On (2014-12-07 09:24 +1300), Pete Mundy wrote:
Hey,
> I've done loads of 1Gbit testing using the entry-level MacBook Air and a
> Thunderbolt Gigabit Ethernet adapter though, and I disagree with Saku's
> statement of 'You cannot use UDPSocket like iperf does, it just does not
> work, you are lu
I find nuttcp very useful in those situations.
Be sure to use one of the recent betas, I have been using 7.2.1 for UDP
with excellent results (decent loss stats and jitter calc)
http://nuttcp.net/nuttcp/beta/nuttcp-7.2.1.c
As I understand it, it's still developed, 7.3.2 is now out.
M
On 7 Dec 2
On 06/12/2014 20:24, Pete Mundy wrote:
> I've done loads of 1Gbit testing using the entry-level MacBook Air and a
> Thunderbolt Gigabit Ethernet adapter though, and I disagree with Saku's
> statement of 'You cannot use UDPSocket like iperf does, it just does not
> work, you are lucky if you reliabl
> Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2014 02:19:46 -1000
> From: t...@lavanauts.org
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: possible twtelecom routing issue
>
> Trying to gather information on a connectivity issue between TW Telecom
> and a specific government web server. If one of your upstream providers
> is TW Tel
Is anyone else seeming issues reaching Amazon through Zayo in Chicago?
8 37 ms 44 ms 27 ms 64.125.204.11.allocated.above.net [64.125.204.11]
9 28 ms 13 ms 44 ms ge-11-1-2.mpr2.ord6.us.above.net [64.125.172.81]
10 28 ms 46 ms 27 ms ae11.cr2.ord2.us.above.net [64.125.22.130]
11 95 ms 34 ms 41 ms
I retract my statement.
*sigh*
First post in many many years and I'm a putz...
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
- Original Message -
From: "Mike Hammett"
To: "North American Network Operators' Group"
Sent: Sunday, December 7, 2014
> From: p...@fiberphone.co.nz
> Subject: Re: 10Gb iPerf kit?
> Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2014 09:24:41 +1300
> To: nanog@nanog.org
>
> On 11/11/2014, at 1:35 PM, Randy Carpenter wrote:
>
> > I have not tried doing that myself, but the only thing that would even be
> > possible that I know of is thunderb
All,
Could someone from Google public DNS and from GoDaddy contact me off-list?
I'm getting SERVFAIL when trying to resolve any record in any domain
whose NSs are
pdns01.domaincontrol.com/pdns02.domaincontrol.com/pdns05.domaincontrol.com/pdns06.domaincontrol.com
(GoDaddy premium DNS), only wh
On Sun, Dec 07, 2014 at 12:01:40PM -0500,
Erik Levinson wrote
a message of 25 lines which said:
> I'm getting SERVFAIL when trying to resolve any record in any domain
> whose NSs are
> pdns01.domaincontrol.com/pdns02.domaincontrol.com/pdns05.domaincontrol.com/pdns06.domaincontrol.com
> (GoDad
Agree on blendive.com and blendedperspectives.com
Not sure how to identify which chunk of google is failing, but here's a trace
for a nonworking query on the above domains:
5. 209.85.241.127
6. google-public-dns-a.google.com
(thru TorIX thus the short path).
EC2 east is su
On 07/12/14 12:19 PM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
Since Google Public DNS validates, and Go Daddy supports DNSSEC, it
would be useful to test with dig +cd (Checking Disabled) to determine
if it is a DNSSEC problem or not.
Tried, still SERVFAIL. I succeeds with +trace though...
You can look at
Interesting traceroute from Comcast in Chicago:
Goes from Chicago to Seattle to New York inside the Comcast network.
Lyle Giese
LCR Computer Services, Inc.
traceroute to www.amazon.com (176.32.98.166), 30 hops max, 40 byte
packets using UDP
1 lancomcast.lcrcomputer.com (192.168.250.252) 0.1
>
> Maybe a geo-specific issue then, which is even more weird, because it's
> still not working for me from two different ASs, though both in Toronto,
> and a traceroute makes it appear like they're not hitting the same nodes
> (but maybe they are).
>
> What's even more weird is I can actually reso
it just started working properly I think. yes, tested from 6 even and odd ips
on 3 different AS's (that all go through Torix though).
/kc
On Sun, Dec 07, 2014 at 03:51:16PM -0200, Rubens Kuhl said:
>>
>> Maybe a geo-specific issue then, which is even more weird, because it's
>> still not w
Nope, it's just super intermittent now...it resolved once and cached it
apparently, but still SERVFAIL most of the time if you try repeatedly...
Try uberflip.net too.
On 07/12/14 12:58 PM, Ken Chase wrote:
it just started working properly I think. yes, tested from 6 even and odd ips
on 3 diffe
Just failed for me, too. Traceroute suggests I'm testing against Google in
Chicago.
1027 ms24 ms24 ms ae5.cr1.ord2.us.above.net [64.125.30.89]
1129 ms49 ms25 ms ae4.er1.ord7.us.above.net [64.125.28.50]
1230 ms25 ms25 ms 72.14.217.53
1334 ms32 ms
Heh...when it succeeds for me sometimes now, if I do it repeatedly, I
can see two different TTL sets each time, so I know I'm hitting at least
two nodes / sets of nodes...
One of my traceroutes from 151 Front suggests the node is in the
building, as the latency is well under 1ms.
On 07/12/14
On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Erik Levinson
wrote:
> All,
>
> Could someone from Google public DNS and from GoDaddy contact me off-list?
>
> I'm getting SERVFAIL when trying to resolve any record in any domain whose
> NSs are
> pdns01.domaincontrol.com/pdns02.domaincontrol.com/pdns05.domaincont
Have anyone tried any DDoS attack mitigation appliance rather than Arbor
PeakFlow TMS? I need it to be carrier-grade in terms of capacity and
redundancy, and as far as I know, Arbor is the only product in the
market which offers a "clean pipe" volume of traffic, so if the DDoS
attack volume i
Hi,
A lot of new vendors have entered the DDoS attack prevention market other than
Arbor, I've seen carrier grade devices made by Huawei, NSFocus, RioRey and many
others.
If you're looking at something software based, I've used Andrisoft WanGuard and
would recommend it.
Ammar.
> On 8 Dec 201
I've heard good things about the A10 Networks appliances. I have not used them
personally, but do use their ADC appliances and they do work well.
Jordan Medlen
Network Engineer
Bisk Education
Sent from my iPhone
> On Dec 7, 2014, at 15:12, Mohamed Kamal wrote:
>
>
> Have anyone tried any DD
On 12/5/2014 07:06, Rob Seastrom wrote:
>
> At $DAYJOB, we have some applications that we would like to be all
> hipster and *actually check* for certificate revocation. I know this
> is way out there in terms of trendiness and may offend some folks.
>
> Difficulty: the clients are running on si
On Sun, Dec 07, 2014 at 02:24:33PM -0500, Jim Popovitch said:
>FWIW, in the past GoDaddy has periodically blocked queries from Google
>Public DNS infrastructure. Heavily discussed and documented here:
>https://groups.googl
On Dec 7, 2014, at 12:10 PM, Mohamed Kamal
wrote:
so if the DDoS attack volume is, for example, 1Tbps, they will grant you
for example 50Gbps of clean traffic.
Please feel free to contact me off-list if I can assist, as it seems you've
been provided with incorrect information.
-
There have been 28 response to the survey I put out last week.
The key numbers are:
We have read and will not sign the agreement 10 36%
We are considering signing the agreement 1 4%
We haven't yet read it 5 18%
and
Our legal staff has reviewed and rejected the agreement. 7 25%
We h
> And there in lies my interest in all of this- there is little value in
> signing my org's routes if no one is going to validate them. It's a bit of
> an odd position in that I have a very high interest in what the rest of the
> community thinks of and how they act with respect to the RPA. In ot
What have you found so far?
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 1:15 PM, Roy Hirst wrote:
> Replying offline to Theo. Schwer zu finden.
> Roy
>
> *Roy Hirst* | 425-556-5773 | 425-324-0941 cell
> XKL LLC | 12020 113th Ave NE, Suite 100 | Kirkland, WA 98034 | USA
>
>
> On 12/4/2014 5:21 AM, Theo Voss wrote:
>
On Dec 7, 2014, at 9:40 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>
>> And there in lies my interest in all of this- there is little value in
>> signing my org's routes if no one is going to validate them. It's a bit of
>> an odd position in that I have a very high interest in what the rest of the
>> community thin
> One could easily presume the ARIN region RPKI deployment statistics
> are lower as a result of the RPA situation (and no doubt that it part
> of the issue), but as noted earlier, it's unlikely to be the full
> story since we also have a region (APNIC) where RPKI deployment also
> rather low that
29 matches
Mail list logo
