On Mar 19, 2013 8:26 PM, "David Conrad" wrote:
>
> Leo,
>
> On Mar 19, 2013, at 11:57 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> > In a message written on Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 11:33:33AM -0700, David
Conrad wrote:
> >> LISP doesn't replace BGP. It merely adds a layer of indirection so you
don't have to propagate
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 12:06 PM, George Herbert
wrote:
> It is (or was) fairly commonly in use among internal nets which
> overflowed RFC 1918 or have to internetwork with other heavy users of
> RFC 1918 space. I know of at least two service providers and one cell
> network who were using it for
Heather,
I see the same thing from my arpnetworks vps
[cbyrne@chair6 ~]$ traceroute6 www.google.com
traceroute6 to www.google.com (2404:6800:4003:801::1010) from
2607:f2f8:a8e0::2, 64 hops max, 12 byte packets
1 2607:f2f8:a8e0::1 1.657 ms 0.976 ms 0.750 ms
2 2001:504:13::
On Apr 25, 2013 10:29 PM, "joel jaeggli" wrote:
>
> On 4/25/13 10:16 PM, Matt Palmer wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 07:49:03PM -0700, Michael Thomas wrote:
>>>
>>> On 04/25/2013 07:27 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
AWS stands out as a complete laggard in this area.
>>>
>>> Heh... that's wh
On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 3:08 AM, Brandon Butterworth
wrote:
>> I was at an incentive auction discussion earlier in the week where it
>> was suggested that the broadcasters see a rosy future with ATSC
>> beaming to mobile, but there is still work to be done.
>
> They might wish, after many years the
d to be a lte tv.. Lightsquared is
> about to be murdered for breaking the Gps and dish will take over as largest
> provider in the US. Now taking bets.
>
>
> Sent from my Mobile Device.
>
>
>
> Original message
> From: "cb.list6"
>
On Jun 10, 2013 7:50 PM, "Jayram A. Deshpande" wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
>
> With IPv4 being almost exhausted[1] , I am curious to know how many net
admins have the Bogon filtering ACLs still hanging around ?
>
No bogon filters here. Retiring bogon filters is great, one less process to
maintain.
> G
On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 8:35 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
> i wonder if and how many governments are worried about when the nsa
> tells cisco to send the kill switch signal to their routers.
>
> randy
>
What kill switch ?
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/csa/cisco-sa-20090325-udp.html
http://tools.
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 8:00 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
>
> On Jun 28, 2013, at 5:24 PM, Octavio Alvarez
> wrote:
>
>> That's the point exactly. Google has more power and popularity to
>> influence adoption of a protocol, just like with SPDY and QUIC.
>
> This is the main reason why I'm very suppor
On Sep 5, 2013 3:34 PM, "Jay Ashworth" wrote:
>
> Does anybody know if the program has been ported, or re-created there?
>
> I have searched the market, but not found anything... at least nothing
whose description includes the letters mtr.
> - jra
Mtr is here http://dan.drown.org/android/pkg/
CB
On Dec 4, 2013 11:31 PM, "Warren Bailey" <
wbai...@satelliteintelligencegroup.com> wrote:
>
> Blanket reply.. :)
>
> So at what point does unlimited mean unlimited? Roaming agreements have
always been two sided. In my case.. I roam on to AT&T's network, the same
as AT&T folk roam into tmo when they
On Dec 6, 2013 5:16 PM, "Michael Thomas" wrote:
>
> On 12/06/2013 05:54 AM, Mark Radabaugh wrote:
>>
>>
>> I realize most of the NANOG operators are not running end user networks
anymore. Real consumption data:
>>
>> Monthly_GBCountPercent
>> <100GB 3658 90%
>> 100-149
On Dec 10, 2013 2:32 PM, "Geraint Jones" wrote:
>
> On 11/12/13 10:13 am, "Alex White-Robinson" wrote:
>
>
> >Wotcha,
> >
> >>Number 1 gets you thinking along the IPv6 route (no pun, and imho :) )
> >>since you have to treat each boxes as if it was public.
> >
> >I see this kind of statement surp
On Dec 11, 2013 5:45 PM, "Larry Sheldon" wrote:
>
> On 12/11/2013 9:21 AM, Tim Franklin wrote:
>>>
>>> Just because something is public doesn¹t mean you have to accept
>>> ALL traffic, it just means you have to anticipate any potential
>>> problems based on Larry knowing your address rather than i
On Aug 2, 2013 10:31 AM, wrote:
>
> I’m curious to know what other service providers are doing to
alleviate/prevent ddos attacks from happening in your network. Are you
completely reactive and block as many addresses as possible or null0
traffic to the effected host until it stops or do you block
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 5:03 PM, Jon Lewis wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Dec 2013 valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
>
> On Wed, 18 Dec 2013 15:12:28 -0800, "cb.list6" said:
>>
>> I am strongly considering having my upstreams to simply rate limit ipv4
>>> UDP. It is
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 8:18 AM, Edward Lewis wrote:
> On Dec 18, 2013, at 18:12, cb.list6 wrote:
>
> > I am strongly considering having my upstreams to simply rate limit ipv4
> > UDP. It is the simplest solution that is proactive.
>
>
> Recently it's been sai
On Dec 19, 2013 4:25 PM, "Dobbins, Roland" wrote:
>
>
> On Dec 19, 2013, at 6:12 AM, cb.list6 wrote:
>
> > I am strongly considering having my upstreams to simply rate limit ipv4
UDP.
>
> QoS is a very poor mechanism for remediating DDoS attacks. It ensur
On Dec 30, 2013 9:01 AM, "Saku Ytti" wrote:
>
> On (2013-12-30 08:49 -0500), Christopher Morrow wrote:
>
> > Nor accounting...
>
> I think this is probably sufficient justification for TACACS+. I'm not
sure if
> command authorization is sufficient, as you can deliver group via radius
which
> maps
19 matches
Mail list logo