For what it's worth, I just found this great report by Sandvine talking about
bandwidth trends in various countries
(Gotta enter in an email address, unfortunately)
http://www.sandvine.com/news/global_broadband_trends.asp
On Apr 9, 2011, at 6:51 AM, John Palmer (NANOG Acct) wrote:
> OK, its been a year since my Barracuda subscription expired. The unit still
> stops some spam. I figured that I would go and see what they would do if I
> tried to renew my subscription EXACTLY one year after it expired. Would their
>
>
> While I agree with you (in theory), in practice, lots of companies do this
> baloney and there is little you can do if you need their product.
>
> In fact, I just got screwed by this policy at Fluke Networks when I tried
> to renew my subscription to one of their tools.
>
Would it turn out t
On Apr 26, 2011, at 1:54 PM, Dorn Hetzel wrote:
>
> Would it turn out to be less expensive to just start a new subscription as if
> you never had one before?
Usually places like this do it by serial number, in which case they don't let
you update until you backpay. :)
Good day
I have a question from a customer point of view. We currently have a
multi-site WAN with all our Internet connectivity at one site consisting of 3
ISP type connections, full BGP, including our own ASN with IPv4 and v6
addressing space. All up and running.
I am now looking to add In
On Mon, 25 Apr 2011, Andrew Kirch wrote:
On 4/25/2011 4:07 AM, Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote:
Hi!
would someone at SIXXS please contact me off-list regarding an account
issue?
Contact
The main contact address for SixXS is i...@sixxs.net, which is the
sole email address one should use to contact S
On 4/25/11 11:28 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
But if these two groups want people to take IPv6 seriously (you know,
before the ceiling comes down on our heads), maybe they should take it
seriously.
Having run a volunteer service before, I can tell you there are a lot of
people complaining abou
Greetings NANOG,
I've always been under the impression its best practice to only announce
prefixes of a /24 and above when it comes to IPv4 and BGP.
I was wondering if something similar had been agreed upon regarding IPv6.
And if That's the case, What's the magic number? /32? /48? /64?
Nick Olse
On Tue, 26 Apr 2011, Nick Olsen wrote:
I've always been under the impression its best practice to only announce
prefixes of a /24 and above when it comes to IPv4 and BGP.
I was wondering if something similar had been agreed upon regarding IPv6.
And if That's the case, What's the magic number? /3
Funny enough, some carriers actually require the 'smallest' as being /32... :(
-Original Message-
From: Justin M. Streiner [mailto:strei...@cluebyfour.org]
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 9:34 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: IPv6 Prefix announcing
On Tue, 26 Apr 2011, Nick Olsen wrote
On Apr 26, 2011, at 12:39 PM, Kate Gerry wrote:
> Funny enough, some carriers actually require the 'smallest' as being /32... :(
Vote with your wallet.
Some carriers would prefer if only transit free networks were allowed to
originate routes. Doesn't mean you should follow their lead.
--
TTF
> From: Kate Gerry
> Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 9:39 AM
> To: 'Justin M. Streiner'; nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: RE: IPv6 Prefix announcing
>
> Funny enough, some carriers actually require the 'smallest' as being
> /32... :(
>
That might be true in PA space, but PI space is issued down to /
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 12:30 PM, Nick Olsen wrote:
> Greetings NANOG,
> I've always been under the impression its best practice to only announce
> prefixes of a /24 and above when it comes to IPv4 and BGP.
> I was wondering if something similar had been agreed upon regarding IPv6.
> And if That's
I know that used to be true, but, to the best of my knowledge, everyone is now
accepting
down to /48s in provider independent ranges. Some still require /32 or shorter
in the provider aggregate ranges.
Owen
Sent from my iPad
On Apr 26, 2011, at 10:39 AM, Kate Gerry wrote:
> Funny enough, so
On 4/26/2011 09:39, Kate Gerry wrote:
> Funny enough, some carriers actually require the 'smallest' as being /32... :(
>
This is becoming the exception now, not the rule.
Last year I was fighting with Verizon about their refusal to carry /48s.
That, together with the impasse of figuring out how
> -Original Message-
> From: Seth Mattinen [mailto:se...@rollernet.us]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 12:52 PM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: IPv6 Prefix announcing
>
> On 4/26/2011 09:39, Kate Gerry wrote:
> > Funny enough, some carriers actually require the 'smallest' as being /32
On 4/26/2011 12:11 PM, Brielle Bruns wrote:
> I've run a volunteer/free hosting service since 1997 or so - it never
> ceases to amaze me how people will complain about free things, but
> when you ask them to pony up a little monthly support its like you
> killed their puppy. I just term people who
Kevin Day wrote:
> Anyone from Activision/Blizzard who would like to chime in with more
> details? :)
I'm definitely not from either of those, but I've found this link:
http://us.blizzard.com/support/article.xml?locale=en_US&tag=IPv6&rhtml=true
---
What is IPv6?
Internet Protocol version 6 (
On Apr 25, 2011, at 10:12 AM, Jeff Mitchell wrote:
> If you trust the issued certificates(!) being used to sign the mail, you at
> least have a good indication that the spam is coming from the domain that it
> says it's coming from. This can make spam blocking much more effective
> because inst
On Apr 26, 2011, at 6:38 PM, Andrew Kirch wrote:
> On 4/26/2011 12:11 PM, Brielle Bruns wrote:
>> I've run a volunteer/free hosting service since 1997 or so - it never
>> ceases to amaze me how people will complain about free things, but
>> when you ask them to pony up a little monthly support it
On 4/26/2011 8:56 PM, TR Shaw wrote:
> On Apr 26, 2011, at 6:38 PM, Andrew Kirch wrote:
>
> I can't say about SIXXS but HE has been great to me. If it wasn't for them I
> would be out in the cold since neither ATT nor Brighthouse (my 2 options at
> my colo) can even spell IPv6!
>
> Tom
>
>
My go
On 04/26/2011 05:08 PM, J.D. Falk wrote:
On Apr 25, 2011, at 10:12 AM, Jeff Mitchell wrote:
If you trust the issued certificates(!) being used to sign the mail, you at
least have a good indication that the spam is coming from the domain that it
says it's coming from. This can make spam bl
On 2011-04-26 20:00, Andrew Kirch wrote:
My goal here isn't to bash HE, just to note that I have _REALLY_ bad
routes to it. I had no trouble setting up a tunnel with them.
Have you checked Gogo6 at all?
Jima
In message <4db76ac1.6080...@trelane.net>, Andrew Kirch writes:
> On 4/26/2011 8:56 PM, TR Shaw wrote:
> > On Apr 26, 2011, at 6:38 PM, Andrew Kirch wrote:
> >
> > I can't say about SIXXS but HE has been great to me. If it wasn't for them
> I would be out in the cold since neither ATT nor Bright
Hi,
I was trying command "mpls ipv6 source-interface <>" on SRE3 code,
look like there is no command like that on SRE. This command is
important for locally generated packets. Have someone used this
command?
Also what is the command on XR 4.0.1 to achieve the same?
Regards,
Vikas
On Wed, 27 Apr 2011, Vikas Sharma wrote:
I was trying command "mpls ipv6 source-interface <>" on SRE3 code, look
like there is no command like that on SRE. This command is important for
locally generated packets. Have someone used this command?
You already received a good answer on cisco-nsp
Sorry, I just saw it...
Regards,
Vikas
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 11:03 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Apr 2011, Vikas Sharma wrote:
>
>> I was trying command "mpls ipv6 source-interface <>" on SRE3 code, look
>> like there is no command like that on SRE. This command is important for
>
Op 27-4-2011 0:38, Andrew Kirch schreef:
> On 4/26/2011 12:11 PM, Brielle Bruns wrote:
>> I've run a volunteer/free hosting service since 1997 or so - it never
>> ceases to amaze me how people will complain about free things, but
>> when you ask them to pony up a little monthly support its like you
28 matches
Mail list logo
