http://www.davidclark.com/
regards
Rick
Try noice-canceling aviation headsets (GA or helicopter models have truly
amazing noise suppression). High-end models come with cellphone
interface. I don't think cellphones will work in many data centers, but I
think rigging interface from a norma
I have to agree with Dan in that even if you disagreed with the talk you
have to agree that it probably spawned relevant discussion and reflection
(both on and off list). I would hate to see a move to ideas and discussions
that are chosen simply for offending the fewest people. Another sort of
simi
kibana/ES infront of any collector
* Solarwinds something something
* Different vendor toolkits
--
hugge
--
Rick Coloccia, Jr.
Network Manager
State University of NY College at Geneseo
1 College Circle, 119 South Hall
Geneseo, NY 14454
V: 585-245-5577
F: 585-245-5579
Without the actual proposal being published for review its hard to know the
specifics but it appears that it prohibits blocking and last mile tinkering
of traffic (#1). What this means to me is ISP's can't block access to a
specific website like alibaba and demand ransom from subscribers to access
>How is this *not* Comcast's problem? If my users are requesting more
traffic than I banked on, how is it not my responsibility to ensure I have
capacity to handle that? I have gear; you have gear. I upgrade or add
ports on my side; you upgrade or add ports on your side. Am I missing
something?
e links.
> Releases around the deal seemed to indicate that the peering was happening
> at IXs (haven't checked this thoroughly), so at that point it would seem
> reasonable for each party to handle their own capacity to the peering
> points and call it even. No?
>
> --
&
10:04 AM, Nick B wrote:
> The current scandal is not about peering, it is last mile ISP double
> dipping.
> Nick
> On Apr 27, 2014 2:05 AM, "Rick Astley" wrote:
>
>> Without the actual proposal being published for review its hard to know
>> the
>> specific
>Isn't this all predicated that our crappy last mile providers continue
with their crappy last mile
If you think prices for residential broadband are bad now if you passed a
law that says all content providers big and small must have settlement free
access to the Internet paid for by residential s
>Double-billing Rick. It's just that simple. Paid peering means you're
>deliberately
billing two customers for the same byte
I think this statement is a little short sighted if not a bit naive. What
both parties are sold is a pipe that carries data. A subscriber has one,
Netfl
;Because you need to reach our customers, and we're the only path to them,
> so we have leverage."
> *blank stare*
> "So you're willing to give your customers crappy service because your
> customers don't have alternate options and you think we need this more than
Security is a layered approach though. I can't recall any server or service
that runs in listening state (and reachable from public address space) that
hasn't had some type of remotely exploitable vulnerability. It's hard to
lean on operating systems and software companies to default services to
of
That was an interesting read but it's not the whole story. Skip to the
TL;DR if you'd like but I'll attempt to explain what happened. What he
isn't saying is the roles of the companies involved have changed over the
last 10 years. Mostly gone are the days that content providers and access
networks
numbers and I think people have been pretty clear in their
objection to metered billing. Metered billing would also probably hurt
content providers more than paid peering would so it's the worst option all
around. I read complaints about the way things are handled all the time and
complaini
.190
Thanks,
Rick
This issue has been cleared up. Thanks to everyone for their help.
-Rick
On Aug 4, 2011, at 12:07 PM, Rick Altmann wrote:
> Is there anyone from AT&T on the list that could help with a likely
> misconfiguration? I have not received any response yet to my complaint (see
> below)
I'd like to help, too, I'm from a TWC business class site with 650 Mbps
bandwidth and still regularly poor performance with YouTube.
-Rick
Sent from my iPhone 4S
On Mar 6, 2013, at 4:10 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 3:34 PM, Randy Car
My whole campus (~1 users) is down... Since roughly 6am. TWC is our
upstream.
--
Sent from my iPhone
> On Aug 27, 2014, at 6:28 AM, Rob Barbeau wrote:
>
> David,
>
> I have a branch office in Syracuse,NY that appears to be down at the moment
> that uses a time warner business connection
ed out.
> 8 *** Request timed out.
> 9 *** Request timed out.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Rick Coloccia
> Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 6:43 AM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
&g
I like the idea of an index better than the proposed numbering scheme.
---
Cheers, Rick
Experiences not things.
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 7:48 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> > On Mar 12, 2015, at 12:01 , Yardiel D. Fuentes
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
t;caveat lector". Comments submitted here have nothing to do
with my employer, however, and are provided only as a help to those that really
don't know that they can and ought to be fully involved and aware of any "taps".
--
Rick Robino
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Either they don't exist, or my Google-fu is particularly bad this morning.
I'm trying to get my toes wet with IPv6. I've established an internal
6to4/4to6 tunnel. I'd also like to have a testbed for access to public v6
sites. I'm also trying to find some clue at my upstreams, but figured I'd
as
Multiple responses of tunnelbroker.net. Couldn't have been any easier to
setup and get going.
Thanks!
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 9:31 AM, Chad Burnham wrote:
> Rick,
>
> I use this one:
>
> http://www.tunnelbroker.net/
>
> Free!
>
> Chad
>
> -Or
Pedantry is not necessarily a bad thing, especially when the student doesn't
know the right questions to ask. :)
6in4 is what I was looking for.
Thanks,
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 6:05 PM, Nathan Ward wrote:
> On 14/07/2009, at 4:23 AM, Rick Ernst wrote:
>
> Either they don&
et some external visibility from
"the other direction"; can I get results against our speedtest server (
http://speedtest.easystreet.com) along with traceroute results and
geographic origin of the test? Note that traceroute won't make it all the
way through due to some RFC addressing and firewall rules.
Thanks,
Rick
have my support staff start pushing back harder with the
problem almost certainly being outside our network and more specifically
isolated to a geographic location and/or set of network destinations.
Rick
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 8:25 AM, Rick Ernst wrote:
>
> Starting about a week a
Cross-posted from cisco-nsp. We are a (mostly) Cisco shop, but I'm looking
more for BCP and overall design, not provisioning specifics.
-
My Cisco bookshelf isn't helping me much with this...
We currently have a single POP with border/core/aggregation topology.
Upstreams each come in on th
Although the implementation is Cisco-specific, this feels more appropriate
for NANOG.
We've started rolling out a state-wide monitoring system based on Cisco's
"IP SLA" feature set. Out of 5 sites deployed so far (different locations,
different providers), we are consistently seeing one-way laten
onstant drift may
be better than both devices trying to walk/correct the time.
Thanks for the input!
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 8:01 PM, Rick Ernst wrote:
> Resent, since I responded from the wrong address:
> ---
> The basic operation of IP SLA is as surmised; payload with timestamps
>
Lots of good info, and a nice mind-dump that gives me a whole host of other
things that need to be looked at... Umm. "thanks" :)
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 11:10 PM, Perry Lorier wrote:
> Rick Ernst wrote:
>
>> Resent, since I responded from the wrong address:
>> ---
entirely of Cisco gear).
Our current aggregate (all providers, in- plus out-bound) bandwidth is
~500Mbs, but projected growth is 1Gbs within the year.
Thanks,
Rick
l help in mitigation, although I'd
be concerned that "Hey, can somebody block traffic {from} or {to}?" would
be an interesting experiment in a socially-engineered DoS.
Finally, there were some suggestions "S/RTBH". RTBH I get, but my
Google-fu is weak on S/RTBH. Details?
f testing sites that can handle higher bandwidth, or
have an ftp host or similar to test against?
I'm connected to Level3, backhauled to Seattle, WA.
Thanks,
Rick
Azher,
Thanks for the link. I don't currently have a Linux box I can stick on
the network, but I'm trying to get one built.
I'm also working with somebody in Seattle for file transfer testing.
Thanks,
Rick
On Wed, March 25, 2009 12:10, Azher Mughal wrote:
> You
Yup. I use iperf for point-to-point testing, but this is an access
connection which is why I'm looking more for some kind of test host on
Level3 in Seattle rather than a "speed test" site per se.
Rick
On Wed, March 25, 2009 12:35, Bill Blackford wrote:
> Rick. The speedtest
Thanks to multiple private/public responses.
I was able to get an iperf test and also a close mirror for a DVD iso.
Time to put live traffic on it and see what happens.
On Wed, March 25, 2009 11:05, Rick Ernst wrote:
>
> Resent from my subscribed address. Hopefully this isn'
If you keep a separate peering/loopback-IP for each peer, you can move
individual peering sessions to other devices if needed.
On Wed, August 27, 2008 05:39, Steve Bertrand wrote:
> Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>
>> The advantage of a separate loopback address is that if you ever have
>> any trou
and work additional mitigation with
upstreams if needed.
I could probably add some automation to my NetFlow/RTBH setup, but I still
need to worry about false-positives. I'd rather somebody else do the hard
work of finding the various edge-cases.
Thanks,
Rick
Several responses already, and Arbor has poked their head up.
I'm going to start there and keep the other suggestions at-hand.
Thanks,
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 1:19 PM, Rick Ernst wrote:
>
> Looking for D/DoS mitigation solutions. I've seen Arbor Networks mentioned
> sev
I'm looking at taking the first whack at immediate mitigation at the
border/edge (upstream) via uRPF and RTBH. Additional mitigation would be
via manual or automatic RTBH or security/abuse@ involvement with upstreams.
Thanks,
Rick
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 8:41 PM, Christopher Morrow
wrote:
&
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 9:08 PM, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
>
> On Jan 5, 2010, at 12:05 PM, Rick Ernst wrote:
>
> >
> > A solution preferably that integrates with NetFlow and RTBH. An in-line
> solution obviously requires an appliance, or at least special/additional
>
st an extension of RTBH; a scrubber
destination rather than Null0) is an understandable state.
Rick
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 9:34 PM, Stefan Fouant wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Rick Ernst [mailto:na...@shreddedmail.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 12:
thing goes wrong, I want my own, local, big-red button."
Rick
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 7:50 AM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 4:19 PM, Rick Ernst wrote:
>
>> Looking for D/DoS mitigation solutions. I've seen Arbor Networks
>> mentioned
>&
in case of trouble.
Am I missing something, overly paranoid, or are there other mechanisms for
outsourced protection?
Rick
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 6:33 AM, Stefan Fouant <
sfou...@shortestpathfirst.net> wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Christopher Morrow [mailt
Right. Some providers allow you to BGP community trigger RTBH. There was a
separate mention of D/DoS-mitigation-providers using DNS and BGP tunneling.
Rick
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 8:14 AM, Stefan Fouant <
sfou...@shortestpathfirst.net> wrote:
> > -Original Message-
&g
might understand what a real penetration expert is
and be so scared as to. just. stop.
*facepalm*
--
Rick Tait
e: ri...@stickam.com
t: 213-915-UNIX
Charles de
Gaulle<http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/c/charles_de_gaulle.html>
- "The better I get to know men, the more
A couple of different incantations searching the archive didn't enlighten
me, and I find it hard to believe this hasn't been discussed. Apologies and
a request for pointers if I'm rehashing an old question.
As a small/regional ISP, we got our /32 assigned and it's time to start
moving forward (cu
/48 down to /54. Any feel for what the "standard" (widely
deployed) IPv6 prefix filter size will be?
Thanks,
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 10:49 PM, Rick Ernst wrote:
>
> A couple of different incantations searching the archive didn't enlighten
> me, and I find it hard to be
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. The bigger pipes seem to favor ethernet
I think most the points made here are valid about why it isn't an easy
problem to solve with multicast.
Lets say for instance they had a multicast stream that sent the most popular
content (which to Randy's point may not cover much) and 48 hours of that
stream was cached locally on the CPE. What is
49 matches
Mail list logo
