I just ran into an issue that I thought was worth sharing with the NANOG
community. With recently increased visibility on keeping the Internet
running smoothly, I thought that sharing this small experience could
benefit everyone.
I was contacted by my NOC to investigate a LAG that was not distribu
All this chatter about IPv6 support on devices is fun and all, but there
are providers still not on board.
They operate in my neighborhood and they know who they are...
Nimrod
On Wed, Sep 1, 2021 at 2:26 PM Michael Thomas wrote:
>
> On 9/1/21 10:59 AM, Nimrod Levy wrote:
> > All this chatter about IPv6 support on devices is fun and all, but
> > there are providers still not on board.
> > They operate in my neighborhood and they know who they ar
On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 10:35 AM Job Snijders via NANOG
wrote:
>
> I'd reject them. Why carve out an exception merely because the
> number is 'large'? :-)
>
>
To add to this, many routes does not equal lots of traffic or even
important traffic.
If it continues to be invalid, someone didn't bothe
Also, it doesn't seem to be enabled on ports that have static ipv4
but progress is progress. we'll take it.
Nimrod
On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 11:17 AM Matthew Huff wrote:
> Still no IPv6 in Westchester County, NY ☹
>
>
>
> Great sign though, maybe NY will get it eventually
>
>
>
> *From:* NANOG
Is that unique to the FiOS gateway device? I don't use their router and my
traces go right out.
On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 3:08 PM Joe Maimon wrote:
> Apparently Verizon FIOS is a red herring, terminating ICMP traceroutes
> right on their gateways.
>
> More internet breakage. Thanks for the inform
I'm in the same region as Chris and I still can't make it fail. I wonder if
it's because I have static addressing?
On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 11:59 PM Christopher Morrow
wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 11:44 PM Lee wrote:
> > It's protocol specific. Windows tracert uses icmp instead of udp.
> >
Also, address validation in web forms is often "stupid".
Imagine a system for a service that disallows PO boxes.
Now imagine the address you're trying to input is on "Post Office Rd"
NOW imagine trying to explain that to support.
Their solution was to submit a paper form.
My solution was to input "
>From what I can see, 31334 is sending prefixes covering this IP to
upstreams 1273 and 6939 (possibly others, but that's what I saw). Neither
of these networks propagate those prefixes into 7018 directly or indirectly
so we have no path to get there. I would encourage 31334 to check with
their up
Please provide source and destination.
On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 12:22 PM Gavin Henry wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> For a while now (11 days) we've been trying to reach ATT as it some of
> our traffic is dying within their network. It's traffic destined for
> their customer networks so we can't raise a tic
We're not accepting the route from our peers due to the AS-SET in the path:
174 199659 {65002}, (aggregated by 199659 10.10.10.3), (received-only)
2914 199659 {65002}, (aggregated by 199659 10.10.10.1), (received-only)
On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 12:35 PM Gavin Henry wrote:
> Hi Nimrod,
>
> So
11 matches
Mail list logo
