Try your iperf over port 80 and see if your hitting any website related
filters. At least rule it out.
Or try HTTP on a different port.
If your iperf test is getting link speed then you can rule most things
connection related. I really think some device is QoS'ing packets bound
to<>from port 80.
I mean programatically speaking your network equipment generally knows no
difference between and HTTP packet and an IPerf packet. (Layer 3 packet
forwarding only breaks the first 84 bits off the header, Layer 2 gets 52
bits (with a vlan tag)) So, unless QoS of some kind gets brought into the
pictu
- Original Message -
> From: "Matthew Petach"
> On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 7:33 PM, Jorge Amodio
> wrote:
>
> > Here is another bit of data... www.apple.com not reachable from a
> > machine
> > using Google's NS, reachable from an iPad using TWC NS
> >
> > IP addresses returned by each are
- Original Message -
> From: "Patrick W. Gilmore"
> >> Not a case of "broken" traffic engineering at all.
> >
> > Sure it is.
> >
> > It's assuming that the geographic location of a customer resolver
> > server
> > has anything whatever to do with the geographic location of the end
> > no
On Sep 03, 2013, at 09:58 , Jay Ashworth wrote:
>> From: "Matthew Petach"
>> On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 7:33 PM, Jorge Amodio wrote:
>>
>>> Here is another bit of data... www.apple.com not reachable from a
>>> machine
>>> using Google's NS, reachable from an iPad using TWC NS
>>>
>>> IP addresses
MX80 is a good box. Go for MX104 if you want 2xRE redundancy and ability to
oversubscribe MIC slots with 2x10G cards.
Do note however: MX80-48T (cheaper variant with 48x tri-rate copper) uses
the old MS-DPC and does not scale very well when things like Netflow/IPFix
accounting. You should stick
On Sep 03, 2013, at 02:41 , Scott Hulbert wrote:
> Matthew Petach wrote:
>> Why not just use the TWC nameservers,
>> if thiings work when you use them instead
>> of the Google nameservers?
>>
>
> One reason would be that TWC used to hijack failed DNS requests and show
> advertisements (
> htt
I recently did a search for similar. The full routing table is where you
can factor out a lot of devices and specific line cards for others because
they can't handle it. That's where you want to make sure your clear with
the vendors as you talk to them.
I ultimately went with different mx mode
Hello,
I am currently looking into a 10G router that will support the below
requirements and hopefully not be too costly. Do you know of any models to
stay away due to issues or that you would recommend?
- 4x+ 10GBE ports
- BGPv4/v6
- Small number of RU preferred
- Support for 2-4 full routing ta
Matthew Petach wrote:
> Why not just use the TWC nameservers,
> if thiings work when you use them instead
> of the Google nameservers?
>
One reason would be that TWC used to hijack failed DNS requests and show
advertisements (
http://netcodger.wordpress.com/2010/09/14/roadrunner-returns-to-dns-h
If you require full redundancy, checkout the MX104. It also has a slightly
better RE.
On Aug 31, 2013, at 6:44 AM, sten rulz wrote:
Hello,
I am currently looking into a 10G router that will support the below
requirements and hopefully not be too costly. Do you know of any models to
stay away
Dear Bradley,
So basically you're asking others to do your homework for you ?
The only useful purpose your list serves is to demonstrate why people
shouldn't try to build fancy algorithms that rely on an entirely
unreliable datasource.
All you end up with are hacked together algorithms that
On (2013-09-03 12:59 -0400), ja...@towardex.com wrote:
> Do note however: MX80-48T (cheaper variant with 48x tri-rate copper) uses
> the old MS-DPC and does not scale very well when things like Netflow/IPFix
No it does not, it uses trio just no QX chip for per-vlan QoS.
--
++ytti
Hello,
If anyone is from Cogent, can you email me off list. I'm having a problem
reaching a website when going through Cogent hops. Looking for any help,
thank you!
-John-Pierre
Hello All,
Just wanted to send you all a quick note regarding the mailman outage
NANOG experienced this weekend...
A couple of changes made in August on the server resulted in an issue
when the new month arrived. We have found the issue, fixed, and now
have everything up and running properl
What's your greet pause set to?
Ted
On Tue, 3 Sep 2013, Deepak Jain wrote:
Without going to a dedicated list for something like this, I'm looking for a
common sense approach.
Sep 3 17:55:20 XXX sendmail[155]: r83Lse37000155: rejecting commands from
outmail016.ash2.facebook.com [66.220
Le 03/09/2013 23:28, John Levine a écrit :
>>> On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 10:27:36PM +, John Levine wrote:
I don't claim to be a big DNSSEC expert, but this looks just plain
wrong to me, and unbound agrees, turning it into a SERVFAIL.
> I heard back, seems like I found someone at the FBI
In message <52265aa4.6000...@free.fr>, Michael Hallgren writes:
> Le 03/09/2013 23:28, John Levine a écrit :
> >>> On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 10:27:36PM +, John Levine wrote:
> I don't claim to be a big DNSSEC expert, but this looks just plain
> wrong to me, and unbound agrees, turning
>> On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 10:27:36PM +, John Levine wrote:
>> > I don't claim to be a big DNSSEC expert, but this looks just plain
>> > wrong to me, and unbound agrees, turning it into a SERVFAIL.
I heard back, seems like I found someone at the FBI who was able to
explain the problem to Neust
Without going to a dedicated list for something like this, I'm looking for a
common sense approach.
Sep 3 17:55:20 XXX sendmail[155]: r83Lse37000155: rejecting commands from
outmail016.ash2.facebook.com [66.220.155.150] due to pre-greeting traffic
Sep 3 17:55:22 XXX sendmail[156]: r
Whackiness, predictably, ensues:
https://medium.com/editors-picks/46b47d95b957
You can do the math how this might affect you, your services, and your users,
if you have those.
Will people *ever* start listening when we tell them how Bad an Idea
something is? The RISKS are endless...
Cheers,
The issue was studied thoroughly by a committee of MBAs who, after
extensive thought (read: 19 bottles of scotch), determined that there
was money to be made.
whatcouldpossiblygowrong?
- Pete
On 9/3/2013 11:09 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
Whackiness, predictably, ensues:
https://medium.com/e
To their (partial) credit they are also supporting a new email header :
Require-Recipient-Valid-Since:
via draft-ietf-appsawg-rrvs-header-field
The idea of this header is that it will allow a sender to control that a
user will only receive an email if that email address was valid before a
specifi
On 9/3/2013 11:57 PM, Scott Howard wrote:
> Overall this is nothing new - Hotmail has been doing the same thing for
> years.
>
> Scott
>
When I used to use Hotmail - Your account was dropped after 30-60 days
of non-use.
Whereas Yahoo kept accounts active forever until recently.
Granted it's
On Sep 3, 2013, at 9:12 PM, ML wrote:
> On 9/3/2013 11:57 PM, Scott Howard wrote:
>> Overall this is nothing new - Hotmail has been doing the same thing for
>> years.
>>
>> Scott
>>
>
>
> When I used to use Hotmail - Your account was dropped after 30-60 days
> of non-use.
>
> Whereas Yahoo
> To their (partial) credit they are also supporting a new email header :
> Require-Recipient-Valid-Since:
with no X- before it?
randy
26 matches
Mail list logo
