On 10 March 2016 at 02:44, Niels Bakker wrote:
> You're wrong here. The IXP switch platform cannot send ICMP Packet Too Big
> messages. That's why everybody must agree on one MTU.
I think what was meant, no global consensus is needed, each IXP can
decide themselves what is edgeMTU and coreMTU V
Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> Additionally 'whois' is free form text. Whois doesn't include a
> AI to workout what this free form text means so, no, there isn't a
> actual referral for a whois application to use.
Yes, the whois data format is bullshit, but there are only a few simple
referral patterns
Until you've ran an IXP, you have no idea how finicky or clueless some network
operators are.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
Midwest Internet Exchange
http://www.midwest-ix.com
- Original Message -
From: "Nick Hilliard"
To: "Saku
> _whois._tcp.pro. srv 0 100 43 whois.afilias.net.
A swell idea, but unfortunately the idea of putting SRV records in
gTLD zones makes heads at ICANN explode. For RDAP there's a registry
at IANA but it's not populated yet and it's not obvious that registries
will be any more diligent about
Martin Pels wrote on 10/3/2016 4:15 μμ:
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 08:23:30 +0200
> Tassos Chatzithomaoglou wrote:
>
>> Niels Bakker wrote on 10/3/16 02:44:
>>> * nanog@nanog.org (Kurt Kraut via NANOG) [Thu 10 Mar 2016, 00:59
>>> CET]:
I'm pretty confident there is no need for a specific MTU con
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 9:27 AM, joel jaeggli wrote:
> PMTU blackhole detection implemented in all hosts. IPv4 is lost cause in
> > my opinion (although it's strange how many hosts that seem to get away
> > with 1492 (or is it 1496) MTU because they're using PPPoE).
>
> if your adv_mss is set acco
Not wishing to get into a pissing war with who is right or wrong, but it sounds
like google already pays or has an agreement with cogent for v4, as that's
unaffected, cogent says google is simply not advertising v6 prefixes to them,
so, how is that cogent's fault?
-Original Message-
Fr
My guess is that GOOG is playing peering chicken with Cogent on "the IPv6
Internet" because doing so is low impact. Doing this with v4 routing
would be far more painful to both GOOG and single-homed Cogent customers
(probably make the news and make one or both look bad). Doing this with
v6 ke
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 10:09 AM, Dennis Burgess
wrote:
> Not wishing to get into a pissing war with who is right or wrong, but it
> sounds like google already pays or has an agreement with cogent for v4, as
> that's unaffected, cogent says google is simply not advertising v6 prefixes
> to them
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 11:22 PM, Sam Norris wrote:
>> maybe their loadbalancer is a little wonky? (I don't see this in
>> traceroutes from a few places, but I also don't end up at IAD for
>> 'www.facebook.com' traceroutes... here's my last 4 hops though to the
>> dest-ip you had:
>>
>> .13.28.75)
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 4:32 AM, John Levine wrote:
> > _whois._tcp.pro. srv 0 100 43 whois.afilias.net.
>
> A swell idea, but unfortunately the idea of putting SRV records in
> gTLD zones makes heads at ICANN explode. For RDAP there's a registry
> at IANA but it's not populated yet and it
I think it’s a little different from what you say…
I think Google already reaches Cogent for IPv4 via transit.
Google, long ago, announced that they would not be purchasing IPv6 transit and
that they have an open peering policy for anyone who wishes to reach them. In
order to avoid significant
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 10:09 AM, Dennis Burgess
wrote:
> Not wishing to get into a pissing war with who is right or wrong, but it
> sounds like
> google already pays or has an agreement with cogent for v4, as that's
> unaffected,
> cogent says google is simply not advertising v6 prefixes to the
I've set up .ws.sp.am (that's ws for Whois Server) which is
updated every day from a variety of sources so it's pretty accurate.
It's had the right server for pro.ws.sp.am all along.
Hey, that's fantastic!
Feature request: could you provide a human- and machine-readable one-stop
extract at the
It seems like one of your email servers is on SORBS which is causing
any email outbound from said server to be blocked by those using
SORBS.
IP in question is 209.85.214.170
Offlist responses are fine, thanks
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 6:57 AM, John R. Levine wrote:
>>>
>>> I've set up .ws.sp.am (that's ws for Whois Server) which is
>>> updated every day from a variety of sources so it's pretty accurate.
>>> It's had the right server for pro.ws.sp.am all along.
>
>
>> Hey, that's fantastic!
>>
>> Feature
- a link from that top-level page to the whole list, in regex-aware,
whois.conf-compatible format
What uses whois.conf? Not the whois on my FreeBSD or Mac.
Or you can just use this shell script:
#!/bin/bash
WHOISHOST=${1##*.}.ws.sp.am
exec whois -h $WHOISHOST $*
R's,
John
> On Mar 10, 2016, at 07:55 , William Herrin wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 10:09 AM, Dennis Burgess
> wrote:
>> Not wishing to get into a pissing war with who is right or wrong, but it
>> sounds like
>> google already pays or has an agreement with cogent for v4, as that's
>> unaffected,
Hai!
whois.conf-compatible format
What uses whois.conf? Not the whois on my FreeBSD or Mac.
Or you can just use this shell script:
#!/bin/bash
WHOISHOST=${1##*.}.ws.sp.am
exec whois -h $WHOISHOST $*
I just a slightly different one but still my fav one... jwhois
Has a whois.conf style l
John Levine wrote:
>
> I've set up .ws.sp.am (that's ws for Whois Server) which is
> updated every day from a variety of sources so it's pretty accurate.
> It's had the right server for pro.ws.sp.am all along.
It would be extra super helpful if every entry were a wildcard, so you
could look up (s
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016, Niels Bakker wrote:
You're wrong here. The IXP switch platform cannot send ICMP Packet Too
Big messages. That's why everybody must agree on one MTU.
"Someone" should do an inventory of the market to find out how many
commonly used platforms limit MRU to less than 9180 (
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016, Saku Ytti wrote:
On 10 March 2016 at 02:44, Niels Bakker wrote:
You're wrong here. The IXP switch platform cannot send ICMP Packet Too Big
messages. That's why everybody must agree on one MTU.
I think what was meant, no global consensus is needed, each IXP can
decide t
Once upon a time, Owen DeLong said:
> In fairness, however, this is because he is not Google’s customer, he
> is Google’s product. Google is selling him (well, information about him
> anyway) to their customers. They gather this information by offering
> certain things he wants in exchange for him
Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> However, I stand by my earlier statement that we need to include MTU/MRU
> in ND messages, so that this can be negotiated on a LAN where not all
> devices support large MTU.
this would introduce a degree of network complexity that is unnecessary
and would be prone to pr
Mikael Abrahamsson wrote on 10/3/16 18:21:
>
> However, I stand by my earlier statement that we need to include MTU/MRU in
> ND messages, so that this can be negotiated on a LAN where not all devices
> support large MTU.
>
Isn't this already supported?
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4861#section
> On Mar 10, 2016, at 08:24 , Chris Adams wrote:
>
> Once upon a time, Owen DeLong said:
>> In fairness, however, this is because he is not Google’s customer, he
>> is Google’s product. Google is selling him (well, information about him
>> anyway) to their customers. They gather this informatio
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016, Tassos Chatzithomaoglou wrote:
Mikael Abrahamsson wrote on 10/3/16 18:21:
However, I stand by my earlier statement that we need to include MTU/MRU in ND
messages, so that this can be negotiated on a LAN where not all devices support
large MTU.
Isn't this already suppo
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> On Mar 10, 2016, at 08:24 , Chris Adams wrote:
>> Once upon a time, Owen DeLong said:
>>> In fairness, however, this is because he is not Google’s customer, he
>>> is Google’s product.
>>
>> False supposition; Google does actually sell serv
> On Mar 10, 2016, at 09:29 , William Herrin wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> On Mar 10, 2016, at 08:24 , Chris Adams wrote:
>>> Once upon a time, Owen DeLong said:
In fairness, however, this is because he is not Google’s customer, he
is Google’s p
* William Herrin (b...@herrin.us) wrote:
> Guys, that would be an important distinction if Cogent were providing
> Dennis with free service. They're not. Regardless of what Google does
> or doesn't do, Dennis pays Cogent to connect him to the wide Internet
> which emphatically includes Google. I'm
Anyone that complains about double billing doesn't apparently know how the
Internet works and should relegate themselves to writing articles for GigaOm.
Oh
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
Midwest Internet Exchange
http://www.midwest-ix.com
Anyone who is multihomed with cogent ipv6 in their mix should shutdown their
IPv6 bgp session. Let’s see if we can make their graph freefall.
[cid:image001.png@01D17AD0.248335A0]
http://bgp.he.net/AS174#_asinfo
-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On B
Am 10.03.2016 um 22:25 schrieb Damien Burke :
> Anyone who is multihomed with cogent ipv6 in their mix should shutdown their
> IPv6 bgp session. Let’s see if we can make their graph freefall.
Alternative:
set community [do not announce to Cogent]
*SCNR*
I have contemplated whether such mechanisms matter to Cogent, etc.
I’m inclined to think that if Google is willing to pull the routes and they
still don’t blink, then certainly us smaller shops aren’t going to impact them…
However… If enough prefixes disappear from the _apparent_ Cogent table a
I don't think anyone should be colluding to hurt Cogent or anyone
else for that matter and this thread appears to be heading in this
direction.
Mark
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
This would work for those which are using IPv6 transit from Cogent.
For anyone else which is using IPv6 transit from Hurricane Electric and some
other suppliers such as L3 or NTT: to set the community 'do not announce to
Cogent' only on every other transit but HE would help to isolate Cogent wit
Mark,
I certainly agree that intentional harm of a purely malicious nature is to be
discouraged.
What I proposed, as an alternative to some of the more extreme mechanisms being
discussed, is a mechanism whereby IPv6 _customers_ of Cogent transit
services--and who also receive IPv6 transit from
Freddy,
As there is no IPv6 transit between HE and Cogent, this would have the effect
of isolating ones network services from the single-homed customers of Cogent.
I’m not sure that many of us could get away with that. Further, I’m not sure
that it’s appropriate to punish the single-homed Cog
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 1:37 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
> Anyone that complains about double billing doesn't apparently know how the
> Internet works and should relegate themselves to writing articles for
> GigaOm.
>
Mike,
I picture you saying that with a Godfather voice and going on to talk about
Hi guys,
This might seem a bit of a trivial question, but I guess there is no harm
in asking. I am looking at a collection of traceroutes all go through the
following consecutive hops (* >> 213.248.98.238), as shown here (I kept the
DNSname just for completeness):
+ From >> To
+ (213.155.130.125:
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 9:35 AM, Christopher Morrow
wrote:
> unclear, that traceroute was from someplace I don't own the network for...
> from another place I do though...
>
> 5 ae0.dr07.ash2.tfbnw.net (31.13.26.233) 4 ms
> ae0.dr05.ash3.tfbnw.net (31.13.29.21) 4 ms ae0.dr08.ash2.tfbnw.net
>
Looks like the device is always las-b3 (Los Angeles, border 3). As far as I
know Telia works with IS-IS and multiple load balanced links from each bb
(backbone) router to each border router. Usually they don't deal with L2 in
case of customer BGP downlinks.
Jürgen Jaritsch
Head of Network & I
On 10/Mar/16 17:25, Jon Lewis wrote:
> My guess is that GOOG is playing peering chicken with Cogent on "the
> IPv6 Internet" because doing so is low impact. Doing this with v4
> routing would be far more painful to both GOOG and single-homed Cogent
> customers (probably make the news and make o
On 10/Mar/16 17:51, Owen DeLong wrote:
> I think it’s a little different from what you say…
>
> I think Google already reaches Cogent for IPv4 via transit.
>
> Google, long ago, announced that they would not be purchasing IPv6 transit
> and that they have an open peering policy for anyone who w
44 matches
Mail list logo
