On 2/3/11 12:59 PM, David Conrad wrote:
> On Feb 3, 2011, at 5:35 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
>> You missed my pointed. Root servers are hard coded, but they aren't
>> using a well known anycast address.
>
> Actually, most of the IP addresses used for root servers are anycast
> addresses and given they'
On 2/13/11 10:31 AM, David Conrad wrote:
> On Feb 13, 2011, at 7:56 AM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>>> Of course, one might ask why those well known anycast addresses
>>> are "owned" by 12 different organizations instead of being
>>> "golden" addres
fwiw we have v6 transit from internap in metro atlanta. setup was
drama-free. up until about 6 months ago it was offered on a
non-production basis and only as a tunnel, now it's dual stacked to our
customer edge.
joel
On 2/4/11 7:05 AM, Scott Helms wrote:
> We have been working diligently for mor
normally ip addresses like that just attract additional unwanted traffic
towards the advertised prefix...
joel
On 2/18/11 8:47 AM, Robert Lusby wrote:
> --- Friday miscellaneous ---
>
> What can anyone tell me about IPv4: 123.45.67.89 ?
>
> Other than it's used by Samsung in Korea? Do they have
On 2/19/11 5:31 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Feb 2011, Matt Newsom wrote:
>
>>I am looking for a switch with a minimum of 12 X 10GE
>> ports on it, that can has routing protocol support and can do GRE in
>> hardware. Does anyone have a suggestion that might fit. Keep
On 2/19/11 5:46 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> On 2/19/11 5:31 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 Feb 2011, Matt Newsom wrote:
>>
>>>I am looking for a switch with a minimum of 12 X 10GE
>>> ports on it, that can has routing protocol support and
On 2/16/11 5:37 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> I don't think that the Egyptian shutdown of domain names had much
>> effect
>
> what shutdown of egyptian domain names?
>
> randy, who has a server which serves them
there's an interesting point to be made about the geographic
administrative and political
On 2/22/11 1:42 PM, David Hubbard wrote:
> I was wondering if anyone has a howto floating around on the
> step by step setup of having an internal bgp peer for sending
> quick updates to border routers to null route sources of
> undesirable traffic? I've seen it discussed on nanog from
> time to t
On 2/23/11 10:10 PM, Chris Woodfield wrote:
> (Yeah, high reply latency...)
>
> Is Carrier V still filtering at sub-/32 on their IPv6 peerings? Last I was in
> a position to check, not even Apple's /45 was visible from inside AS701.
evidence says that they are now accepting longer prefixes.
> -
On 2/26/11 9:05 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> With copies out to developers we now have confirmation that Apple
>> still hasn't included DHCPv6 in the next release of OS X.
>
> what is it about ipv6 which attracts religious nuts?
you sure it's not macos (says joel from a v6 enabled mac).
> randy
>
You're going to have to perform stateless autconfiguration in ipv6 and
provide an ipv4 nameserver at the very minimum for a long time, if you
don't do it for macos you'll have to do it for windows xp...
On 2/26/11 7:10 PM, Ray Soucy wrote:
> With copies out to developers we now have confirmation t
On 2/26/11 9:27 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Feb 2011, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>
>> On 2/26/11 9:05 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>>>> With copies out to developers we now have confirmation that Apple
>>>> still hasn't included DHCPv6 in the next relea
On 2/26/11 10:56 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Feb 2011, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>
>> On 2/26/11 9:27 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
>>> On Sat, 26 Feb 2011, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/26/11 9:05 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>>>>>
On 2/27/11 3:08 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Look, can we stop arguing about whether someone needs DHCP or not,
> whether they need SLAAC or not. Let's just get both solutions to a mature
> and useful state where a network administrator can pick the one that works
> best for their environment and move
On 2/27/11 3:17 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On Feb 27, 2011, at 2:39 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
>>
>> In message <20110227204511.gm27...@virtual.bogons.net>, Simon Lockhart
>> writes:
>>> On Mon Feb 28, 2011 at 07:22:08AM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
> This is often required for legislation comp
On 2/27/11 10:09 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> I have a Droid2 with the "WiFi Analyzer" freebie app by Kevin Yuan.
>
> i run it on a nexus one. way coolquite useful. i just can't excuse the
> $600 cost of a wi-spy.
http://ubnt.com/airview
2.4ghz model is more Like $50 and works nearly as well as t
On 2/28/11 6:48 AM, Jeff Kell wrote:
> On 2/28/2011 8:44 AM, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
>> On Feb 28, 2011, at 8:40 PM, Jim Gettys wrote:
>>> Again, having a permanently known identifier being broadcast all the time
>>> is a potentially a serious security/safety issue.
>> We already have this with MA
On 2/28/11 6:51 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> I will be a lot more sympathetic about listening to arguments /
> explanations about this insanity the day that the IETF filters out arp
> and ipv4 packets from the conference network and depends entirely on
> ipv6 for connectivity for the entire conferenc
On 2/28/11 10:37 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 13:29:08 EST, Bret Clark said:
>> On 02/28/2011 01:17 PM, Leigh Porter wrote:
>>> VoIP at the last mile is just too niche at the moment. It's for people on
>>> this list, not my mother.
My mother has comcast voice... they d
On 2/28/11 9:34 PM, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
>
> On Mar 1, 2011, at 12:23 PM, Mark Newton wrote:
>
>> That's new, and (to my mind) threatening. We've not even begun to
>> consider the attack vectors that'll open up.
given that rfc 3041 had it's 10th birthday in january there's nothing
new about a
http://forums11.itrc.hp.com/service/forums/questionanswer.do?admit=109447626+1299558177753+28353475&threadId=1471451
As a potentially cautionary tale for the squatting on unused pieces of
address space either in your network or applications.
drive slow (and filter 22 outgoing to 49.48.46.49 unti
On 3/8/11 10:12 PM, Frank Bulk wrote:
> That's 1M IPv4 routes, IIRC. Put IPv6 into the mix and that 1M quickly
> shrinks.
>> I am researching possible replacements for our Internet edge
>> routers, and wanted to see what people could recommend for a smaller
>> chassis or fixed router that c
On 3/9/11 12:35 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
>>> i am more of a pessimist. i suspect that there will be enough
>>> v4-only destinations out there that multi-homed enterprises fronting
>>> onto dual-stack backbones will announce teenie bits of v4 so they can
>>> nat64.
>> that teenie bit better be part of
On 3/9/11 1:55 AM, Antonio Querubin wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Mar 2011, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>
>> one of these curves is steeper than the other.
>>
>> http://www.cidr-report.org/cgi-bin/plota?file=%2fvar%2fdata%2fbgp%2fv6%2fas2.0%2fbgp-active%2etxt&descr=Active%20BGP%20entri
I'd be willing to bet that's maxmind's geoip database.
for some if not all three it corroborates the argentina response...
correct...@maxmind.com
On 3/9/11 11:32 AM, Schiller, Heather A wrote:
>
> If anyone is listening, would you be so kind as to update geolocation
> info for the following-- t
On 3/9/11 11:06 PM, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
> At 12:07 09/03/2011 -0800, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>> I'd be willing to bet that's maxmind's geoip database.
>>
>> for some if not all three it corroborates the argentina response...
>>
>> correct...@maxmind.c
On 3/11/11 7:16 AM, Jeff Wheeler wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 9:25 AM, ML wrote:
>> Would it be too crazy to buy a spool of fiber and splice the end of one pair
>> to the next pair and so on? Won't be able to simulate 2200 miles of fiber
>> but it'll be a long span.
>
> This is by no means c
I'm super-tired of the "but tcams are an expensive non-commodity part not
subject to economies of scale". this has been repeated ad nauseam since the
raws workshop if not before.
You don't have to build a lookup engine around a tcam and in fact you can use
less power doing so even though you ne
On 3/12/11 5:00 AM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 2:17 AM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>> I'm super-tired of the "but tcams are an expensive
>> non-commodity part not subject to economies of scale". this
>> has been repeated ad nauseam since the ra
On 3/13/11 8:36 AM, Andrew Kirch wrote:
> On 3/13/2011 8:39 AM, goe...@anime.net wrote:
>> On Sun, 13 Mar 2011, Alexander Maassen wrote:
>>> Why o why are isp's and hosters so ignorant in dealing with such issues
>>> and act like they do not care?
>>
>> they don't act like they do not care. they re
On 3/21/11 10:19 AM, Stefan Fouant wrote:
> Surprised this was actually approved, but more so that this story seems to
> have gone unnoticed on the list... I would have expected a lot more chatter
> here -
>
> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/03/icann-approves-xxx-red-light
> -distric
On 3/23/11 6:14 AM, Hammer wrote:
> Nathalie,
> As an end customer (not a carrier) over in ARIN land I purchased a /48
> about a year ago for our future IPv6 needs. We have 4 different Internet
> touchpoints (two per carrier) all rated at about 1Gbps. Recently, both
> carriers told us that th
check your xgmii specs...
it's ddr so there is a bit on both clock rise and fall.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10_Gigabit_Media_Independent_Interface
On 3/29/11 5:27 AM, yifeng zhou wrote:
> Dears:
>
> As in IEEE 802.3 clause 46, in 10G Ethernet, RS and PCS may use XGMII
> interface to inter-c
On 3/29/11 9:32 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
>
> On Mar 29, 2011, at 11:25 AM, Tony Finch wrote:
>
>> George Bonser wrote:
>>>
>>> What bothers me is that most companies are now going to be forced to
>>> purchase .xxx domains simply to keep someone else from buying it and
>>> sullying the company
On 4/7/11 7:53 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>>> Otherwise some kind of routing must be implemented on hosts.
>> Some kind of routing is already implemented on hosts.
>
> honto???
>
your mobile phone is multihomed, as is this laptop I'm typing on.
On 4/7/11 8:13 PM, Tom Limoncelli wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 10:51 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> There is no need for NAT in order to multiple-home. BGP is every bit as
>> effective and much simpler.
>>
>
> I know a lot of small businesses with one FiOS link and one Comcast
> link and I don't t
On 4/7/11 8:30 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
> Otherwise some kind of routing must be implemented on hosts.
Some kind of routing is already implemented on hosts.
>>> honto???
>> your mobile phone is multihomed, as is this laptop I'm typing on.
>
> routing != multihomed
it's not an autonomous sys
On 4/13/11 6:11 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> Hi,
>
> sorry for the noise, but my contact at Syngenta says
> they have 147.0.0.0/8 168.0.0.0/8 and 172.0.0.0/8,
> which is obviously bogus. They do have a 168.246.0.0/16
> however.
>
> Any tool to look the other two up quickly, without having to
> iterat
On 4/16/11 6:06 PM, Michael Painter wrote:
> They are testing IPTV on Oahu in preperation for roll-out, so maybe they
> renumbered in order to more easily identify the segments.(?)
by squating on address space that is or will be in use.
joel
On 4/7/11 7:04 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On Apr 7, 2011, at 6:51 AM, Tomas Podermanski wrote:
>
>> Hi Daniel,
>>all IPv6 multihoming ideas are very theoretical today. None of them
>> is ready to use. Shim6 looks very good, but it requires support on both
>> a client and a server side. As you
On 4/13/11 12:13 PM, Jeff Wheeler wrote:
> However, LISP does have non-Internet applications which are
> interesting. You can potentially have multi-homed connectivity
> between your own branch offices, using one or more public Internet
> connections at each branch, and your own private mapping s
On 4/19/11 3:30 AM, ML wrote:
>
>
> With the crudiness of the IPTV middleware aimed for smaller deployments,
> I'd expect nothing less than blank stares if you mention IPv6 multicast.
> Not to mention it would probably not work for 5 years.
NTT's deployment of globally scoped but not internet c
there's a organization out there that has a logo compliance exercise...
http://www.ipv6forum.com/
it's not perfect.
when dealing with a vendor as with ipv4 there's generally a list of
protocols and features you are looking to have support for, if these are
encapsulated in RFCs they're fairly eas
On 4/29/11 10:12 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Ryan Malayter"
>
>> On Apr 28, 11:14 pm, Jay Ashworth wrote:
(cough)multicast(cough)
>>>
>>> But... but... how do we count the viewers, then?
>>
>> Isn't the real problem with global multicast: "How do we ulti
On 5/9/11 5:06 AM, TJ wrote:
> Unfortunately, I suspect many organizations will be following that approach.
>
> I hope that some will instead see this as a great opportunity for the last
> step in making their public services IPv6 reachable *... and that they also
> start/continue/complete taking I
On 5/9/11 11:58 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Walter Vaughan"
>
>> You most definately will want to make sure your user id's are
>> identical between the two systems, otherwise stuff like @CB will have wrong
>> information.
>
> Excellent point.
>
>> Also, do
On 5/10/11 10:10 AM, Adam Rothschild wrote:
> Realize also that China Telecom is congested both internally and on
> certain peering interfaces.
>
> While DPI is a likely culprit, be sure to not overlook a good
> old-fashioned inability to manage capacity, combined with certain
> hashing algorithms
On 5/11/11 8:26 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 11:16 AM, William Allen Simpson
> wrote:
>
>>> Courts like precedent. I choose Facebook's precedent. Seems reasonable to
>>> me.
>>>
>> That's also roughly in line with Nextel and others for CALEA.
>
> Hrm, I had thought tha
On 5/11/11 11:39 AM, George Bonser wrote:
> It depends. There are other things to take into account. If you
> increase the time it takes a mobile device to complete a transaction by
> only a couple of seconds, if you multiply those couple of seconds by
> all of the users in a large metro area,
On 5/13/11 8:14 AM, Deepak Jain wrote:
>
> Go figure, an actual thread about networking equipment on NANOG. :)
>
> So reading Cisco's announcement, I go look at HP's higher end
> switching/routing line and I see some pretty beefy looking gear.
> A12500 and others. Does anyone have any experience
You've got to get your backbone and transit enabled instrumented and stable
before you put customers on it... that's a key in transitioning from an
experiemental toy to something that you can actually use.
The current V6 deployement that I'm working on mirrors the previous 4 almost
exactly in t
On May 17, 2011, at 8:49 AM, Steve Clark wrote:
> On 05/17/2011 08:56 AM, Paul Vixie wrote:
>>> Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 11:07:17 +0200
>>> From: Mans Nilsson
>>>
> ... It's not like you can even reach anything at home now, let alone
> reach it by name.
that must and will change. let
On May 17, 2011, at 4:30 PM, Scott Brim wrote:
> On May 17, 2011 6:26 PM, wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 17 May 2011 15:04:19 PDT, Scott Weeks said:
>>
>>> What about privacy concerns
>>
>> "Privacy is dead. Get used to it." -- Scott McNeely
>
> Forget that attitude, Valdis. Just because privacy is b
On May 17, 2011, at 6:09 PM, Scott Weeks wrote:
> --- joe...@bogus.com wrote:
> From: Joel Jaeggli
> On May 17, 2011, at 4:30 PM, Scott Brim wrote:
>> On May 17, 2011 6:26 PM, wrote:
>>> On Tue, 17 May 2011 15:04:19 PDT, Scott Weeks said:
>>>
>>>>
On May 17, 2011, at 7:51 PM, Scott Weeks wrote:
>
>
> --- joe...@bogus.com wrote:
> From: Joel Jaeggli
>
>> if you put something in the dns you do so because you want to discovered.
>> scoping the nameservers such that they only express certain certain resource
On May 18, 2011, at 1:01 PM, Holmes,David A wrote:
> I think this shows the need for an Internet-wide multicast implementation.
there's a pretty longtailed distribution on what people might chose to stream.
static content is ameniable to distribution via cdn (which is frankly a
degenerate for
On May 23, 2011, at 10:36 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On May 23, 2011, at 11:32, David Conrad wrote:
>
>> On May 23, 2011, at 8:28 AM, Mark Farina wrote:
>>> Is the DoD releasing this range to Rogers?
>>
>> Unlikely, although it might be an interesting case of testing
On May 24, 2011, at 7:56 AM, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 12:28 PM, Mark Farina wrote:
>> As of April 27th I have started to receive dhcp broadcast requests
>> originating from the 7.0.0.0/8 network. Based on MAC addresses, it
>> seems that this is communication between the Roger
On May 24, 2011, at 12:56 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Tue, 24 May 2011 14:42:02 CDT, Rhys Rhaven said:
>> I had a Juniper sales rep laugh at me when I asked for a comparison of
>> their SRX series to Vyatta, as he had "never heard of Vyatta."
>
> "Danger, Will Robinson! Danger!" :)
On May 24, 2011, at 2:26 PM, Brent Jones wrote:
>
> Well, with the new Juniper entry level MX devices out now, the cost
> difference between Vyatta and Juniper is probably insignificant now,
> and with Juniper devices, you have much higher PPS rate.
>
> Granted, I have Vyatta devices now doing B
On May 18, 2011, at 3:06 AM, Leigh Porter wrote:
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Carl Rosevear [mailto:crosev...@skytap.com]
>>
>> "Eating Up" sounds so overweight and unhealthy. Since a good number
>> of us get paid for delivering bits, isn't this a good thing? Always
>> glad to
On May 24, 2011, at 7:52 PM, George Bonser wrote:
>> The graphs show near 100% CPU usage at small packet sizes, and low
>> PPS. That would lead to a pretty easy to launch DDoS against a
>> software based router platform.
>> Since there isn't a separation between control plane/forwarding plane,
>>
Normally when mitigation is put in place, they advertise a more specific
prefix from as26415, scrub the traffic and hand it back to you over a gre
tunnel...
Obviously some design consideration goes into having services in prefixes
you're willing to de-agg in such a fashion... I'd also recommen
At a previous company my pi assigment request included our overseas sites. the
bulk of the assignment and the business unit making the request were based in
north america. resulting request was for a /43.
joel
On May 31, 2011, at 8:36 AM, eric clark wrote:
> Many North American based organizat
On Jun 3, 2011, at 5:27 AM, fredrik danerklint wrote:
> The problem is not all on Microsoft at this case.
>
>
> For example; I've bought a ZyXEL P-2612HNU-F1(which has
> 802.11n Wireless ADSL 2+ 4-port gateway 2 SIP 2 USB 3G Backup)
> in december 2010. It basiclly has everything in it.
>
> How
On Jun 3, 2011, at 4:13 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On Jun 3, 2011, at 3:24 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 15:20:22 PDT, Scott Weeks said:
>>
>>> There're about 52 peaks in a year on the timeline... :-)
>>
>> Right. But why is Google seeing noticeably higher IPv6
On Jun 4, 2011, at 12:09 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
>> Note that from Geoff's published experiment presented in IETF v6ops the
>> success rate of v6 connection attempts particularly auto-tunneled is higher
>> on the weekends than during weekdays, you can thank corporate firewall
>> policy for
On Jun 6, 2011, at 12:53 PM, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Jun 2011, rucasbr...@hushmail.com wrote:
>
>> All the whole "don't peer with this guy" only makes your customers
>> have worse latencies and paths to other people, making the Internet
>> less healthy.
>
> Not necessarily. Peeri
On Jun 7, 2011, at 5:32 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Matt Ryanczak"
>
>> Indeed. Verizon LTE is v6 enabled but the user-agent on my phone
>> denies me an IPv6 experience.
>
> I thought I'd heard that LTE transport was *IPv6 only*...
you may have but it's wr
On Jun 9, 2011, at 7:02 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
> On 6/9/2011 1:58 AM, Aftab Siddiqui wrote:
>> Still that doesn't give any reason to provide /112 for point to point
>> connectivitiy. Seriously, I'm peering with a transit provider with /126 and
>> when I asked for a reason they said, ease of manage
On Jun 9, 2011, at 6:09 AM, Dennis Burgess wrote:
> Does Cogent participate in the meetings/shows like the one coming up
> next week ? Would that not be a good place for NANOGers to voice their
> opinion?
generally telling another party how to run their business in specific is
considered poo
yes
http://www.google.com/search?q=mld+snooping+switch
On Jun 9, 2011, at 9:49 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> On 9 jun 2011, at 6:36, Karl Auer wrote:
>
>> Well, a modern switch should work fine, even if not directly IPv6 aware,
>> but it won't understand multicast and will generally flood m
We use wireless authentication for the purposes of protecting the link layer...
authenticated users are still outside the privileged corprate network and
therefore need to vpn in.
joel
On Jun 9, 2011, at 3:02 PM, eric clark wrote:
> Wondering what people are using to provide security from thei
On Jun 10, 2011, at 12:21 PM, Steve Clark wrote:
> On 06/10/2011 09:37 AM, Ray Soucy wrote:
>> You really didn't just write an entire post saying that RA is bad
>> because if a moron of a network engineer plugs an incorrectly
>> configured device into a production network it may cause problems, d
On Jun 10, 2011, at 11:18 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 12:54:17 CDT, Jima said:
>> If we go down this path, how long before we hear screaming about rogue
>> DHCPv6 servers giving v4-only networks a false v6 path?
>
> Already happened. Good way to install an MITM aga
On 12/26/24 14:46, Randy Bush wrote:
In a distributed fabric, where is the traditional control plane run?
Say I've got 100 BGP sessions of upstream,peer, and downstream across
ten routers. Is each pizza box grinding this out on its own, or is the
work done on the x86 box mentioned in the larger
On 2/20/25 13:44, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Thu, Feb 20, 2025 at 1:21 PM Kevin McCormick wrote:
Might want to look at Audible Magic.
https://www.audiblemagic.com/
They do identification and filtering of copyrighted content.
University I worked at had a box that would identify students p
901 - 977 of 977 matches
Mail list logo
