On 3/10/12 08:05 , Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> Sure, if you can find a datacenter that's capable of handling all the
> traffic, and has staff who are able to provide efficient remote hands for
> huge racks of extremely powerful servers .. and are possibly also open to
> cross subsidizing the co
On 3/10/12 14:47 , Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote:
> let's say, there is 6 billion people in the world.. if they all have 1
> route table entry (average ;) i see no technical limitations on anything
> produced AFTER 2008 actually.
Over in ipv4 land there are ~40k entities that appear in the dfz
internet
On 3/11/12 08:48 , Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> On 9 Mar 2012, at 10:02 , Jeff Wheeler wrote:
>
>> The way we are headed right now, it is likely that the IPv6
>> address space being issued today will look like "the swamp" in a
>> few short years, and we will regret repeating this obvious
>> mista
On 3/13/12 23:22 , Christopher Morrow wrote:
> NetRange: 100.64.0.0 - 100.127.255.255
> CIDR: 100.64.0.0/10
> OriginAS:
> NetName:SHARED-ADDRESS-SPACE-RFCTBD-IANA-RESERVED
Already updated my martians acl and deployed it internally...
On 3/13/12 23:29 , Joel jaeggli wrote:
> On 3/13/12 23:22 , Christopher Morrow wrote:
>> NetRange: 100.64.0.0 - 100.127.255.255
>> CIDR: 100.64.0.0/10
>> OriginAS:
>> NetName:SHARED-ADDRESS-SPACE-RFCTBD-IANA-RESERVED
>
> Already update
On 3/14/12 00:06 , Frank Habicht wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 3/14/2012 9:42 AM, Joel jaeggli wrote:
>> On 3/13/12 23:29 , Joel jaeggli wrote:
>>> On 3/13/12 23:22 , Christopher Morrow wrote:
>>>> NetRange: 100.64.0.0 - 100.127.255.255
>>>> CIDR:
On 3/12/12 08:56 , Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> On 12 Mar 2012, at 16:21 , Leigh Porter wrote:
>
>>> Grass-roots, bottom-up policy process + Need for multihoming +
>>> Got tired of waiting = IPv6 PI
>
>> A perfect summation.
>
> Except that it didn't happen in that order. When ARIN approved PI
On 3/23/12 14:47 , valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 12:53:45 +0100, Eugen Leitl said:
>> http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/122989-1-5-billion-the-cost-of-cutting-london-toyko-latency-by-60ms
>
> Lower latency is good...
>
>> The massive drop in latency is expected to supercha
On 3/23/12 19:45 , Jeroen van Aart wrote:
> valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
>>> The massive drop in latency is expected to supercharge algorithmic stock
>>> market trading, where a difference of a few milliseconds can gain (or
>>> lose)
>>> millions of dollars.
>>
>> But it should be illegal to run
On 3/24/12 01:32 , George Bonser wrote:
>> If they could armor the cable sufficiently perhaps they could drill the
>> straigh line path through the Earth's crust (mantle and outer core) and
>> do London-Tokyo in less than 10,000km.
Current record depth of a borehole is under 12,500 meters which is
On 3/27/12 23:21 , Roberts, Brent wrote:
> Is anyone running an E300 Series Chassis at the internet edge with multiple
> Full BGP feeds? 95th percent would be about 300 meg of traffic. BGP session
> count would be between 2 and 4 Peers.
> 6k internal Prefix count as it stands right now. Alternati
On 3/29/12 21:53 , Jonathan Lassoff wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 12:33 PM, Oliver Garraux wrote:
>> I was at Ubiquiti's conference. I don't disagree with what you're
>> saying. Ubiquiti's take on it seemed to be that 24 Ghz would likely
>> never be used to the extent that 2.4 / 5.8 is. They
Depends on the duration and goals of your capture...
1TB is 2.276 hours at 1Gb/s
If you need to capture it all and store it forever well sorry. If you
just need the flows and not the packets sampled netflow can reduce
youre requirements by many orders of magnitude, ultimately it really
depends
On 4/17/12 01:37 , Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo wrote:
> I don't understand why a problem with a tunnel 'leaves a bad taste with
> IPv6'. Since when a badly configured DNS zone left people with a 'bad
> taste for DNS', or a badly configured switch left people with 'a bad
> taste for spanning tree' or '
we use cacti weathermap plugin, though obviously realtime has a
dependency on your sample interval. I'm presuming your definition
thereof isn't instantaneous monitoring of queue depth.
On 5/1/12 10:49 , Hank Disuko wrote:
>
> Thanks, I'll see if I can pull the correct OID and try it with the Dud
On 5/3/12 10:29 , Jay Ashworth wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Adam Atkinson"
>
>> Well, just the above seems like enough that you'd think there'd be more
>> (justified) grumbling that thanks to a choice made many many decades ago
>> it's harder to distinguish young or female spea
On 5/7/12 21:17 , Jo Rhett wrote:
>
> On Mar 28, 2012, at 11:48 AM, Joel jaeggli wrote:
>> On 3/27/12 23:21 , Roberts, Brent wrote:
>>> Is anyone running an E300 Series Chassis at the internet edge with
>>> multiple Full BGP feeds? 95th percent would be abo
On 5/25/12 07:35 , valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Fri, 25 May 2012 15:25:35 +0900, Masataka Ohta said:
>
>> The proper way to have a static IP address is not to pay mobile
>> operators but to run mobile IP or something like that on your
>> terminal.
>>
>> You can run your home agent at your h
On 5/25/12 15:12 , Seth Mattinen wrote:
> On 5/25/12 3:08 PM, Adam wrote:
>>
>> You also have to implement additional filters to protect yourself from what
>> your client can advertise. I'm lucky enough to work for a major ISP with
>> pretty sophisticated filters built off the public route registr
On 6/5/12 07:52 , Green, Timothy wrote:
> Howdy all,
>
> I'm a Security Manager of a large network, we are conducting a
> Pentest next month and the testers are demanding a complete network
> diagram of the entire network. We don't have a "complete" network
> diagram that shows everything and eve
On 6/7/12 20:53 , Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> It is like that supreme court judge who defined porn as "i know it
> when I see it"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobellis_v._Ohio
a case which is notable in this context for having four differing
majority opinions.
> On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 5:00
On 6/8/12 16:05 , Alec Muffett wrote:
>> Does anybody have a good URL explaining that idea? It's been
>> kicking around for many years. I've never seen a convincing
>> writeup.
>
> I've tried to do that in another mail - it's in the realms of
> philosophy more than strategy; like if you're a rea
On 6/10/12 00:25 , John Souvestre wrote:
> On 6/10/12, Joel jaeggli wrote:
>
>> How good does a password/phrase have to be in order to protect
>> against brute-force or dictionary attacks against the password
>> itself? ? Entropy in language. A typical english sen
On 6/10/12 12:23 , Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> On 10-Jun-12 14:01, Robert Bonomi wrote:
>>> From: Jay Ashworth
>
> All of the above is completely irrelevant to the merchant.
Given that the thread now spans nine conversations threads and at least
122 messages and is buried in the finer details of mer
On 6/17/12 10:24 , valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 13:10:59 -0400, Arturo Servin said:
>> Wouldn't BCP38 help?
>
> The mail I'm replying to has as the first Received: line:
>
> Received: from ?IPv6:2800:af:ba30:e8cf:d06f:4881:973a:c68?
> ([2800:af:ba30:e8cf:d06f:4881:9
On 6/17/12 13:22 , valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 10:53:52 -0700, Joel jaeggli said:
>> On 6/17/12 10:24 , valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
>
>>> So - who owns 2800:af:ba30:e8cf:4881:973a:c68? And how does an LEO
>>> find that info quickly if
On 6/17/12 16:29 , Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On Jun 17, 2012, at 10:53 AM, Joel jaeggli wrote:
>
>> On 6/17/12 10:24 , valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
>>> On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 13:10:59 -0400, Arturo Servin said:
>>>>Wouldn't BCP38 help?
>>>
>
On 6/30/12 12:11 AM, Tyler Haske wrote:
I am not a computer science guy but been around a long time. Data centers
and clouds are like software. Once they reach a certain size, its
impossible to keep the bugs out. You can test and test your heart out and
something will slip by. You can say the
On 7/3/12 01:54 , Wolfgang S. Rupprecht wrote:
>
> Steven Bellovin writes:
>> See
>> http://landslidecoding.blogspot.com/2012/07/linuxs-leap-second-deadlocks.html
>
> Maybe we should stop wrenching the poor system time back and forth. We
> no longer add or subtract daylight savings time (or tim
On 7/3/12 07:51 , valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 07:02:33 -0700, Joel jaeggli said:
>
>> Apps are buggy sounds like a really poor excuse for doing so.
>
> When the published API has been "the system clock is in UTC" for some 3
> decades, I
On 7/4/12 8:48 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Given that we don't seem to be able to eliminate the absurdity of DST,
I doubt that either of those proposals is likely to fly. Owen
Before we had timezones your clock offset was forward or backward 4
minutes every-time you crossed a meridian.
On 7/9/12 00:09 , Aftab Siddiqui wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> As per IPv6 prefixes announced by AS9583 via bgp.he.net -
>> http://bgp.he.net/AS9583#_prefixes6 we can see multiple /64s.
you likely won't see them in your table though.
>>
> The question is why their upstreams are accepting /64? It shouldn't b
On 7/20/12 13:40 , Jared Mauch wrote:
>
> On Jul 20, 2012, at 4:30 PM, Ron Broersma wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jul 20, 2012, at 1:04 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
>>> On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 05:10:41 +1000, Routing Analysis Role Account said:
BGP routing table entries examined:
On 7/18/12 6:24 PM, Andrey Khomyakov wrote:
So some "comments" on the intertubes claim that DoD ok'd use of it's
unadvertized space on private networks. Is there any official reference
that may support this statement that anyone of you have seen out there?
The arpanet prefix(10/8) was returned to
On 7/25/12 13:15 , Tina TSOU wrote:
> Dear all,
> If you know there is any testing or commercial IPv6 only streaming video we
> can access, let me know.
> Thank you.
speaking as a content provider, ipv6-only service requests are misguided.
> Tina
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Artu
On 7/25/12 21:43 , Tina TSOU wrote:
> Dear Joel,
> Who requests IPv6 only service?
you did... check the title of this thread.
> Tina
>
> On Jul 25, 2012, at 8:48 PM, "Joel jaeggli" wrote:
>
>> On 7/25/12 13:15 , Tina TSOU wrote:
>>> Dear all,
>>
ess 74.125.225.38
youtube.com has IPv6 address 2001:4860:b007::5d
> Tina
>
> On Jul 25, 2012, at 9:48 PM, "Joel jaeggli" <mailto:joe...@bogus.com>> wrote:
>
>> On 7/25/12 21:43 , Tina TSOU wrote:
>>> Dear Joel,
>>> Who requests IPv6 on
On 7/30/12 10:57 AM, Steven Noble wrote:
The fix for this issue is trivial. Every new signup should require a sponsor or
a deposit of funds into a new member fund. Once a member has made a relevant
post regarding a NANOG related item their funds are returned.
If someone spams they forfeit the
On 8/4/12 8:44 AM, Mike Jones wrote:
On 4 August 2012 04:07, Frank Bulk wrote:
As someone else posted, many FTTH installations are centralized as much as
possible to avoid having non-passive equipment in the plant, allowing for
the practicality of onsite generators. That's what we do. But for
On 8/5/12 9:19 PM, William Herrin wrote:
On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 10:41 PM, Frank Bulk wrote:
Would I like to have the same uptime
at my home as we have in the CO? or data center? Sure, but collectively we
aren't willing, nay, able, to pay that price.
We paid the price for 3-nines on the home c
On 8/6/12 7:08 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 9:07 AM, William Herrin wrote:
As much as I'd love for
Verizon to offer BGP directly over FIOS there are fewer than 40,000
I'm curious as to your number... where is that from?
sent to your mailbox every week
AS Sum
On 8/8/12 6:52 AM, Naslund, Steve wrote:
It seems to me that all the markets have been doing this the wrong way.
Would it now be more fair to use some kind of signed timestamp and
process all transactions in the order that they originated?
Given an uneven distribution of sizes it's kind of hard t
On 8/15/12 6:55 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
While I understand that in the face of IPv4 exhaustion long quarantine
periods are probably no longer a good idea, I think 6 weeks is
shockingly short. I also think to blanket apply the quarantine is
a little short sighted, there are cases that need a long
On 8/15/12 10:24 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
In a message written on Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 08:01:15AM -0700, joel jaeggli
wrote:
Remediation of whatever wrong with a given prefix is an active activity,
it's not likely to go away unless the prefix is advertised.
Actually, that's not t
On 8/15/12 10:28 AM, Robert Glover wrote:
On 08/15/2012 10:16 AM, Anurag Bhatia wrote:
Seems like BGP Play - http://bgplay.routeviews.org/ does not works anymore?
It is not accepting prefixes and gives error to check if prefix is
announced globally or not.
I sent an email to the contacts liste
On 8/22/12 10:50 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
So I would say they've come into posession of a rather undesirable
piece of IP address real-estate, as it were.
The days when undesirability of a given ipv4 unicast prefix would play a
significant role in assignment policy are pretty much coming to a close
On 8/23/12 10:57 AM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
I would really hope that wireless providers are planning for IPv6
instead, although a recent thread about Sprint LTE indicates maybe this
is wishful thinking. I know Verizon is but the single LTE MiFi I have
doesn't do IPv6, but I've seen customers with V
On 8/23/12 2:11 PM, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
Owen DeLong wrote:
AT&T should just be glad there was a /12 for them to get.
That isn't going to be true for much longer.
If you are counting on an IPv4 free pool to run your business next
year, you are making a bad bet.
The 16777214 IP addresses (
On 8/24/12 3:07 PM, Lori Jakab wrote:
On 8/24/2012 11:33 AM, Routing Analysis Role Account wrote:
[...]
Analysis Summary
BGP routing table entries examined: 264582
Isn't this supposed to be >400K? What happened this week?
yes it disagrees with t
On 9/16/12 9:24 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Gaurab Raj Upadhaya"
So you're *REALLY* motivated on this "reduce the coverage" thing,
then.
you could say yes :), reduce the coverage per-AP. Most APs I have seen
will start failing with about ~100 associations and n
On 9/16/12 9:22 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Mon, 17 Sep 2012, Randy Bush wrote:
and don't bs me with how humongous the v6 address space is. we once
though 32 bits was humongous.
Giving out a /48 to every person on earth uses approximately 2^33
networks, meaning we could cram it into a
On 9/17/12 8:23 AM, Adrian Bool wrote:
Hi Mike,
On 17 Sep 2012, at 16:04, Mike Simkins wrote:
RIPE 552 (I think), allows you to request up to a /29 without additional
justification if needed.
Sure, but you're just tinkering at the edges here.
32-bits would be a more sensible allocation size
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2012/08/how-low-power-can-you-go.html
On 9/17/12 8:16 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
True, but at a price that means this won't occur on very many of earth's many
CM and even if it did, when you subtract the space required for cooling them
and the space requ
On 9/19/12 10:42 AM, Jo Rhett wrote:
And second, have you ever worked on a private intranet that wasn't
connected to the internet through a firewall? Skipping oob networks
for equipment management, neither have I.
Plenty of people on this list have worked on private internet(s) with
real AS num
On 9/20/12 12:09 AM, George Herbert wrote:
On Sep 19, 2012, at 9:58 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
There is still no technical reason that 240/4 cannot be
rehabilitated, other than continued immaterial objections to doing
anything at all with 240/4, and given the rate of IPv6 adoption thus
far, if n
On 9/20/12 9:52 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
I'm quite certain I have a good idea of the magnitude of what you'd
charge for professional services for such work, and I would expect it
to be 2-3 orders of magnitude larger than what a Worldcon Concom could
afford to pay. :-) I would also be very surpri
On 9/21/12 6:40 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
On 2012-09-21 15:31 , Mark Radabaugh wrote:
The part of IPv6 that I am unclear on and have not found much
documentation on is how to run IPv6 only to end users. Anyone care to
point me in the right direction?
Can we assign IPv6 only to end users? What
On 9/27/12 5:58 AM, Darius Jahandarie wrote:
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 8:51 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
http://slashdot.org/topic/datacenter/terabit-ethernet-is-dead-for-now/
Terabit Ethernet is Dead, for Now
I recall 40Gbit/s Ethernet being promoted heavily for similar reasons
as the ones in this a
On 9/30/12 12:05 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
On 9/29/12, Masataka Ohta wrote:
Jared Mauch wrote:
...
The problem is that physical layer of 100GE (with 10*10G) and
10*10GE are identical (if same plug and cable are used both for
100GE and 10*10GE).
Interesting.Well, I would say if there are no
On 10/4/12 7:36 AM, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
On Oct 4, 2012, at 9:26 PM, Sander Steffann wrote:
The closer you get to the edge the more common it might become...
iACLs should be implemented at the network edge to drop all IPv4 and IPv6
traffic - including non-initial fragments - directed toward
On 10/4/12 1:31 AM, Marco Hogewoning wrote:
On Oct 4, 2012, at 12:21 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
IEEE 802 was expected to provide unique numbers for all computers ever built.
Internet was expected to provide unique numbers for all computers actively on
the network.
Obviously, over time, the latte
On 10/4/12 8:15 AM, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
On Oct 4, 2012, at 9:58 PM, joel jaeggli wrote:
Likewise with the acl I have the property that the initial packet has
all the info in it while the fragment does not.
For iACLs, just filter non-initial fragments directed to infrastructure IPs. Cisco
http://bgp.he.net/net/100.100.0.0/24#_bogon
A surprising number of large transit ASes appear to be more than willing
to accept this prefix from AS4847.
I'd be a lot happier if there were fewer.
thanks
joel
On 10/5/12 5:08 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
http://bgp.he.net/net/100.100.0.0/24#_bogon
A surprising number of large transit ASes appear to be more than willing
to accept this prefix from AS4847.
a private address space leak? and propagated. i am deeply shocked.
wtf did people think would happen?
On 10/5/12 8:18 AM, Jared Mauch wrote:
On Oct 5, 2012, at 11:07 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 8:29 AM, joel jaeggli wrote:
by all accounts this has been advertised since 8/24.
space allocated: 2012-03-13
that's 5 months and 11 days too long.
I suspect not eve
On 10/5/12 5:05 PM, jim deleskie wrote:
I know that I should know better then comment on networks others then
my own, ( and I know to never comment on my own publicly :) )
But here goes, 210x the size of normal really? 210% I'd have a hard
time believing. Did anyone else anywhere see a route l
On 10/19/12 10:56 AM, Arturo Servin wrote:
Wait!
Are you suggesting to not use it as intended by RFC6598?
"to
be used as Shared Address Space to accommodate the needs of Carrier-
Grade NAT (CGN) devices. It is anticipated that Service Providers
will use this Shared
On 10/17/12 10:59 AM, Darren O'Connor wrote:
I've just set up a vpn tunnel to Amazon's AWS and as part of the config they
required me to configure to /30 tunnels using addressing from the
169.254.0.0/16 space.
RFC3927 basically says that this address should only be used as a temp measure
unti
On 11/1/12 2:01 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
There are better ways to avoid neighbor exhaustion attacks unless you have
attackers
inside your network.
All of the migrations are compromises of one sort or another. We thought
this one was important enough to include in an informational status
RFC (6
On 11/7/12 12:13 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Nov 07, 2012, at 00:07 , Jian Gu wrote:
Where did you get the idea that a Moratel customer announced a google-owned
prefix to Moratel and Moratel did not have the proper filters in place?
according to the blog, all google's 4 authoritative DNS
On 11/14/12 2:40 PM, Joe Abley wrote:
On 2012-11-12, at 14:43, Jim Mercer wrote:
Is there a common practice of providers to vet / validate requests to advertise
blocks?
Yes, most providers whose customers request a particular route to be pointed
towards them will ask for ambiguous instructio
On 11/19/12 5:59 AM, Saku Ytti wrote:
What I'm trying to say, I can't see youtube generating anywhere nearly
enough revenue who shift 10% (or more) of Internet. And to explain
this conundrum to myself, I've speculated accounting magic (which I'd
frown upon) and leveraging market position to get
On 11/20/12 9:10 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 11:55 AM, George, Wes wrote:
From: Christopher Morrow [mailto:morrowc.li...@gmail.com]
http://www.theverge.com/2012/11/17/3655442/restoring-verizon-service-m
anhattan-hurricane-sandy
hey lookie! 'free uprades'!
[WEG] Be
On 11/20/12 10:20 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 12:49 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:
On 11/20/2012 12:10 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
it's acutally kinda nice that at least from CO -> building now
there maybe more highspeed links... and maybe lower long term costs?
Be care
On 11/20/12 7:32 AM, Paul Rolland (ポール・ロラン) wrote:
Hello,
On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 10:14:18 +0100
Tomas Podermanski wrote:
It seems that today is a "big day" for IPv6. It is the very first
time when native IPv6 on google statistics
(http://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html) reached
On 11/24/12 8:29 PM, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
On Nov 25, 2012, at 10:09 AM, joel jaeggli wrote:
from goeff huston's data they have more v6 at home.
And not purposely, either - because it's enabled by default on recent client
OSes. My guess is that a non-trivial fraction of obs
On 8/13/14 8:55 AM, Paul Ferguson wrote:
> Apologies for replying to my own post, but... below:
>
> On 8/13/2014 7:05 AM, Paul Ferguson wrote:
>
>
>> p.s. I recall some IPv6 prefix growth routing projections by Vince
>> Fuller and Tony Li from several years ago which illustrated this,
>> but ca
On 9/18/14 1:19 PM, Job Snijders wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 03:12:29PM -0400, Daniel Corbe wrote:
>
>>> a) you're paying less, as you're not receiving the traffic
>>
>> This ventures into the realm of an operator doing something responsible
>> to protect me vs routing me unwanted traffic and
On 9/18/14 11:06 AM, John Kristoff wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 13:53:52 -0400
> Daniel Corbe wrote:
>
>> Is there anything in the air about widening the adoption base? Cisco?
>> Brocade?
>
> I've seen some suggesting that increased support, but even at Juniper,
> actions seem to speak larger t
> On Sep 20, 2014, at 10:37, Bacon Zombie wrote:
>
> So when was the last time you patched this internet facing device?
Sunday sept 4 2005?
Seems like a good run. If it hasn't been rooted or fallen over since then it's
apparently pretty secure...
> On Sep 20, 2014 7:12 PM, "Matthew S. Crock
On 10/3/14 6:01 PM, John Schiel wrote:
>
> On 10/03/2014 03:23 PM, Keenan Tims wrote:
>>> The question here is what is authorized and what is not. Was this to
>>> protect their network from rogues, or protect revenue from captive
>>> customers.
>> I can't imagine that any 'AP-squashing' packets a
On 10/3/14 7:12 PM, Wayne E Bouchard wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 02:23:46PM -0700, Keenan Tims wrote:
>>> The question here is what is authorized and what is not. Was this to
>>> protect their network from rogues, or protect revenue from captive
>>> customers.
>>
>> I can't imagine that a
On 10/8/14 1:29 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
> On 10/8/2014 08:47, William Herrin wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:42 AM, Roy wrote:
>>> On 10/7/2014 10:35 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
On 10/7/2014 23:44, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Oct 2014 23:10:15 -0500, Larry Sheldon said:
>
On 10/8/14 7:35 PM, Brandon Wade wrote:
>
>
>>> For a newbie, how does one go about learning the basic's of IRRd.
>
> That pretty much sums it up. I feel like I'm stuck reading RFC's that are too
> overly complex for something that seems like it shouldn't be complex. Anyone
> know of a
> quic
On 10/9/14 8:45 AM, TJ wrote:
>> On Thu, 2014-10-09 at 10:22 -0400, Daniel Corbe wrote:
>>> Has anyone successfully gotten a RIR to assign anything bigger than a
>>> /32? I seem to recall in recent history someone tried to obtain a /31
>>> through ARIN and got smacked down.
>>
>>
> Yes; ISTR sever
On 10/9/14 10:35 AM, ryanL wrote:
> you may remember me from the weird cogent route retention / loop
> problem i brought up last week. it remains unsolved by cogent to date.
>
> also remembering i'm a relatively new cogent customer, i recently
> noticed some packets floating into my network that h
On 10/12/14 3:00 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 1:41 AM, Faisal Imtiaz
> wrote:
>> A follow up question on this topic..
>>
>> For Router Loopback Address what is wisdom in allocating a /64 vs /128 ?
>> (the BCOP document suggests this, but does not offer any explanation
On 10/22/14 9:29 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
> On 10/22/2014 23:02, Jim Mercer wrote:
>
>> if reducing boot time from 20 minutes down to 1 minute, in a server
>> environment,
>> is a serious issue for you, maybe you should be looking at why you
>> need to
>> reboot so often?
>
>
> That is the quest
On 10/27/14 9:27 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> There are boxes that do that, but it’s really not a good solution… Here’s why:
>
> 1.TV signals in NTSC max out at 640x480. In ATSC, you get up to 1920x1080.
> Many monitors today are capable of 2560x1440 or more.
>
> 2.It’s expensive and ha
looks about right in the neighborhood of 9k miles...
from lax or therebouts.
Upstream Intf Nexthop Sent LossMinAvg
MaxDev
cogentx x 10 0.0%194.814
210.255240.989
16.518
comcast x
On 11/8/14 6:28 PM, Roland Dobbins wrote:
>
> On 9 Nov 2014, at 8:59, Frank Bulk wrote:
>
>> I've written it before: if there was a software feature in routers
>> where I
>> could specify the maximum rate any prefix size (up to /32) could receive,
>> that would be very helpful.
>
> QoS generally
On 11/8/14 1:02 PM, Frank Bulk wrote:
> The Google angle is also being discussed on outages. Initial suspicions are
> PTB packets not flowing through tunneled connections.
you can also have problems in the other direction e.g. if your tunnel
ingress sends a ptb towards a load balanced service it
ftdi chipsets work on both mac and windows devices.
http://www.amazon.com/Serial-Console-Rollover-Cable-Routers/dp/B00M2SAKMG/ref=sr_1_16?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1415653377&sr=1-16&keywords=ftdi+serial
On 11/10/14 10:39 AM, Max Clark wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> DB9 ports seem to be a nearly extinct f
On 11/12/14 11:16 AM, james jones wrote:
> I am current going through some vendor selection for tier 1 providers. I
> was trying get some opinions on Zayo. I have personally never heard of
> them. Thoughts?
Think abovenet...
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On 11/19/14 12:40 PM, Justin Wilson wrote:
> I am looking at an order for a well known upstream provider. They are
> handing me a circuit at a data center. The contract reads if we use more
> than 50% of the outbound the price gets re-priced and almost doubles. How
> many folks have ran into th
described.
> Justin
>
>
> --
> Justin Wilson
> http://www.mtin.net <http://www.mtin.net/blog>
> Managed Services xISP Solutions Data Centers
> http://www.thebrotherswisp.com
> Podcast about xISP topics
> http://www.midwest-ix.com
> Peering Transit Internet Excha
On 11/21/14 1:07 AM, Mark Tinka wrote:
> On Friday, November 21, 2014 12:00:47 AM Curtis L. Parish
> wrote:
>
>> We have recently added a second ISP (third if you count
>> I2). Our first "ISP" is actually a private state
>> network that peers with two Tier 1 providers. We own an
>> AS number a
I don't see this in my home market, but I do see it in someone else's...
I kind of expect this for port 25 but...
J@mb-aye:~$telnet 147.28.0.81 587
Trying 147.28.0.81...
Connected to nagasaki.bogus.com.
Escape character is '^]'.
220 nagasaki.bogus.com ESMTP Sendmail 8.14.9/8.14.9; Thu, 27 Nov 2014
On 11/29/14 6:32 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 3:09 PM, John Levine wrote:
>> In article
>> you
>> write:
>>> backing up a bit in the conversation, perhaps this is just in some
>>> regions of comcastlandia? I don't see this in Northern Virginia...
>>
>> I don't see it
On 11/24/14 8:58 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 11/23/2014 11:20 AM, joel jaeggli wrote:
>> Their grasp of load-balancing seems a
>> bit shallow also.
>
>
> Are there discussion/guidance papers that one can point to, to improve
> the depth of understanding, or at lea
401 - 500 of 977 matches
Mail list logo
