On 2014-03-13 23:13, joel jaeggli wrote:
exabgp from ripe labs can inject flowspec routes.
You mean from Exa Networks[1], not RIPE:
https://github.com/Exa-Networks/exabgp
Tom
[1] http://www.exa.net.uk/
On Wednesday, March 19, 2014 09:06:47 PM Patrick W. Gilmore
wrote:
> The angle on my right shoulder wants to congratulate a
> "tier one" (whatever the F that means) provider for
> finally admitting, in writing, in public, from a lawyer,
> what the rest of us have known for decades.
Every time th
Mark Tinka wrote the following on 3/20/2014 7:39 AM:
On Wednesday, March 19, 2014 09:06:47 PM Patrick W. Gilmore
wrote:
The angle on my right shoulder wants to congratulate a
"tier one" (whatever the F that means) provider for
finally admitting, in writing, in public, from a lawyer,
what the r
On Mar 20, 2014, at 08:39 , Mark Tinka wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 19, 2014 09:06:47 PM Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>> The angle on my right shoulder wants to congratulate a
>> "tier one" (whatever the F that means) provider for
>> finally admitting, in writing, in public, from a lawyer,
>> what t
On 03/19/2014 06:33 PM, Rob Seastrom wrote:
It's not the conductor that you're derating; it's the breaker. Per NEC
Table 310.16, ampacity of #12 copper THHN/THWN2 (which is almost
certainly what you're pulling) with 3 conductors in a conduit is 30
amps. Refer to Table 310.15(B)(2)(a) for derati
Lamar Owen writes:
> Actually, there is no NEC 384.16 any more, at least in the 2011 code.
Guilty. I reflexively reached for my 2008 copy since that's the code
of record here where I live. Glad we're not on 2011, wish we were
still on 2005; a lot of stupidity has crept in since then. Tamper-
On Thursday, March 20, 2014 04:16:26 PM Blake Hudson wrote:
> I don't see this as a technical problem, but one of
> business and ethics. ISP X advertises/sells customers
> "up to 8Mbps" (as an example), but when it comes to
> delivering that product, they've only guaranteed 512Kbps
> (if any) beca
On Thursday, March 20, 2014 04:18:59 PM Patrick W. Gilmore
wrote:
> "The market" can only "work around" things if there is a
> functioning market. Monopolies are not a functioning
> market.
When did we ever have a "functioning market", even in
markets that are considered "liberalized" :-)?
It
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 4:00 PM, Rob Seastrom wrote:
>
> Lamar Owen writes:
>
>> Actually, there is no NEC 384.16 any more, at least in the 2011 code.
>
> Guilty. I reflexively reached for my 2008 copy since that's the code
> of record here where I live. Glad we're not on 2011, wish we were
> s
Mark Tinka wrote the following on 3/20/2014 11:05 AM:
On Thursday, March 20, 2014 04:18:59 PM Patrick W. Gilmore
wrote:
"The market" can only "work around" things if there is a
functioning market. Monopolies are not a functioning
market.
When did we ever have a "functioning market", even in
ma
I don't know where everyones traffic goes but level3 and us, nothing.
We've dropped all but 1 line which will be gone in 60 days.I don't care
what their excuse is, they have been horrible this last 14 months and I'd
rather get bw from cogent who isn't great but doesn't blame everyone else
for t
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 3:05 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:
.
> Tracking code changes fuels an entire industry, and several websites.
> :-)
The redline PDF at least makes it (more easily) possible to notice
the changes for your evening reading pleasure.
Is it too late to demand code be in open Github repos with changes
tracked at no cost?
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 12:12 PM, Gary Buhrmaster
wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 3:05 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:
> .
>> Tracking code changes fuels an entire industry, and several websites.
>> :-)
>
> The
On 03/20/2014 12:27 PM, Gary Buhrmaster wrote:
"Think of the children!" I hear the 2017 edition of NFPA 70 (aka NEC)
may require one to turn off the power to the entire household in order
to plug in a coffee maker to minimize potential arc flash hazard
(just kidding). Gary
ROTFL.
No
On 3/20/14, 12:34 PM, Blake Hudson wrote:
> The solution seems to be competition or regulation.
I'd prefer competition to regulation.
--
Bryan Fields
727-409-1194 - Voice
727-214-2508 - Fax
http://bryanfields.net
This email is the reason I spend money with digital ocean. :)
You should too.
On 3/20/14, 9:34 AM, "Bryan Socha" wrote:
>I don't know where everyones traffic goes but level3 and us, nothing.
>We've dropped all but 1 line which will be gone in 60 days.I don't
>care
>what their excuse is, the
+1
Is this what happens when a vendor gets too big?
-Petter
-Original Message-
From: Bryan Socha [mailto:br...@digitalocean.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2014 9:35 AM
To: mark.ti...@seacom.mu
Cc: nanog list
Subject: Re: Level 3 blames Internet slowdowns on ISPs' refusal to upgrade
net
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 5:38 PM, Warren Bailey
wrote:
> This email is the reason I spend money with digital ocean. :)
>
> You should too.
uhh, no. It's the 21st century. I prefer to spend my money with those
that, at a bare minimum, provide IPv6.
-Jim P.
Just brought online Details at:
http://www.routeviews.org/nwax.html
We would welcome a few more NWAX peers
at this point.
Thanks to NWAX and IOVATION,
--
John Kemp
RouteViews Engineer
NOC: n...@routeviews.org
MAIL: h...@routeviews.org
WWW: http://www.routeviews.org
Meh.. Some providers need to/should comply with the majority of the
requirements. I¹d support ipv6 if I could and it wasn¹t a big deal, but my
traffic originates from (usually) the ipv4 sphere. So unless all of these
carriers start magically migrating to v6, I don¹t know that a lot of
³hosting² pro
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Are carriers prepared to tunnel IPv4 traffic?
Carriers offering v6 is a novel idea, but the edge networks,
enterprises, etc. are moving very fast.
- - ferg
On 3/20/2014 2:58 PM, Warren Bailey wrote:
> Meh.. Some providers need to/should comply
Sounds like a lot of 6 to 4 links to me.. ;)
On 3/20/14, 3:04 PM, "Paul Ferguson" wrote:
>-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>Hash: SHA256
>
>Are carriers prepared to tunnel IPv4 traffic?
>
>Carriers offering v6 is a novel idea, but the edge networks,
>enterprises, etc. are moving very fast.
>
>
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 9:16 AM, Blake Hudson wrote:
>
> I don't see this as a technical problem, but one of business and ethics.
> ISP X advertises/sells customers "up to 8Mbps" (as an example), but when it
> comes to delivering that product, they've only guaranteed 512Kbps (if any)
> because th
On 3/18/14 3:54 PM, George Herbert wrote:
> This sort of thing is usually an adapter, a little cylinder with a L6-20R
> on one end and a L6-30P on the other, since the loads are safe. Either
> that, or a short jumper cable wired the same way.
The loads aren't safe. You will have a 30-amp circui
On 3/20/2014 7:32 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
> Then there is this whole matter of end-to-end connectivity. Just
> because your WAN device links up at 8 Megabits, does not mean you have
> been guaranteed 8 Mbits end-to-end.
Have run into this one more times that I care to count. We're running
very marg
On Mar 20, 2014, at 4:52 PM, Jay Hennigan wrote:
> On 3/18/14 3:54 PM, George Herbert wrote:
>
>> This sort of thing is usually an adapter, a little cylinder with a L6-20R
>> on one end and a L6-30P on the other, since the loads are safe. Either
>> that, or a short jumper cable wired the same
On 3/20/2014 at 4:17 PM Bryan Fields wrote:
|On 3/20/14, 12:34 PM, Blake Hudson wrote:
|> The solution seems to be competition or regulation.
|I'd prefer competition to regulation.
=
If real and true competition exists, yes.
And of course that only last until someone else decides to buy the
competition, I mean "invest in other companies".
On Mar 20, 2014 7:58 PM, "Mike." wrote:
> On 3/20/2014 at 4:17 PM Bryan Fields wrote:
>
> |On 3/20/14, 12:34 PM, Blake Hudson wrote:
> |> The solution seems to be competition or reg
The only way we will ever see real and true competition is if we prohibit Layer
2+ providers from playing in the Layer 1 space.
At some point, we will need to recognize that for the population densities in
the vast majority of the united States (including most urban areas), Layer 1 is
effective
On 3/20/2014 9:51 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
The only way we will ever see real and true competition is if we
prohibit Layer 2+ providers from playing in the Layer 1 space.
As long as you have artificial impediments and restrictions, you will
have what you have today.
--
Requiescas in pace o ema
Unless I am reading the tea leaves wrong "competition" will require
"regulation".
Original message
From: "Mike."
Date: 03/20/2014 21:56 (GMT-05:00)
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Level 3 blames Internet slowdowns on
Technica
On 3/20/2014 at 4:17 PM Bryan Field
On Friday, March 21, 2014 04:51:07 AM Owen DeLong wrote:
> At some point, we will need to recognize that for the
> population densities in the vast majority of the united
> States (including most urban areas), Layer 1 is
> effectively a natural monopoly and you will rarely get
> more than one prov
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 4:17 PM, Bryan Fields wrote:
> On 3/20/14, 12:34 PM, Blake Hudson wrote:
>> The solution seems to be competition or regulation.
> I'd prefer competition to regulation.
When regulation is done well, competition is the result. Consider the
following hypothetical regulation:
On 3/20/2014 10:47 PM, David Miller wrote:
Unless I am reading the tea leaves wrong "competition" will require
"regulation".
"regulation" prevents "competition". That is why people want regulation.
Look at this thread at the people who do not want to be competed-with at
L1, for example.
--
34 matches
Mail list logo
