Paul Francis wrote:
Gang,
I have submitted an internet-draft to the IDR group on virtual aggregation
(VA) (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-francis-idr-intra-va-00.txt).
This draft suggests a few changes to routers that allow operators to control
the size of their FIBs, shrinking them b
Adrian Chadd wrote:
On Sun, Jul 20, 2008, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
Software switched routers have little pressure on fib limitions. For a
certain class of application the software switched edge router is in a
much better position to accommodate fib growth than a device with a
fixed sized cam.
I
Adrian Chadd wrote:
On Sun, Jul 20, 2008, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
Not saying that they couldn't benefit from it, however on one hand we
have a device with a 36Mbit cam on the other, one with 2GB of ram, which
one fills up first?
Well, the actual data point you should look at is "16
that approach has
real benefits extending the useful life of a given platform, but there's
very little about the current situation that is unexpected, or intractable.
Are there any folks for whom this statement isn't working?
PF
-Original Message-
From: Joel Jaeggli [ma
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 02:52:56 PDT, Zed Usser said:
There's been some discussion on the list regarding software routers
The performance of "software routers" has always had a hardware component.
Basically, for the vast majority of them, take your PCI bus bandwidth,
coun
Warren Kumari wrote:
On Jul 29, 2008, at 10:43 PM, Darryl Dunkin wrote:
Hubs sure are fun...
This might be a stupid question, but where can one get small hubs these
days? All of the common commodity (eg: 4 port Netgear) "hubs" these
days are actually switches.
What I am looking for is:
Darden, Patrick S. wrote:
Was looking over 1918 again, and for the record I have only run into one
network that follows:
"If two (or more) organizations follow the address allocation
specified in this document and then later wish to establish IP
connectivity with each other, then there
172.16/12 use?
--p
-Original Message-
From: Joel Jaeggli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 11:21 AM
To: Darden, Patrick S.
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: was bogon filters, now "Brief Segue on 1918"
Darden, Patrick S. wrote:
*randomly* from th
riginal Message-
From: Joel Jaeggli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 12:36 PM
To: Darden, Patrick S.
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: was bogon filters, now "Brief Segue on 1918"
Darden, Patrick S. wrote:
Most organizations that would be doing this would n
oks like it will continue to work ok for some time...
--p
-Original Message-
From: Joel Jaeggli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 1:31 PM
To: Darden, Patrick S.
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: was bogon filters, now "Brief Segue on 1918"
That's co
Text sent too at&t customers appear ok from tmob or via @txt.att.net...
I'm experiencing ~10 minute delays on texts originating on at&t handsets.
joelja
Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
Is anyone else seeing issues with multiple copies and delayed
originals for SMSes on the AT&T network? I've been s
William Pitcock wrote:
Hi,
We're looking at using Mikrotik's RouterOS for some some sort of
software routing solution as part of our network in combination with
supervised layer3 switching doing most likely some sort of limited BGP.
Does anyone else here run it? Is it any good? Is it better tha
Greetings,
It's not to late to think about sharing with your peers...
Got a tool you use to monitor dns or ip hijacking, got some practices
for monitoring your prefixes for anonlous events, have a commercial
product you use that does one of these really well? Have some experience
managing ipv6 ad
Hank Nussbacher wrote:
> At 09:40 PM 27-08-08 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I beg to differ. What will change is a serious uptick in the number of
> prefixes (279K) in the routing tables as everyone rushes to deaggregate
> to /24 size. A year ago we were at 230K, how much you wanna bet we
Paul Wall wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 8:29 PM, Jo Rhett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Aug 26, 2008, at 12:26 AM, Paul Wall wrote:
>>> Routing n*GE at line rate isn't difficult these days, even with all
>>> 64-byte packets and other "DoS" conditions.
>>>
>>> Linksys, D-Link, SMC, etc are able
Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 03, 2008 at 12:58:53PM -0400, Nicholas Suan wrote:
>> On Sep 3, 2008, at 12:49 PM, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
>>> You're forgetting that 587 *is authenticated, always*.
>> I'm not sure how that makes much of a difference since the usual spam
>> vector is malware t
Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 04:50:15PM -0400, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
>> I see in http://www.onesc.net/communities/as3356/ that L3 doesn't permit
>> customers to multihome the 4/8 space that they inherited from BBN, via
>> GTE, etc, ad nauseum...
>>
>> and I'm curious whether an
Randy Bush wrote:
>> It has been routinely observed in nanog presentations that settlement
>> free providers by their nature miss a few prefixes that well connected
>> transit purchasing ISPs carry.
>
> just trying to understand what you mean,
>
> o no transit-free provider actually has all (
Owen DeLong wrote:
> I've never seen anyone use AH vs. ESP.
OSPFv3?
> I've always used ESP and so has
> every other IPSEC implementation I've seen anyone do.
>
> Owen
>
> On Nov 13, 2009, at 4:22 PM, Jack Kohn wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Interesting discussion on the utility of Authentication Heade
Bill Fehring wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 20:48, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>> Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> I've never seen anyone use AH vs. ESP.
>> OSPFv3?
>
> Maybe I'm asking a dumb question, but why would one prefer AH over ESP
> for OSPFv3?
Header
cards and tokens are a proxy for the use of a certificate authentication
system...
You can in fact do certificate auth without the use of cards or tokens
or mix and match physical tokens and other private key storage depending
on need with the same authentication backend (typically ldap).
Since t
valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 11:50:54 EST, Brad Laue said:
>> maintained. I'm unclear as to why mail administrators don't work more
>> proactively with things like SenderID and SPF, as these seem to be far
>> more maintainable in the long-run than an ever-growing list of
Justin Shore wrote:
> Hank Nussbacher wrote:
>> At 18:29 24/11/2009 +0900, Randy Bush wrote:
>>> > RIS Routing History for AS1712 since 2001:
>>>
>>> on what date was AS1712 assigned to the current RIPE holder?
>>
>> Based on:
>> ftp://ftp.ripe.net/pub/stats/ripencc/delegated-ripencc-latest
>> it
Wade Peacock wrote:
> We had a discussion today about IPv6 today. During our open thinking the
> topic of client equipment came up.
> We all commented that we have not seen any consumer grade IPv6 enable
> internet gateways (routers/firewalls), a kin to the ever popular Linksys
> 54G series, DLin
Kain, Becki (B.) wrote:
> No kiddng. I must be the only one who is getting tired of seeing Google
> take over literally everything.
Nobody as far as I can tell has a Monoploy on bad ideas...
joel
Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On Dec 10, 2009, at 4:56 PM, Michael Loftis wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> --On Wednesday, December 02, 2009 6:23 PM -0800 Mehmet Akcin
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Would you consider Juniper SSG5 as a Consumer Grade router?
>>>
>>> They do IPv6 and they are pretty good in general, and cheap as
Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> UPnP is a bad idea that (fortunately) doesn't apply to IPv6 anyway.
>>>
>>> You don't need UPnP if you'r not doing NAT.
>>
>> wishful thinking.
>>
>> you're likely to still have a staeful firewall and in the consumer space
>> someone is likely to want to punch holes in it.
Paolo Lucente wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 10:09:32PM -0600, James Hess wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 1:24 PM, Jonny Martin wrote:
>> ..
>>> modified if need be - to achieve this. ?Mixing billing with the reachability
>>> information signalled through BGP just doesn't seem like a good id
so can open-wrt and you can run it on something like:
http://www.ubnt.com/products/rspro.php
which is a lot more flexible than a consumer ap and the price starts at
about $80 before you add radios.
Michael Holstein wrote:
>> I am consulting with a new player in the internet field and I am
>> loo
Christopher Morrow wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Jon Lewis wrote:
>
>
>> Should US based networks be willing to route RIPE "ASSIGNED PA" space
>> customers provide?
Are any of your customers multinationals?
> this is an interesting question, which when I worked for an ISP I
> alw
George Bonser wrote:
> We have decided to initiate the process of becoming IPv6 capable. We
> have requested and received a block of addresses which, after reading
> some of the discussion here, I fear may be too small to suit our needs
> (a /48). To better understand how to proceed and in an a
Rich Kulawiec wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 01:58:47AM -0500, Christopher Morrow wrote:
>> no real arguement, but... 'please provide some set of workable
>> solutions'
>
> The set of workable solutions at this point looks something like
> "null routes, firewall rules, blacklist entries" -- in
Brett Frankenberger wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 11:13:24AM -0500, Steven Bellovin wrote:
>> I know nothing of how to do this on a Catalyst; for PCs, my own guess
>> is that you're looking far too high-end. If the issue is relaying to
>> the outside, I suspect that a small, dedicated Soekris
you might take a look at route-views6.routeviews.org
last I looked it had 22 neighbors.
you can either telnet to it (it's quagga) or look in the archived ribs here:
http://archive.routeviews.org/route-views6/bgpdata/
Michael K. Smith - Adhost wrote:
> Hello Everyone:
>
> I am requesting the as
bill from home wrote:
> All,
>This thread certainly has been educational, and has changed my
> perception of what an appropriate outward facing architecture should be.
> But seldom do I have the luxury of designing this from scratch, and also
> the networks I administer are "small business's"
Dobbins, Roland wrote:
> On Jan 8, 2010, at 9:02 PM, bill from home wrote:
>
>> And maybe there is no way to tell, but I feel I need to ask the question.
>
> Situationally-dependent; the only way to really tell, not just theorize, is
> to test the firewall to destruction during a maintenance w
Dobbins, Roland wrote:
> On Jan 9, 2010, at 7:52 AM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>
>> see my post in the subject, a reasonably complete performance
>> report for the device is a useful place to start.
>
> The problem is that one can't trust the stated vendor perform
Martin Hannigan wrote:
> Some NDA's require that you must state your intent for each
> communication that should be covered by the NDA. As much as everyone
> would like to believe these are wothless, they are not. Applying them
> globally to your email protects your legal rights. It is also
> inn
Steven Bellovin wrote:
> On Jan 13, 2010, at 1:45 PM, Barry Shein wrote:
>
>> There seem to be a lot of misconceptions about RFID tags. I'm hardly
>> an expert but I do know this much:
>>
>> RFID tags are generic, you don't put data into them unique to your
>> application.
Not true, the simples
valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 17:31:44 +0100, Anthony Uk said:
>
>> "Second, we have evidence to suggest that a primary goal of the
>> attackers was accessing the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights
>> activists. "
>
>> I have orders of magnitude fewer users than gma
Tim Durack wrote:
> Replace all the routers on the Internet with stateful firewalls. What happens?
the same thing that happened with flow-cached routers, they melt, you go
out of business, the end.
Ricky Beam wrote:
> But it's not all bad. It's assigned to APNIC, so a lot of people will
> gladly continue blocking it.
>
Yeah cause seriously, who does business in Asia or the Pacifc...
Anton Kapela wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 8:22 PM, Jon Lewis wrote:
>
>> I thought there was some other group that had been squatting in 1/8,
>> something about radio and peer to peer...but not AnoNet (at least that name
>> was totally unfamiliar)...but this was all I could find with a quic
Daniel Senie wrote:
> On Jan 26, 2010, at 9:54 AM, Joe Maimon wrote:
>
>> For me, the entire debate boils down to this question.
>>
>> What should the objective be, decades or centuries?
>
> If centuries, how many planets and moons will the address space
> cover? (If we as a species manages to
iptables -A INPUT -m recent --update --seconds 60 --hitcount 5 --name
SSH --rsource -j DROP
iptables -A INPUT -m recent --set --name SSH --rsource -j ACCEPT
also enforce either strong passwords or require no passwords (e.g. keys
only) and everything should be cool.
Bobby Mac wrote:
> Hola Nanog:
Richard Barnes wrote:
> What I've heard is that the driver is IPv4 exhaustion: Comcast is
> starting to have enough subscribers that it can't address them all out
> of 10/8 -- ~millions of subscribers, each with >1 IP address (e.g.,
> for user data / control of the cable box).
What do you meaning
Phil Regnauld wrote:
> Nick Hilliard (nick) writes:
>> There is a FAQ entry for ipv6 support in ipplan:
>>
>>> One feature request that comes up from time to time is IPv6. Adding IPv6
>>> support will require major effort but has such a limited audience.
>>> Ironically the only people that ever req
It should be of no surprise to anyone that a number of the remaining
prefixes are something of a mess(somebody ask t-mobile how they're using
14/8 internally for example). One's new ipv4 assignments are going to
be of significantly lower quality than the one received a decade ago,
The property is
er intend to route the space
> publicly. (Such a thing does exist..)
>
> +1 volunteering to sink traffic for 1.1.1.0/24
>
> --heather
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Joel Jaeggli [mailto:joe...@bogus.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 11:09 AM
> To:
For stuff where the boxes were expected to go both directions, there are
anvil flight cases in appropiate sizes which I've used with great
success. These days I having been using pelican cases, either 1560 1630
or 1650 depending on size.
Andrew Konkol wrote:
> Gurus,
>
> Where I work we ship our
David Hubbard wrote:
> Residential computers with enough bandwidth to DoS
> hosting providers; that should be fun. Maybe it will
> encourage the incumbant ISP's to start offering users
> meaningful bgp communities since they won't be able
> to keep up with the abuse reports.
Residential custome
James Hess wrote:
> For now.. with 1gigabit residential connections, BCP 38 OUGHT to be
> Google's answer. If Google handles that properly, they _should_
> make it mandatory that all traffic from residential customers be
> filtered, in all cases, in order to only forward packets with
> t
3com nj1000 3com nj90 etc.
Andrey Khomyakov wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> Does anyone know of anything like a small, but managed in wall switch? I
> have an area where the business needs to deploy more thin client kiosks than
> I have data drops and it's impossible to add more due to how the walls on
>
Larry Sheldon wrote:
> On 2/20/2010 11:53 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
>
>> So we've looked at it from 2 different aspects, and in both cases, the
>> RFC says you shouldn't be bouncing spam to where it came from.
>
> Small nit, which is germane to the whole discussion; "...the RFC says
>
Hank Nussbacher wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, Dorn Hetzel wrote:
>
>> I am sure the various carriers faced with the onset of Local Number
>> Portability and WLNP in this part of the world would have been happy to
>> escape with only forwarding phone calls for 3 months.
>>
>> Alas, such was not the
Johnny Eriksson wrote:
> Robert Bonomi wrote:
>
>> Quick! Somebody propose a snail-mail portability bill. When a renter
>> changes to a different landlord, his snail-mail address will be optionally
>> his to take along, "just like" what is proposed for ISP clients.
>
> No, a complete street
On 02/26/2010 03:10 PM, Paul Bosworth wrote:
> I think a lot of people often forget that ISPs are actually
> businesses trying to turn a profit.
Bearing in mind that the facilities that exist in much of the rural
united states are actually there because we collectively payed for them
rather than
On 02/27/2010 03:49 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> On 27/02/2010 04:04, Phil Regnauld wrote:
>> I'm not saying that political incentives (carrot & stick) or government
>> regulations in the line of "implement IPv6 before X/Y or else..." have
>> had any effect, except maybe in Japan:
>
Modula the lack of pd, I found the ipv6 support for the dir-825 (along
with the other things it does well) to be rather decent. If people need
gig-e simultaneous dual band abgn home routers for ~$130 you should
check the thing out.
On 02/27/2010 08:59 AM, Frank Bulk wrote:
> Heard from a D-Link pr
Tony Finch wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>> On 02/27/2010 03:49 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
>>> Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Japanese government did two things:
>>>
>>> - tax incentivise ipv6 compliance
>>> - make mean
On 03/01/2010 09:04 AM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
> On 3/1/2010 9:55 AM, Adam Waite wrote:
>>
>>> Hm, I was under the impression that ARPANET was a government run
>>> network...
>>>
>>>
>> Not since 1992..what you're looking for these days is NIPRnet and
>> SIPRnet, and ESnet, etc, etc, etc.
>
On 03/01/2010 05:34 PM, Akyol, Bora A wrote:
> Michael
>
> I think for the people in the situation you are describing, the best bet
> would be
> one of the wireless technologies. Someone on the thread mentioned LTE (which
> should
> be coming out in a couple years time), and to that we can add W
On 03/04/2010 10:52 AM, Thomas Magill wrote:
> 2. Longer than /24 prefixes in global BGP table. The most obvious
> answer is that some hardware may not handle it... How is that hardware
> going to handle an IP6 table then? I have had several occasions where
> functionally I needed to adver
On 03/04/2010 06:41 PM, Thomas Magill wrote:
> I've been on board with rolling out IP6 but the SPs I've talked to are
> all '...about to start trying to possibly think about extending a beta
> to a small portion of some customers' or something along those lines.
> This led me to believe that SPs
On 03/05/2010 05:24 AM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 11:15 PM, David Conrad wrote:
>> On Mar 4, 2010, at 2:30 PM, William Herrin wrote:
>>> Because we expect far fewer end users to multihome tomorrow than do today?
>>
>> We do?
>>
>> Why do we expect this?
>
> David,
>
> Well
http://ws.afnog.org/afnog2009/sie/detail.html
monday afternoon and tuesdays workshop materials cover introduction to
dynamic routing and ospf. thursdays includes the ospf/ibgp intergration
materials.
On 03/05/2010 08:46 AM, Alex Thurlow wrote:
> I have to say that this looks like a nice solution
On 03/05/2010 01:48 PM, David Conrad wrote:
> On Mar 5, 2010, at 10:44 AM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>> If this is done right, direct assignment holders and ISPs are
>> issued sufficiently large prefixes such that the prefix count per
>> entity remains small.
>
> Th
arista 7120t-4s...
On 03/10/2010 02:04 PM, Bill Blackford wrote:
> You might look at Juniper EX3200 with a EX-UM-2XFP and then optics of your
> choice (EX-XFP-10GE-SR)
>
> -b
>
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 1:46 PM, Mirko Maffioli
> wrote:
>
>> I'm searching for a switch with at least one 10Gbase-
On 03/12/2010 01:20 PM, Axel Morawietz wrote:
> Am 12.03.2010 17:03, schrieb Nathan:
>> [...] Its
>> amazing how prolific 1.x traffic is.
>
> one reason might also be, that at least T-Mobile Germany uses 1.2.3.*
> for their proxies that deliver the content to mobile phones.
> And I'm not sure what
On 03/15/2010 04:30 PM, George Bonser wrote:
>
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Dave Temkin
>> Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2010 12:51 PM
>> To: Kevin Oberman
>> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
>> Subject: Re: 10GBase-t switch
>>
>> Can you point to another 1U box that has more than 16MB per-port
>
On 03/16/2010 07:38 AM, Rick Ernst wrote:
> Regurgitating the original e-mail for context and follow-up.
>
> General responses (some that didn't make it to the list):
> - "There really is that much space, don't worry about it."
> - /48s for those that ask for it is fine, ARIN won't ask unles
>>> It sounds like this range was just recently assigned -- is there any
>>> document (RFC?) or source I could look through to learn more about
>>> this, and/or provide evidence to my client
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Jaren
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> ---
On 3/26/2010 8:15 AM, Rick Ernst wrote:
I've noticed over the last 3 years or so that TDM, specifically T-1, access
and transport has been in a steady decline. Customers are moving to FTTH
and cable, or going WiMAX and Metro-Ethernet. Ethernet seems to have taken
an even bigger bite out of DS-3
On 03/26/2010 10:16 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On Mar 26, 2010, at 8:45 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday 24 March 2010 05:24:39 pm Michael Dillon wrote:
>>> For comparison look at the z-80 CPU which powered the early desktop
>>> computers. When the IBM PC came out, people thought that th
On 03/31/2010 12:00 PM, Jorge Amodio wrote:
> http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/2010/prod_033110.html
>
> Does anybody know what are the plans for IPv6 support ?
the current wrt610n supports ipv6 I failed to see why a slightly
updated and rebranded one would not as well.
> Regards
> Jorge
>
, and there's no mention of IPv6.
>
> Frank
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Nick Hilliard [mailto:n...@foobar.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 3:16 PM
> To: Joel Jaeggli
> Cc: NANOG
> Subject: Re: New Linksys CPE, IPv6 ?
>
> On 31/03/2010 21:07, Joel
On 03/31/2010 08:52 PM, Patrick Giagnocavo wrote:
> We have just (anecdotally, empirically) established earlier in this
> thread, that anything smaller than a mid-sized business, can't even
> *GET* IPv6 easily (at least in the USA); much less care about it.
fwiw, that last time I was at a company
On 04/01/2010 08:13 AM, david raistrick wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>
>> On 03/31/2010 08:52 PM, Patrick Giagnocavo wrote:
>>> We have just (anecdotally, empirically) established earlier in this
>>> thread, that anything smaller than a
While not the stevens book,
"the illustrated network" isbn 978-0-12-374541-5 was a pretty good
attempt to do a modern version of the same. any book that attempts to
cover all layers of the stack is going to have it's limits, but it has
saved my bacon a couple of times now...
The author is normall
On 4/4/2010 5:10 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 4:32 PM, joel jaeggli wrote:
Last time I checked, some of the state of the art 2004 era silicon I had laying
around could forward v6 just fine in hardware. It's not so usefyl due to it's
fib being a bit unde
On 4/3/2010 6:15 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
Ever used IPX or Appletalk? If you haven't, then you don't know how
simple and capable networking can be. And those protocols were designed
more than 20 years ago, yet they're still more capable than IPv4.
Zing, and there you have it! The hourglass is thin
On 4/4/2010 7:57 PM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Mon, Apr 05, 2010 at 10:57:46AM +0930, Mark Smith wrote:
Has anybody considered lobbying the IEEE to do a point to point version
of Ethernet to gets rid of addressing fields? Assuming an average 1024
byte packet size, on a 10Gbps link they're
On 4/5/2010 5:26 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Apr 5, 2010, at 5:08 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 16:36:26 EDT, Jon Lewis said:
Since they only really need to be unique per broadcast domain, it
doesn't really matter. You can I could use the same MAC
addresses on al
On 4/6/2010 10:39 PM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
On 05 Apr 2010 12:43, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 13:29:20 EDT, Jay Nakamura said:
I would have attributed the success of Ethernet to price!
You've got the causality wrong -- it wasn't cheap, way back when.
I remember back
On 2/4/11 2:34 PM, R A Lichtensteiger wrote:
> david raistrick wrote:
>
>>> Everyone doesn't suddenly get "owned" because there isn't a external
>>> firewall. Modern OS's default to secure.
>>
>> We clearly live and work in different worlds. Not to mention that
>> "we" are not the average cons
>
>the practice predates ARIN by many years... FWIW...
No reason to play coy... (ep.net)
> --bill
>
On 2/5/11 9:00 PM, Joly MacFie wrote:
> Lebanon's Telecom minister is claiming that US Navy radar is blocking the
> country's Internet..
>
> http://www.naharnet.com/domino/tn/NewsDesk.nsf/0/93A95CA1A4E42178C225782E007371AF
Those repeaterless submarine optical systems are really impacted by
terres
On 2/6/11 8:00 AM, John Curran wrote:
> On Feb 5, 2011, at 9:40 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
>> What's really needed is seperate the routing slot market from the
>> address allocation market.
>
> Bingo! In fact, having an efficient market for obtaining routing of a
> given prefix, combined with IPv
On 2/6/11 9:32 AM, John Curran wrote:
> One hopes that the costs of consuming routing table slots creates
> backpressure to discourage needless use, and that the royalities
> receive offset the costs of carrying any additional routing table
> slots.
>
> Note that our present system lacks both cons
On 2/6/11 7:08 PM, Adam Rothschild wrote:
> We (voxel.net, AS 29791) offer dual-stack on all server and cloud
> products. As others have pointed out, SoftLayer is an excellent
> example of a hosting provider that Gets It on a large scale.
>
> Sadly, v6 support on popular "cloud-only" services is
On 2/9/11 4:35 AM, Sam Stickland wrote:
>
>
> On 9 Feb 2011, at 02:43, "R. Benjamin Kessler"
> wrote:
>
From: George Herbert [mailto:george.herb...@gmail.com]
>>
"Let's just grab 2/8, it's not routed on the Internet..."
>>
>> +1
>>
>> I was consulting for a financial services firm
On 2/9/11 1:42 PM, Nathan Eisenberg wrote:
>> Most IPv4 space is unused anyway, but it's not being reclaimed much
>> despite that. (How many IP addresses does the US federal government
>> need? Few people would think ~ 10 /8s. Especially since many of
>> them aren't even lit up.)
>
> What do you m
On 2/9/11 3:43 PM, George Bonser wrote:
>> Almost none of the broadband providers in the US NAT their customers.
>
> Well, I suppose I have been unlucky then because every single one I have
> had has NATed me. I had a "real" IP when I had dialup, but I got NAT
> when I went broadband. I have a f
On 2/9/11 2:22 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> There have been IPv6 for dummies sessions at many past NANOGs.
>
> If NANOG is willing to provide time and space for them at future events, I
> will
> be happy to conduct the tutorial sessions.
program committee would no doubt love to hear from you.
> Owe
On 2/10/11 7:42 AM, TR Shaw wrote:
> On Feb 10, 2011, at 10:28 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
>
>> T-mobile USA has a nationwide ipv6 beta. You can google it.
>> Regarding iphone, its more an iPhone issue than anything else
>>
> Nope its ATT. My iPhone works fine on IPv6. I connect wifi at home
> and c
On 2/10/11 7:53 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
> On Monday, February 07, 2011 04:33:23 am Owen DeLong wrote:
>> 1. Scanning even an entire /64 at 1,000 pps will take
>> 18,446,744,073,709,551 seconds
>> which is 213,503,982,334 days or 584,542,000 years.
>>
>> I would posit that since most netw
On 2/10/11 5:31 AM, Cutler James R wrote:
>
> On Feb 10, 2011, at 12:15 AM, Ricky Beam wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 09 Feb 2011 16:42:14 -0500, Nathan Eisenberg
>> wrote:
>>> What do you mean, lit up? You mean they're not in the routing
>>> tables that you get from your carriers? I'd argue that's no
>>
On 2/10/11 6:54 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
> On 2/10/2011 8:44 PM, John Curran wrote:
>>
>> If you'd like to reserve a large block for purposes of LSN
>> without any concern of future address conflict, it would be
>> best to actually reserve it via community-developed policy.
>>
>
> When there are X /8
On 2/11/11 8:59 PM, Jeff Kell wrote:
> On 2/11/2011 11:28 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
>> My apologies for the error, it will actually be a 32 digit system, and
>> we're switching to base-16, so all phones will have to be replaced
>> with phones supporting 0-9A-F.
>
> Well, they already do, you just need
On 2/11/11 6:31 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Feb 2011, Tom Limoncelli wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>>> I think you'll be in for a surprise here, too. The 4G transition is
>>> already underway. For the vendors where 4G means LTE, IPv6 is the
>>>
801 - 900 of 977 matches
Mail list logo
