Try the DDoS attacks detection and mitigation software named WANGUARD
from http://www.andrisoft.com. It's not expensive and non-profit
organisations like you are granted with a 30% discount. Install it on
a Linux server and you'll have DDoS attacks detection in no time.
Since you're not a carrier t
Sounds like an advertisement to me
Thanks,
Ameen Pishdadi
On Dec 10, 2012, at 7:22 AM, Vasile Borcan wrote:
> Try the DDoS attacks detection and mitigation software named WANGUARD
> from http://www.andrisoft.com. It's not expensive and non-profit
> organisations like you are granted with a 30
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 9:33 AM, Ameen Pishdadi wrote:
> Sounds like an advertisement to me
In the end there are few actual options (in general):
1) do it yourself
2) have your carrier do it for you
3) have a third party do it for you
There are cost and capability considerations with all o
I'm getting the same thing when I try to access the web interface, but
SMTP & IMAP seem to be working fine at the moment.
- Peter
On 12/10/2012 11:56 AM, Philip Lavine wrote:
getting a 502 error
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 11:56 AM, Philip Lavine wrote:
> getting a 502 error
Some network issues on a normal Monday morning.
--
~ Andrew "lathama" Latham lath...@gmail.com http://lathama.net ~
Web interface for Gmail/GChat seems to be the culprit. My email and chat
clients that don't use the web interface seem pretty uneffected.
It's Google. They'll straighten it out quick enough.
On 12/10/2012 12:00 PM, Peter Kristolaitis wrote:
I'm getting the same thing when I try to access the we
Just loaded for me, however quite a bit slower than normal.
-Original Message-
From: Peter Kristolaitis [mailto:alte...@alter3d.ca]
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 10:00 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: gmail offline?
I'm getting the same thing when I try to access the web interface,
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 12:00 PM, Peter Kristolaitis wrote:
> I'm getting the same thing when I try to access the web interface, but SMTP
> & IMAP seem to be working fine at the moment.
>
> - Peter
This email sent via the Web interface... Trying to track down the issue now.
--
~ Andrew "latham
Not seeing any issues from a TWTC circuit in Milwaukee, Wi.
-Grant
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Andrew Latham wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 11:56 AM, Philip Lavine
> wrote:
> > getting a 502 error
>
> Some network issues on a normal Monday morning.
>
> --
> ~ Andrew "lathama" Latham la
In Israel as well.
-Hank
On Mon, 10 Dec 2012, Andrew Latham wrote:
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 11:56 AM, Philip Lavine wrote:
getting a 502 error
Some network issues on a normal Monday morning.
--
~ Andrew "lathama" Latham lath...@gmail.com http://lathama.net ~
I stand corrected, the web interface just stopped working with a 502 error
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 10, 2012, at 11:06 AM, Tom Beecher wrote:
> Web interface for Gmail/GChat seems to be the culprit. My email and chat
> clients that don't use the web interface seem pretty uneffected.
>
> It'
Seems to be working again.
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 12:08 PM, Grant Ridder wrote:
> Not seeing any issues from a TWTC circuit in Milwaukee, Wi.
>
> -Grant
>
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Andrew Latham wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 11:56 AM, Philip Lavine
> > wrote:
> > > getting a
It's been up and down for at least the past 20 minutes. Amusingly some of
the isitdown sites are sporadic as a result of so many people checking to
see if gmail is down. I'm reading/sending this via the gmail web interface
now though.
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 12:06 PM, Andrew Latham wrote:
> On
Reading this just fine from the UK on GMail web interface.
On 10 December 2012 17:18, Derek Ivey wrote:
> Seems to be working again.
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 12:08 PM, Grant Ridder >wrote:
>
> > Not seeing any issues from a TWTC circuit in Milwaukee, Wi.
> >
> > -Grant
> >
> > On Mon, Dec
It seems like gmail web interface is working for some, but not others.
http://www.google.com/appsstatus
On 12/10/12 9:19 AM, Jay Farrell wrote:
> It's been up and down for at least the past 20 minutes. Amusingly some of
> the isitdown sites are sporadic as a result of so many people checking to
>
Actually, requiring a public whois record is the way it always has been, that's
only recently changed. I think most folks would agree that, IPv4 /32 :: IPv6
/128 as IPv4 /29 :: IPv6 /64 So, while you are right, that swip'ing a v4 /32
has never been required, I think your analogy of a v6 /64
On 12/10/2012 01:27 PM, Schiller, Heather A wrote:
> I think most folks would agree that, IPv4 /32 :: IPv6 /128 as IPv4 /29 ::
> IPv6 /64
Quite the opposite in fact. In IPv6 a /64 is roughly equivalent to a /32
in IPv4. As in, it's the smallest possible assignment that will allow an
end-user host
> IPv4 /32 :: IPv6 /128
i.e. a single host or gkw behind a nat. kinda what i get from comcast
and twt now.
> IPv4 /29 :: IPv6 /64
i.e. i get a lan segment.
makes sense
> The minimum assignment requiring a swip is also ensconced in RIR
> policy.
i am sure that, if you dig deeply enough, a rec
In message <50c65c84.6080...@dougbarton.us>, Doug Barton writes:
> On 12/10/2012 01:27 PM, Schiller, Heather A wrote:
> > I think most folks would agree that, IPv4 /32 :: IPv6 /128 as IPv4 /29 :: I
> Pv6 /64
>
> Quite the opposite in fact. In IPv6 a /64 is roughly equivalent to a /32
> in IPv4. A
I know there's an outages list, but seriously!
It seems like a DNS prob?
--
---
Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://iso
Sent from my iPad
On Dec 10, 2012, at 2:04 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 12/10/2012 01:27 PM, Schiller, Heather A wrote:
>> I think most folks would agree that, IPv4 /32 :: IPv6 /128 as IPv4 /29 ::
>> IPv6 /64
>
> Quite the opposite in fact. In IPv6 a /64 is roughly equivalent to a /32
> in IP
>Quite the opposite in fact. In IPv6 a /64 is roughly equivalent to a /32 in
>IPv4. As in, it's the smallest possible assignment that will allow an end-user
>host to >function under normal circumstances.
>SWIP or rwhois for a /64 seems excessive to me, FWIW.
IPv4/32 is both a routing endpoint a
Sent from my iPad
On Dec 10, 2012, at 3:02 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> In message <50c65c84.6080...@dougbarton.us>, Doug Barton writes:
>> On 12/10/2012 01:27 PM, Schiller, Heather A wrote:
>>> I think most folks would agree that, IPv4 /32 :: IPv6 /128 as IPv4 /29 :: I
>> Pv6 /64
>>
>> Quite
In other news, productivity in the workplace hit an all time high. High Schools
around the nation are reporting dozens of potential suicide threats, citing the
inability to announce their current location. Millions of farms are unattended,
which may lead to a widespread shortage of virtual corn
I noticed Google Public DNS was returning ServerFail for www.facebook.com A
earlier around 6pm EST ; , NS records were fine. Now DNS problem is
solved but web still does not work.
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 6:06 PM, Joly MacFie wrote:
> I know there's an outages list, but seriously!
>
> It seem
On Dec 10, 2012, at 2:53 PM, Ian Smith wrote:
>> Quite the opposite in fact. In IPv6 a /64 is roughly equivalent to a /32 in
>> IPv4. As in, it's the smallest possible assignment that will allow an
>> end-user host to >function under normal circumstances.
>
>> SWIP or rwhois for a /64 seems e
In message <272782d1-8dea-4718-9429-8b0505dd3...@delong.com>, Owen DeLong write
s:
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Dec 10, 2012, at 3:02 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> >=20
> > In message <50c65c84.6080...@dougbarton.us>, Doug Barton writes:
> >> On 12/10/2012 01:27 PM, Schiller, Heather A wrote:
On 8 December 2012 23:10, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> Frankly, the more I think about this, the less it's clear why someone
>> like hetzner.de would actually want you to be using their native IPv6
>> support, instead of the one provided by HE.net through their free
>> tunnelbroker.net service. HE has a
On 10 December 2012 16:07, Mark Andrews wrote:
> You don't SWIP each residential customer with IPv4. You often SWIP blocks
> of residential customers down to the pop level.
> You often SWIP each commercial customer with IPv4.
>
> To require a SWIP entry for each residential customer is bureaucrac
> You don't SWIP each residential customer with IPv4.
you don't swip anybody. some folk swip each residential customer.
randy
On 12/10/2012 03:14 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Dec 10, 2012, at 2:04 PM, Doug Barton
wrote:
On 12/10/2012 01:27 PM, Schiller, Heather A wrote:
I think most folks would agree that, IPv4 /32 :: IPv6 /128 as
IPv4 /29 :: IPv6 /64
Quite the opposite in fact. In IPv6 a /64 is roughly equivalent t
31 matches
Mail list logo
