-Original Message-
From: Jason Lixfeld [mail
I'm curious also. Could you use a SFP in a ten gig port if you only need 4gb of
throughput?
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 17, 2011, at 6:25 PM, "Sam Chesluk" wrote:
> Jason - there are no SFP-10G parts based off of the original SFP; they
> all are based on the SFP+ standard, so there will be no i
Depends on the switch. Some, like the 2960S and 4948E, have 1G/10G
ports. They will, however, not operate at 4Gbps (that particular speed
was chosen to allow the core components to work for gigabit Ethernet,
OC48, 2G FC, and 4G FC).
Sam Chesluk
Network Hardware Resale
-Original Message
On 02/17/2011 07:11, Wolfgang Nagele wrote:
Hi,
Relevant to another post today, I've noticed that neither the *.ip6-servers.arpa
nor the *.in-addr-servers.arpa allow axfr. Which leads to the following
questions:
1. Was that a conscious decision, and if so why?
Speaking for the operator of
In message <5f90644c-5457-460f-9bc3-70802b13a...@delong.com>, Owen DeLong write
s:
> >
> >> Cisco is just one example. The fact is it will likely not work in
> >> cell phones, home gateways, windows PCs, Mac's, I understand
> >> some progress has been made... but choose your scope wisely a
In message <20110217203639.ga3...@mara.org>, Steve Meuse writes:
> George Bonser expunged (gbon...@seven.com):
>
> > Considering the amount of linux-based CPE and other network hardware out
> > there (including some Cisco gear), the extent to which it might be
> > usable today could be surprising
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 03:41:28PM -0800, Sam Chesluk wrote:
> Depends on the switch. Some, like the 2960S and 4948E, have 1G/10G
> ports. They will, however, not operate at 4Gbps (that particular speed
> was chosen to allow the core components to work for gigabit Ethernet,
> OC48, 2G FC, and 4G
In message <20110217203922.gb3...@mara.org>, Steve Meuse writes:
> Mark Andrews expunged (ma...@isc.org):
>
> > Or to ask CISCO to fix the box so it can route it? In many cases
> > it is a minimal change. I don't know whether it is in Cisco 7600
>
> They are in the business of selling new gea
On Feb 17, 2011, at 4:57 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> In message <20110217203639.ga3...@mara.org>, Steve Meuse writes:
>> George Bonser expunged (gbon...@seven.com):
>>
>>> Considering the amount of linux-based CPE and other network hardware out
>>> there (including some Cisco gear), the extent
In message <1dbdca5f-16ec-428d-bc46-3bd59a6f4...@delong.com>, Owen DeLong write
s:
> >
> > You can reflash CPE devices to support this that you can't reflash
> > to support IPv6 as there is no space in the flash for the extra
> > code. This should be minimal. A extra PPP/DHCP option and a check
On Feb 17, 2011, at 5:18 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> In message <1dbdca5f-16ec-428d-bc46-3bd59a6f4...@delong.com>, Owen DeLong
> write
> s:
>>>
>>> You can reflash CPE devices to support this that you can't reflash
>>> to support IPv6 as there is no space in the flash for the extra
>>> code.
On Feb 17, 2011, at 4:52 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> In message <5f90644c-5457-460f-9bc3-70802b13a...@delong.com>, Owen DeLong
> write
> s:
>>>
Cisco is just one example. The fact is it will likely not work in
cell phones, home gateways, windows PCs, Mac's, I understand
s
>
> But way way way more time to deploy the patched kernel than to
forklift
> the
> devices with IPv6 capable ones which don't require patching the
kernel,
> either.
>
> The kernel patch is, at best, an expensive stop gap. At worst, it is a
> counter
> productive waste of time. At best it's sligh
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 14:17, Benson Schliesser wrote:
> If you have more experience (not including rumors) that suggests otherwise,
> I'd very much like to hear about it. I'm open to the possibility that NAT444
> breaks stuff - that feels right in my gut - but I haven't found any valid
> ev
In message , Owen DeLong write
s:
>
> On Feb 17, 2011, at 5:18 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> >=20
> > In message <1dbdca5f-16ec-428d-bc46-3bd59a6f4...@delong.com>, Owen =
> DeLong write
> > s:
> >>>=20
> >>> You can reflash CPE devices to support this that you can't reflash
> >>> to support IPv6 a
> It has been a privilege for Merit to serve the NANOG community since
> the formation of the group in 1994.
the merit folk have done a great job since nanog happened out of techs.
you held the community together and helped move the internet forward.
deep thanks. and you're still family.
randy
I'm doing some research on multiple origin AS problems of IXPs. As I know,
generally there are two types of IXPs
type 1: use exchange routers, which works in layer 3
type 2: use switches and Ethernet topology, which works in layer 2.
So I have a couple of qustions:
1. For type 1, the exchange route
Mark Andrews expunged (ma...@isc.org):
> > An how many of those embedded linux devices are running a 2.4 kernel? Just
> > lo
> > ok at xx-wrt as an example. If you have a certain chipset, 2.4 is your only
> > o
> > ption.
>
> And the work to patch that kernel is minimal if it doesn't already
>
Mark Andrews expunged (ma...@isc.org):
> Remember a lot of this problem is the direct result of vendors not
> acting soon enough and that includes CISCO. Asking those vendors
> to do a bit of work to fixup the results of their bad decisions is
> not unreasonable. They can't fix hardware limitati
> -Original Message-
> From: Yaoqing(Joey) Liu [mailto:joey.li...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2011 6:03 PM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Internet Exchange Point(IXP) questions
>
> I'm doing some research on multiple origin AS problems of IXPs. As I know,
> generally there
In message <20110218020622.ga10...@mara.org>, Steve Meuse writes:
> Mark Andrews expunged (ma...@isc.org):
>
> > > An how many of those embedded linux devices are running a 2.4 kernel? Jus
> t lo
> > > ok at xx-wrt as an example. If you have a certain chipset, 2.4 is your on
> ly o
> > > ption.
Mark Andrews expunged (ma...@isc.org):
> I think grandma is quite capable of doing it. She just needs to
> be informed that it needs to be done.
On my planet (Earth), this isn't likely ever happen.
-Steve
In a message written on Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 02:17:48AM +, Michael K. Smith
- Adhost wrote:
> On the Seattle Internet Exchange (SIX) we have ARIN-assigned addresses that
> we use on the Layer 2 fabric (your type 2 above). Hopefully the addresses
> aren't being announced at all, although we
>> On the Seattle Internet Exchange (SIX) we have ARIN-assigned
>> addresses that we use on the Layer 2 fabric (your type 2 above).
>> Hopefully the addresses aren't being announced at all, although we
>> sometimes have to chase down people that announce it.
>
> I've had to deal with exchanges lik
We pick up v6 from HE currently (like the rest of the world). L3 offered us
dual stack also, but they wanted money to set it up plus MRC. None of our
Bits That Matter (tm) go over v6 anyhow. (I guess the right phrase would be
"revenue producing bits").
-Jack Carrozzo
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 9:51
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 8:17 PM, Michael K. Smith - Adhost <
mksm...@adhost.com> wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Yaoqing(Joey) Liu [mailto:joey.li...@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2011 6:03 PM
> > To: nanog@nanog.org
> > Subject: Internet Exchange Point(IXP) questions
Are there are any optics that plug into 10G ports but have a copper or
optical 1G interface? There's some equipment that I'm specing where it is
$10K for a multi-port 1G card, even while I really may only *occasionally*
need a single 1G port and there's a free 10G port for me to use.
Frank
-
AT&T has told us that they will have IPv6 on their MIS circuits Q2 2011.
Deltacom has told us the same.
We will be testing native IPv6 with both these carriers on GE Internet
circuits sometime around Q3.
-Hammer-
"I was a normal American nerd."
-Jack Herer
-Original Message-
You're invited to work my helpdesk for a week. I'd even pay you.
It's not just flashing, it's reconfiguring every wireless device in the home
(printer, Wii, Kindle, laptop (that's not home right, will be when Sally
visits for the weekend), etc).
If you can come up with an online tool that downlo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Feb 17, 2011, at 6:03 PM, Yaoqing(Joey) Liu wrote:
> As I know, generally there are two types of IXPs
This is incorrect.
> type 1: use exchange routers, which works in layer 3
This is not an IXP. This is a router. That router would be owned by
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 09:04:29PM -0600, Frank Bulk wrote:
> Are there are any optics that plug into 10G ports but have a copper or
> optical 1G interface? There's some equipment that I'm specing where
> it is $10K for a multi-port 1G card, even while I really may only
> *occasionally* need a
>> type 1: use exchange routers, which works in layer 3
> This is not an IXP. This is a router. That router would be owned by
> someone, who would have some sort of policy in the router, which would
> make it an Internet service provider, not an Internet exchange point.
this from the guy who pus
In message <00bc01cbcf19$8b3f13d0$a1bd3b70$@iname.com>, "Frank Bulk" writes:
> You're invited to work my helpdesk for a week. I'd even pay you.
>
> It's not just flashing, it's reconfiguring every wireless device in the home
> (printer, Wii, Kindle, laptop (that's not home right, will be when Sa
i am getting nanog list mail repeats from last may
randy
On Fri, 18 Feb 2011, Randy Bush wrote:
i am getting nanog list mail repeats from last may
I'm down with Shirley Bassey
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bE_1tCasi_Q
randy
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 9:25 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
> i am getting nanog list mail repeats from last may
ME2
-J
1 - 100 of 105 matches
Mail list logo
