Trying to resolve a peering issue; e-mails to listed contacts have been
fruitless ... thanks!
Hi folks,
my inquiry kind of dead-ended here; I still have trouble in Warsaw (could be
the name of a movie).
Whether I send my prefix with NO_EXPORT, or with the secretly documented
24115:65281 (or 2 or 3)
(from https://ix.equinix.com/portal/resources/mlpe-information), the
routeserver just eats
Dear William:
0) "Internet Vendor Task Force indeed.": Thank you so much in
distilling this thread one more step for getting even closer to its essence.
1) The ITU charter is explicit in that governments are the parties who
sponsor the Recommendations, then implement them as desired,
respe
It's very important to specify the /24 inside the /23 for example so as you
said "for all our subnets being advertised".
On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 5:01 PM Randy Bush wrote:
> > Thanks everyone for your inputs. So bottomline setup RPKI and setup ROA's
> > for all our subnets being advertised.
>
> if
Tue, Nov 01, 2022 at 06:24:50PM -0700, Owen DeLong via NANOG:
> RPKI/ROA is a way to cryptographically prove what someone needs to prepend if
> they want to hijack your addresses.
Operators should not be deterred by that comment. Owen seems to be ignoring
what it does achieve and that this is pa
After discussing this topic directly with ARIN, our concerns have been taken
away. We have been assured our updated implementation in Routinator precisely
reflects the intent of the updated Relying Party Agreement. As a result, we
have just released version 0.12.0-RC1.
With ARIN's updated their
Oh, I’m not ignoring it, I’m just rather underwhelmed by it and given how long
it took SIDRWG to get RPKI this far,
not optimistic about any of the rest of the system getting deployed prior to
IPv6 ubiquity or the end of my time on
this planet, or even before we manage to destroy the planet, whic
I dont think ive every agreed with Owen this much, maybe this is the first
sign the wording is ending further proving his statement :)
On Wed, Nov 2, 2022 at 10:30 PM Owen DeLong via NANOG
wrote:
> Oh, I’m not ignoring it, I’m just rather underwhelmed by it and given how
> long it took SIDRWG to
On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 12:03 PM Vasilenko Eduard
wrote:
>
> It is believed by many that 2 terms should be the maximum for one position of
> any chair (if it is a democracy).
The length of time in office and the amount of power in the office
are, in my opinion, much, Much more important than the
I suppose this might be a useful point to butt in and say that one
reason we don't/can't easily term-limit US representatives to congress
is that it unjustly removes their right to run for office.
Obviously (I think) not apropos to IETF functioning tho perhaps in
spirit.
But it's why it took an
10 matches
Mail list logo
