been a while, but seems like lately it's more a question of how long. ISPs
can be in position where they need to, but as things have consolidated,
seems like they'd really like to forget it as soon as they can. If you've
got a specific case in mind, likely best to find a direct contact and get a
re
I'm not sure about the current state of the industry it's been a while
since I was responsible for an access network. In the past we would keep
radius logs for about 4 months, these would include the username,IP
address and yes (to date myself) the caller id of the customer at the
time.
Sam M
> On Dec 11, 2013, at 10:23 PM, Rob Seastrom wrote:
>
> Pretty much works out of the box on Mikrotik RouterOS if you are
> secure enough in your geek cred to admit to running such stuff here in
> this august forum.
>
> -r
>
I run a few at home and even in an access role at an ISP I work for.
On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 7:55 AM, Ryan Wilkins wrote:
>
> "They are a bit quirky but generally they work fairly well when configured
> and left alone."
>
That describes most every router ever made :)
-Steve
Anurag Bhatia wrote:
>
> Now I see presence of some (legitimate) DNS forwarders and hence I don't
> wish to limit queries.
You are going to have to change your mind about this one. Open recursive
resolvers are a really bad idea, unless you can afford a lot of time and
cleverness to manage the abu
There is a significant delay for user termination via L2TP; more than 40
seconds.
--- Original Message ---
From: "Paul Stewart"
Sent: December 12, 2013 5:33 AM
To: "Nilesh Kahar" , nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: BRAS
What kind of issues? How many subs and what code?
Paul
On 12/11/2013, 11:1
I thought that was resolved? Don’t have an L2TP scenario at the moment
but will in early January so will have to follow up with engineering to
confirm…
Many thanks,
Paul
On 12/12/2013, 8:36 AM, "Nilesh Kahar" wrote:
>There is a significant delay for user termination via L2TP; more than 40
>s
Hi All,
One of our customer having the following requirement.
There is a domain abcd.com ( zone file created , A records are pointed ).
He has another domain xyz.com. He want us to create a separate zone file
for " xyz.com " & abcd.com should be the CNAME of it. ( No "A" records
mentioned )
I'm b
Hi, Looking to see if people can PRIVATELY EMAIL ME about an opportunity for a
client of mine for a private 100Mb/s circuit between:
A location of Suite 102F in SF (200 Paul) TelX
Z location of 4th Fl (Atlantic Metro) 325 Hudson in NYC, NY.
They are planning to pick the provider on the best mix
Huawei ME60E
Отправлено с iPhone
> 10 дек. 2013 г., в 18:21, Nilesh Kahar написал(а):
>
> Which is a good BRAS product, to handle 15000 subscribers sessions with full
> QoS & other features?
I'm no lawyer but in the U.S., 18 USC 2703 appears to indicate this data
must be kept for at least 180 days.
-Scott
On 12/12/13 06:34, Sam Moats wrote:
I'm not sure about the current state of the industry it's been a while
since I was responsible for an access network. In the past we would kee
While I'm also not an attorney, my reading of 18 USC 2703 leads me to
believe that records need only to be preserved for 180 days if a
governmental entity (i.e. law enforcement agency, regulatory body,
prosecutors office, etc) makes a request that such records be preserved. To
the best of my knowle
On Wed, 11 Dec 2013, Methsri Wickramarathna wrote:
Hi All,
One of our customer having the following requirement.
There is a domain abcd.com ( zone file created , A records are pointed ).
He has another domain xyz.com. He want us to create a separate zone file
for " xyz.com " & abcd.com should b
>> "They are a bit quirky but generally they work fairly well when configured
>> and left alone."
> That describes most every router ever made :)
except those which burst into flame
except those which ...
On 12/12, R. Scott Evans wrote:
> I'm no lawyer but in the U.S., 18 USC 2703 appears to indicate this
> data must be kept for at least 180 days.
You are very mistaken. There is no requirement to retain *any* logs
(notwithstanding any orders issued by a court).
short answer: can't be done
You cannot have a cname and 'other' information for same entry. As a zone
requires an SOA record, you cannot have a CNAME for the entire domain
(theoretically a registrar could do it in .com, but afaik nobody does
his).
Depending on customer's requirements, can p
Option 82 info and logging.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Carlos Kamtha [mailto:kam...@ak-labs.net]
Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 10:00 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: do ISPs keep track of end-user IP changes within thier network?
Hi,
just a general curiousity question. it's
Confused :(
Do your customer want:
www.xyz.com pointing to the same IP as www.abcd.com
without having to manage xyz.com?
--
With bind:
zonefile xyz.com
$ORIGIN xyz.com.
$INCLUDEdomains/abcd.com.all
zonefile abcd.com
$ORIGIN abcd.com.
http://www.team-cymru.org/Services/Resolvers/
The Internet will be a better place with less open resolvers around.
--SiNA
On Dec 12, 2013 5:32 AM, "Tony Finch" wrote:
> Anurag Bhatia wrote:
> >
> > Now I see presence of some (legitimate) DNS forwarders and hence I don't
> > wish to limit queri
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Also:
http://openresolverproject.org/
Also, open resolvers are harmful to the Internet, so it would not surprise
me to see organizations to begin blocking any communication with them by
published lists open recursive resolvers.
- - ferg.
On 12/12
The internet will be better without ISP refusing to apply BCP38.
This is a pointless argument since the majority of the industry
prefer going after the UDP flood instead of
curbing the problem at its source once and for all.
-
Alain Hebertaheb...
On Dec 12, 2013, at 3:27 PM, Alain Hebert wrote:
>The internet will be better without ISP refusing to apply BCP38.
>
>
>
>This is a pointless argument since the majority of the industry
> prefer going after the UDP flood instead of
> curbing the problem at its source once and for
Our web site has been incorrectly listed on McAfee's SiteAdvisor service
as "SPAM URLs". We offer dedicated servers to clients and I suspect
that one of them was in the same /24 block of IPs. I have tried
numerous times to get removed and have been unsuccessful.
Does anyone have a contact at
Hi.
We are doing a fiber link between us and another SP using CWDM.
There is traffic flowing just fine at the 1310 wave, and have recently added a
1471 wave.
On the 1471 wave there are some problems with it. From our perspective, and we
have packet captured this, we are transmitting data to the
On Dec 12, 2013, at 8:11 PM, Keith wrote:
> Hi.
>
> We are doing a fiber link between us and another SP using CWDM.
>
> There is traffic flowing just fine at the 1310 wave, and have recently added a
> 1471 wave.
>
> On the 1471 wave there are some problems with it. From our perspective, and w
On 12/12/2013 5:15 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:
On Dec 12, 2013, at 8:11 PM, Keith wrote:
Hi.
We are doing a fiber link between us and another SP using CWDM.
There is traffic flowing just fine at the 1310 wave, and have recently added a
1471 wave.
On the 1471 wave there are some problems with it.
That is whats next. They took down the whole fiber instead of just the 1471
wave to test
which killed transit...grrr..
They say their tx/rx are within spec.
Next is jumpers and sfp swaps I guess.
Thanks.
On 12/12/2013 6:40 PM, Sam Roche wrote:
If you have a CWDM optical power meter and light s
28 matches
Mail list logo
