On 10/27/14 21:03, Chuck Church wrote:
> You sure it's not a DNS issue? I've had problems resolving various
> *.disa.mil sites today. Google DNS claims they don't exist.
>
> Chuck
>
> -Original Message-
> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Ray Van Dolson
> Sent: Mon
-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Alain Hebert
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 9:14 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: .mil postmaster Contacts?
> Might be related to the news (CNN this morning) about the WH network being
exploited for a few d
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 10:43:34AM -0400, Chuck Church wrote:
>
> -Original Message-
> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Alain Hebert
> Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 9:14 AM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: .mil postmaster Contacts?
>
> > Might be related t
On 10/25/14 5:00 AM, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
It might. So would removing the farce of 'private' domain registration.
the venue where the applicable policy is currently under development is
gnso-ppsai-pdp...@icann.org
just to be tediously instructive, the policy applicable to gtlds is
develope
We noticed a large increase in prefixes this morning. Has anyone noticed any
issues resulting from the increase?
http://www.cidr-report.org/as2.0/#General_Status
Thanks,
Ron
The list of NIST NTP servers is down for me, is anyone else seeing this?
I'm getting a 404 error
http://tf.nist.gov/tf-cgi/servers.cgi
--
Brian Christopher Raaen
Network Architect
Zcorum
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Yeah, it looks like it's down
stu
On 10/29/2014 10:14 AM, Brian Christopher Raaen wrote:
> The list of NIST NTP servers is down for me, is anyone else seeing this?
> I'm getting a 404 error
> http://tf.nist.gov/tf-cgi/servers.cgi
>
- --
"No pr
http://downforeveryoneorjustme.com/http://tf.nist.gov/tf-cgi/servers.cgi
No, it's not
On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 10:16:58 -0700
Stuart Sheldon wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> Yeah, it looks like it's down
>
> stu
>
>
>
> On 10/29/2014 10:14 AM, Brian Christopher Ra
Try again.
Just worked fine for me.
On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 10:16:58 -0700
Stuart Sheldon wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Yeah, it looks like it's down
stu
On 10/29/2014 10:14 AM, Brian Christopher Raaen wrote:
The list of NIST NTP servers is down for me, is anyone els
I'm still getting a 404. I am using a Windstream backbone, is this maybe
path/server specific. Here is a dig.
dig tf.nist.gov
; <<>> DiG 9.9.5-3-Ubuntu <<>> tf.nist.gov
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 46860
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1,
On 10/29/2014 12:14 PM, Brian Christopher Raaen wrote:
> The list of NIST NTP servers is down for me, is anyone else seeing this?
> I'm getting a 404 error
> http://tf.nist.gov/tf-cgi/servers.cgi
I concur, that URL results in 404 for me too. Much content which had
been reliably available at http
It's up from Vancouver, Canada. No 404 from here.
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 10:16 AM, Stuart Sheldon wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> Yeah, it looks like it's down
>
> stu
>
>
>
> On 10/29/2014 10:14 AM, Brian Christopher Raaen wrote:
> > The list of NIST NTP servers
>Has anyone noticed any issues resulting from the increase?
>
No
>
> http://www.cidr-report.org/as2.0/#General_Status
>
>
But quite interestingly seems like something went wrong with AS13184 around
12:00 UTC.
https://stat.ripe.net/AS13184#tabId=routing
Regards,
Aftab A. Siddiqui
- Original Message -
> From: "Brian Butler"
> > I'm getting a 404 error
> > http://tf.nist.gov/tf-cgi/servers.cgi
Add me to the list of "it works" people.
> I concur, that URL results in 404 for me too. Much content which had
> been reliably available at http://tf.nist.gov and
> http://
> Am 29.10.2014 um 18:14 schrieb Brian Christopher Raaen
> :
>
> The list of NIST NTP servers is down for me, is anyone else seeing this?
> I'm getting a 404 error
> http://tf.nist.gov/tf-cgi/servers.cgi
404 from Kabel Deutschland reaching tf.nist.gov via AS1273, a small hoster in
Hamburg, Germ
Seems to be working over IPv4, not over IPv6.
$ curl -6 http://tf.nist.gov/tf-cgi/servers.cgi 2>/dev/null | head -5
404 Not Found
Not Found
$ curl -4 http://tf.nist.gov/tf-cgi/servers.cgi 2>/dev/null | head -5
NIST Internet Time Service
> Am 29.10.2
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 10:39 AM, Aftab Siddiqui
wrote:
> AS13184
http://www.cidr-report.org/cgi-bin/as-report?as=AS13184&view=2.0
shows they deaggregated all of their aggregates and leaked that space
to the world (mostly as /23 or /24 subnets of their larger prefixes)
the ripestat link shows 2
That is interesting as the computer I am using is on dual-stack, and I am
probably using IPv6 to reach it.
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 1:56 PM, Stefan Bethke wrote:
> Seems to be working over IPv4, not over IPv6.
>
> $ curl -6 http://tf.nist.gov/tf-cgi/servers.cgi 2>/dev/null | head -5
>
>
> 404 N
Also getting a 404 over IPv6. You can verify what transport we're using
in Firefox using the SixorNot plugin.
hth,
Doug
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 11:19 AM, Brian Christopher Raaen
wrote:
> That is interesting as the computer I am using is on dual-stack, and I am
> probably using IPv6 to reach it.
>
"happy eyeballs"
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 1:56 PM, Stefan Bethke wrote:
>
>> Seems to be working over IPv4, not over
Happy Eyeballs has nothing to do with it. This is a server
misconfiguration plain and simple.
Doug
On 10/29/14 11:30 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 11:19 AM, Brian Christopher Raaen
wrote:
That is interesting as the computer I am using is on dual-stack, and I am
proba
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 11:36 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
> Happy Eyeballs has nothing to do with it. This is a server misconfiguration
> plain and simple.
>
I meant that it seems that v4 is broken, but v6 is not.
so sure, it's a server thing, but he's seeing different results maybe
as a side effect o
I disabled IPv6 on my machine and was able to pull it up, reenable IPv6 and
I start getting 404's.
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 3:36 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 11:36 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
> > Happy Eyeballs has nothing to do with it. This is a server
> misconfiguration
On 10/29/14 12:36 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 11:36 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
Happy Eyeballs has nothing to do with it. This is a server misconfiguration
plain and simple.
I meant that it seems that v4 is broken, but v6 is not.
Other way around.
Greetings,
I'm looking for recommendations on a reliable VPS Provider(s) who can
provide
1. Centos 6
2. IPv4 and IPv6 (preferably)
physically in the regions of African Continent, Eastern Europe/Russia,
Middle East, South America and Canada.
I've already deployed some globally with Vultr
Ramnode is like $24 a year. They have a Netherlands cluster. I'm running
CentOS6 and get both IPv4 and v6. They use OpenVZ for the really cheap
stuff so depending on what you're doing you may run into issues.
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy,
Well the servers for DISA.MIL are not EDNS compliant, they drop
EDNS version 1 queries and unless you are running a experimental
nameserver which expects EDNS version negotiation to work it shouldn't
be causing you issues yet. Otherwise the lookups of the MX records
succeed.
There is no good rea
Hi *, sorry if this has been answered, I did look.
Is there an industry standard regarding how much bandwidth an inter-carrier
circuit should guarantee? Specifically I'm thinking of a sub-interface on a
shared physical interface. I've not thought much about it but if there's a
more generally-
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 5:11 PM, Josh Luthman
wrote:
> Ramnode is like $24 a year. They have a Netherlands cluster. I'm running
> CentOS6 and get both IPv4 and v6. They use OpenVZ for the really cheap
> stuff so depending on what you're doing you may run into issues.
+1 for RamNode (AS3842).
On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 15:24:46 -0700, keith tokash said:
> Is there an industry standard regarding how much bandwidth an inter-carrier
> circuit should guarantee?
How are you going to come up with a standard that covers both the uplink from
Billy-Bob's Bait, Fish, Tackle, and Wifi, where a fractio
I'm sorry I should have been more specific. I'm referring to the *percentage*
of a circuit's bandwidth. For example if you order a 20Mb site to site circuit
and iperf shows 17Mb. Well ... that's 15% off, which sounds hefty, but I'm not
sure what's realistic to expect.
And beyond expectatio
I'd say if there's a strong financial reasoning (or greed some times)
behind a complaint, it will be brought up, otherwise shouldn't it be all
based on civil talks and agreements anyway?
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 6:57 PM, keith tokash wrote:
> I'm sorry I should have been more specific. I'm refer
That 3Mb difference is probably just packet overhead + congestion
control. Goodput on a single TCP flow is always less than link
bandwidth, regardless of the link.
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 6:57 PM, keith tokash wrote:
> I'm sorry I should have been more specific. I'm referring to the
> *percenta
On 30 October 2014 08:04, Ben Sjoberg wrote:
> That 3Mb difference is probably just packet overhead + congestion
> control. Goodput on a single TCP flow is always less than link
> bandwidth, regardless of the link.
I've always found it useful to refer to this:
https://www.gronkulator.com/over
On Thursday, October 30, 2014 12:41:55 AM Jim Popovitch
wrote:
> As for Africa... I use the RamNode Netherlands to provide
> coverage to Africa. I spent the past year and half
> trolling the African VPS marketplace, and while there
> are excellent providers, the peering SUCKS. I'm not
> going t
35 matches
Mail list logo
