On Jun 28, 3:35 pm, Cameron Byrne wrote:
>
> AFAIK, Verizon and all the other 4 largest mobile networks in the USA
> have transparent TCP proxies in place.
Do you have a reference for that information? Neither AT&T nor Sprint
seem to have transparent *HTTP* proxies according to
http://www.lag
On Aug 8, 6:24 pm, Jonathon Exley wrote:
> Silly confidentiality notices are usually enforced by silly
> corporate IT departments
Oh, no, it's the *legal* department (or maybe HR) that is to blame. I
actually had a guardhouse lawyer kick and scream about us not putting
disclaimers on our emails
On Sep 22, 12:54 am, PC wrote:
> An optimal solution would be a tiered system where the adjusted price only
> applies to traffic units over the price tier threshold and not retroactively
> to all traffic units.
I have seen a more "optimal" scheme about 15 years ago. Pricing was a
smooth functio
On Dec 1, 11:30 am, Ishmael Rufus wrote:
> Our company is in a building at 200 w. Monroe and we have difficulty
> finding an internet service provider that could at least provide
> 1Mbps+ Upload bandwidth that is not Cogent Communications.
>
> Is it really this difficult finding a decent interne
On Dec 9, 2012, at 2:58 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> reliable tunnel
>
> bzzzt! oxymoron alert!!!
>
Intellectually I want to agree with you, but after some reflection...
We use lots of tunnels at my org - the IPsec variety. A quick non-scientific
query of our monitoring logs reveals that our t
On Feb 9, 2013, at 6:45 AM, fredrik danerklint wrote:
> No. Streaming from services, like Netflix, HBO, etc..., is what's
> coming. We need to prepare for the bandwidth they are going to be
> using.
Then work on your HTTP caching infrastructure. All these services already use a
proprietary fo
Djamel,
If you are looking for a CDN log trace to do academic research work on say,
caching algorithms, please be straightforward about your needs and someone
(including myself) might be able to help.
If your purposes are commercial, asking for free data won't likely get you far.
If you're tr
On Dec 28, 7:10 am, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
> > On the other hand there's also the rule that IPv6 is classless and
> > therefore routing on any prefix length must be supported, although for some
> > implementations forwarding based on > /64 is somewhat less efficient.
>
> Can you please name n
On Dec 28, 8:50 am, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
> It might lead you to believe so - however, I believe this would be
> commercial suicide for hardware forwarding boxes because they would no
> longer be able to handle IPv6 at line rate for prefixes needing more
> than 64 bit lookups. It would also b
On Dec 28, 9:44 am, Ray Soucy wrote:
> For what its worth I haven't stress tested it or anything, but I
> haven't seen any evidence on any of our RSP/SUP 720 boxes that would
> have caused me to think that routing and forwarding isn't being done
> in hardware, and we make liberal use of prefixes
Haven't seen this come through on NANOG yet:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/02/iran-reportedly-blocking-encrypted-internet-traffic.ars
Can anyone with the ability confirm that TCP/443 traffic from Iran has
stopped?
On Feb 10, 12:01 pm, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> OSX at least has a central certificate store (Keychain), although
> it's not up to the tasks of the world I wish to have. Other OS's
> provide no central store, so each application maintains their own
> key store.
Windows has had its own centralized c
On Mar 6, 11:53 am, david peahi wrote:
>
> Why don't you replace the Dell switches with Cisco 3560s, and that way you
> are working with a single implementation of the IEEE 802.1q trunking
> standard? I think the very existence of this email thread proves that much
> time and effort is wasted in
On Mar 12, 10:07 am, "Robert E. Seastrom" wrote:
> It didn't help that there was initially no implementation of shim6
> whatsoever. That later turned into a single prototype implementation
> of shim6 for linux. As much as I tried to keep an open mind about
> shim6, eventually it became clear t
On Mar 13, 2:21 am, Masataka Ohta
wrote:
> William Herrin wrote:
> >>> When I ran the numbers a few years ago, a route had a global cost
> >>> impact in the neighborhood of $8000/year. It's tough to make a case
> >>> that folks who need multihoming's reliability can't afford to put that
> >>> mu
On Mar 13, 2:18 pm, Owen DeLong wrote:
> On Mar 13, 2012, at 6:03 AM, Masataka Ohta wrote:
>
> > Ryan Malayter wrote:
>
> >>> If the number of routes in DFZ is, say, 100, many routers and
> >>> hosts will be default free
>
> >> For quite some t
On Mar 13, 8:03 am, Masataka Ohta
wrote:
> The point of
> http://bill.herrin.us/network/bgpcost.html
> was that routers are more expensive because of bloated routing
> table.
> If you deny it, you must deny its conclusion.
Bill's analysis is quite interesting, but my initial take is that
On Friday, March 16, 2012 2:04:04 PM UTC-5, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
>
> Does anyone know if these crappy dell powerconnect switches (in my case
> a 3448p) have a convenient or at least working way of exporting/backing
> up the configuration to a different place? The only thing I can find is
> us
e
with SunGard (or don't know how).
Thanks for any help,
--
Ryan Malayter
+1 on the freesd-or-linux. with say a Garmin GPS-18x or whatever
timing puck. Have an intern or junior tech tackle it as a learning
exercise. The time geeks on comp.protocols.time.ntp seem to favor
low-power Soekris hardware (http://soekris.com/) for stratum-1s. You
need RS232 serial to get decent
James Downs wrote:
> For Netflix (and all other similar
> services) downtime is money and money is downtime. There is a
> quantifiable cost for customer acquisition and a quantifiable churn
> during each minute of downtime. Mature organizations actually calculate
> and track this. The trick is to e
Jon Lewis wrote:
> It seems like if you're going to outsource your mission critical
> infrastructure to "cloud" you should probably pick at least 2
> unrelated cloud providers and if at all possible, not outsource the
> systems that balance/direct traffic...and if you're really serious
> about it,
On Jul 8, 2012, at 7:27 PM, "steve pirk [egrep]" wrote:
>
> I am pretty sure Netflix and others were "trying to do it right", as they all
> had graceful fail-over to a secondary AWS zone defined.
Having a single company as an infrastructure supplier is not "trying to do it
right" from an eng
"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? Perhaps
> each trade could have a signed GPS tag with the absolute t
From: Voice of the Blind ™ Network Operation
> Hello, is a anycasted Prefix a good idea for Streaming?
Maybe. I've used TCP anycast-based CDNs (CacheFly
and MaxCDN/NetDNA), and they work very well.
I observe they generally work something like this:
1. DNS resolution with long TTLs returning a
From: Leo Bicknell
> Assuming your DHCP servers are properly clustered, simply have your
> routers relay all requests to both servers. Here's instructions
> on setting up ISC DHCPD for redundant (pooled) servers:
> http://www.madboa.com/geek/dhcp-failover/
..
> Works great, no single point of fai
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 9:10 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> The ISC implementation is designed to continue to work with a "split
> brain". I believe the Microsoft solution is as well, but I know
...
> You are incorrect. The ISC implementation divides the free addresses
> between the two servers. Th
Anyone from nanog currently at the wheel of the conference network at
Dreamforce in San Francisco (nearly 7 attendees)?
It appears that all of the suggestions posted to this nanog thread so far
were thoroughly ignored. Conference WiFi is effectively unusable, despite
the very visible, expensiv
On Oct 14, 2012, at 9:02 PM, "Dobbins, Roland" wrote:
>
> Hopefully, you have hardware-based edge devices, not just software-based
> devices and (awful) stateful firewalls - the days of software-based devices
> on the Internet were over years ago.
Software forwarding is usually only a probl
On Oct 29, 2012, at 3:55 PM, "Rutis, Cameron"
>
> 6) large stacks of 3750s (six or more members) have issues around CPU during
> certain SNMP commands (I want to say some sort of getbulk type of command)
>
> The first four were pretty minor although #3 could generate a lot of calls to
> the
On Nov 19, 2012, at 6:12 PM, "Scott Weeks" wrote:
> wbai...@satelliteintelligencegroup.com>
>
> Or you could just concede the fact that the navy is playing with time travel
> again.
> --
>
>
> To finish this thread off for the archives
On Nov 19, 2012, at 6:12 PM, "Scott Weeks" wrote:
> Lesson learned: Use more than one NTP source.
>
The lesson is: use MORE THAN TWO diverse NTP sources.
A man with two watches has no idea what the time it actually is.
On Jun 7, 2013, at 12:25 AM, jamie rishaw wrote:
>
> Just wait until we find out dark and lit private fiber is getting vampired.
>
Speaking from the content provider dide here, but we've always run IPsec on
DCIs and even "private" T1s/DS3s back in the day.
Doesn't everyone do the same thes
On Jun 9, 2013, at 7:20 AM, "R. Benjamin Kessler"
wrote:
> I see that there is actually a beast that will do encryption of multiple 10G
> waves between Cisco ONS boxes -
>
> https://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/optical/ps5724/ps2006/at_a_glance_c45-728015.pdf
>
> How many people are
On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 8:36 AM, Nick Khamis wrote:
> This just got very interesting. Given that we do not own any Microsoft
> products here, and still able to function like any other corporation,
> I am more interested in a "solution that you have more control over"
> secured connections. We curr
On Mar 22, 7:47 pm, Jeff Kell wrote:
> Now getting "We re sorry, the Netflix website and the ability to
> instantly watch movies are both temporarily unavailable." out of Charter.
>
> Campus getting same routed via 1239 209 2906.
>
> Jeff
Guess that move to Amazon EC2 wasn't such a good idea. F
On Apr 13, 2:44 pm, Randy Bush wrote:
> > 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,
>
> and pigs fly
And to think, Google manages to get by with the equivalents of a few /
16 or smaller.
On May 1, 2:29 pm, Jeff Wheeler wrote:
> What it really boils down to is this: if application developers are
> doing their jobs, a given service can be easy and inexpensive to
> distribute to unrelated systems/networks without a huge infrastructure
> expense. If the developers are not, you end
On May 5, 3:51 pm, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> - Original Message -
> > From: "Ryan Malayter"
> > I like to bag on my developers for not knowing anything about the
> > infrastructure, but sometimes you just can't do it right because of
> > physics
We have 45 Mbps from XO in our downtown Chicago location in the financial
district. We have asked for IPv6 every month for a while, and keep hearing
"maybe soon" and not much else. Unfortunately, if we can't get it in that very
competitive and dense market location, I doubt they offer it anywher
40 matches
Mail list logo
