Are you ready for RPKI in your network?
While there's some dubious hyperbole in the article, the work that has been
undertaken in SIDR wg re: RPKI is moving along.
http://www.networkworld.com/cgi-bin/mailto/x.cgi?pagetosend=/news/2010/120710-chinese-internet-traffic-fix.html&pagename=/news/201
On Dec 12, 2010, at 12:05 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> verizon's ddos service was/is 3250/month flat... not extra if there
> was some sort of incident, and completely self-service for the
> customer(s). Is 3250/month a reasonable insurance against loss?
> (40k/yr or there abouts)
Or just buy
On Dec 13, 2010, at 11:15 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
> On 12/13/2010 8:32 AM, Jared Mauch wrote:
>> Or just buy a gig-e from cogent at 3$/meg/mo (or is it $4 this
>> month?) to burn for ddos.
>>
> *cough* 10G burstable with 1-2G commit. Still cheaper than anything else
>
On Dec 14, 2010, at 6:59 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
> I just see this as a natural progression of what happens of a single
> player with a captive audience due to mergers and attrition. They know
> their customers aren't going anywhere. The only way to "fix" it would be
> to go back to the days whe
On Dec 15, 2010, at 10:09 AM, ML wrote:
>
>> According to:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comcast
>> "Comcast has 15.930 million high-speed internet customers"
>>
>> If a 10G port for transit is paid by comcast $30/Mbit/s monthly
>> that's 0.19 cent/internet customer/month for a new 10G port
>
On Dec 16, 2010, at 1:16 AM, JC Dill wrote:
> On 15/12/10 9:29 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
>>
>> The underlying problem, of course, is lack of usable last-mile competition;
>
> I agree.
>
>> see also my running rant about Verizon-inspired state laws *forbidding*
>> municipalities to charter monopo
On Dec 16, 2010, at 9:51 AM, Craig L Uebringer wrote:
>
> This is why I suggested it might take regulatory action, or changes in state
> laws.
>
> Also engage locality first, as Jared indicates. The problem in going to the
> fed is that power
> will be skewed to the larger entities. Competiti
On Dec 16, 2010, at 1:37 PM, Paul Stewart wrote:
> Pardon my ignorance here but what does Comcast do for the NANOG community?
> I know they attend many conferences and share their experiences with a lot
> of us which is very much appreciated...
I'm sure the concern is that Comcast signed up to r
On Dec 16, 2010, at 2:24 PM, Nathan Eisenberg wrote:
> The idea of buying colocation from a last-mile ISP to reduce that last-mile
> ISP's costs seems (at first glance) to be a hysterically unfair proposition -
> though it seems that incumbent ISPs may have great enough leverage to extract
> t
Someone seems to have leaked this out, with the following data within the bgp
update:
Unknown BGP attribute 92 (flags: 234)
Hexdump start---
DD 78 FF 71
Hexdump end
Not sure what prefix this was related to yet, but if you saw your BGP drop, it
could be related to improper handling of this
I faced a similar challenge. If you have line of sight to something, you can do
fixed wireless for maybe 200-400 depending on the gear and frequencies
involved. Check out the ubnt 365 or m5 gear. Cheap as in disposable. Works
quite well. Then order a Comcast business connection there and call it
Maybe this is a good place to start..
http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/compare/
- Jared
On Dec 21, 2010, at 11:32 AM, Frank Bulk wrote:
> A week or more ago someone posted in NANOG or elsewhere a site that had made
> a comparison of the IPv6 BGP table sizes of different operators (i.e. HE,
> Coge
Not sure what route-server you are speaking of, but a quick peek at what we
send on a customer session I see:
NTT (2914) sends 3868 prefixes.
If the route server contacts me in private, we can likely set up a view from
2914 or 2914-customer perspective.
- Jared
On Dec 21, 2010, at 5:18 PM, Fr
On Dec 22, 2010, at 6:59 AM, Pekka Savola wrote:
> This would provide statistics and might be useful from historical POV, but I
> fear the operational impact of published IPv4 Routing Table reports is close
> to zero. (E.g. 'does it help in making people stop advertising unnecessary
> more-spe
t the stations is low enough
it's not worth it to have generators. Best off having the pipeline next to you
and to use natural gas/propane if your needs can be easily met by it.
Jared Mauch
On Dec 23, 2010, at 1:09 PM, "George Bonser" wrote:
>>
>> A 75% upsell ra
You should contact the us-cert. They will have contacts to help you resolve the
issue.
Sent from my iThing
On Dec 28, 2010, at 7:39 PM, Richard Laager wrote:
> I'm looking for a DNS contact for medicare.gov (and cms.gov). They are
> failing DNSSEC validation.
>
> Emails to hostmaster, webmas
On Dec 29, 2010, at 11:24 AM, Josh Smith wrote:
> While certainly not the best stuff made I've found the ubiquiti
> equipment to be very nice for the price and have a few of their AP's
> which have been in service 24x7 for a couple of years now.
Same here.
The price performance is hard (impossi
On Jan 5, 2011, at 12:15 PM, Jay Coley wrote:
> On 05/01/2011 17:09, Craig Pierantozzi wrote:
>> On Jan 5, 2011, at 9:26 AM, Jon Lewis wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> Can anyone from Level3 say how this will impact customer BGP filters. Will
>>> L3 keep working with the last data sync they got from
On Jan 7, 2011, at 5:44 AM, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
>
> On Jan 7, 2011, at 4:02 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>> No, it hasn't always been a Bad Idea.
>
> Yes, it has. There're lots of issues with embedding IP addresses directly
> into apps and so forth which have nothing to do with NAT.
Let me
On Jan 10, 2011, at 10:31 AM, Brandon Kim wrote:
>
> Hello gents:
>
> I wanted to put this out there for all of you. Our network consists of a
> mixture of Cisco and Extreme equipment.
>
> Would you say that it's fair to say that if you are serious at all about
> being a service provider tha
On Jan 12, 2011, at 7:13 PM, Lars Carter wrote:
> Hi NANOG list,
>
> I have a simple, hypothetical question regarding preferred connectivity
> methods for you guys that I would like to get the hive mind opinion about.
>
>
> There are two companies, Company A and Company B ... [ trimmed, but th
On Jan 19, 2011, at 9:04 PM, Thomas Magill wrote:
> Previous conversations made me decide this would be fun to do so I ignored
> all my real work today and made it happen.
>
> I built a TCL script that can be mapped to an alias ("alias exec updatedrop
> tclsh updatedrop.tcl") that will connect
I suggest doing something like:
dig +trace -x 204.42.254.5
You can watch the delegation authority for the in-addr at each stage.
- Jared
On Jan 25, 2011, at 9:30 AM, Caleb Tennis wrote:
> We have a /24 from one of our upstream providers that we handoff to a
> customer. The /24 has been SWIPd
On Jan 27, 2011, at 2:53 AM, Antonio Querubin wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Jan 2011, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>> It's actually pretty well known and it is documented in several places in
>> plain
>> sight.
>
> Where?
>
> A search for IPV6_V6ONLY in the FreeBSD Handbook yields nothing. You'd think
> the
On Jan 26, 2011, at 8:33 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> I'd like to see IPv4 go away in ~3 years. Any faster would be too traumatic.
> I think 6 years is a perfectly reasonable time frame. I think if it takes 11
> years
> it will be because of significant foot-dragging by some key organizations.
> I'm
On Jan 27, 2011, at 10:04 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On Jan 27, 2011, at 6:49 AM, Jared Mauch wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jan 26, 2011, at 8:33 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
>>> I'd like to see IPv4 go away in ~3 years. Any faster would be too traumatic.
>>&
On Jan 27, 2011, at 12:59 PM, Jorge Amodio wrote:
>> http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/01/26/internet-run-ip-addresses-happens-anyones-guess/
>
> "It's the end of the web as we know it. " We are doomed !!
>
> Glad to know that, since a large percentage of it suxs.
>
> Can we go back to the f
I have seen nation state disconnects where light is lost.
Jared Mauch
On Jan 28, 2011, at 11:17 AM, Christopher Morrow
wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 2:44 AM, Jake Khuon wrote:
>
>> I guess this begs the question of whether or not we're seeing actual
>> layer1
oes not preclude the US Government from disconnecting *its* enterprise
networks, as has happened with Bureau of Indian Affairs in the past, etc...)
- Jared Mauch
62-0060
> w) http://www.comcast6.net
> =====
>
>
>
--
Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from ja...@puck.nether.net
clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine.
On Jan 31, 2011, at 3:11 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
>> I understand this is by design, but I can imagine some operators will be
>> reluctant to actually drop routes when they start testing RPKI deployments
>> in their networks.
>
> yes, but what is the way forward?
RPKI in my IPv6? :)
Someo
On Feb 1, 2011, at 9:50 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
> On 1/31/2011 10:29 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> 1. Layering NAT beyond 2 deep (one provider, one subscriber)
>> doesn't help.
> yep
>>
>> 2. NAT444 will break lots of things that work in current NAT44.
>>
> To be hone
On Jan 26, 2014, at 12:47 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> something like 6 years ago, and couldn't get any traction on it then;
> I'm not sure I think much has changed -- apparently, extracting your
> BP thoughts from mailing list postings and putting them into a wiki is
> more effort than most NANOG
On Jan 28, 2014, at 1:50 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Jan 2014 08:06:31 -0500, Jared Mauch said:
>
>> 52731 ASN7922
>
>> It includes IP address where you send a DNS packet to it and another IP
>> address responds to the query, e.g.:
>
>>
On Jan 28, 2014, at 2:46 PM, David Miller wrote:
>
>
> On 1/28/2014 2:16 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:
>>
>> On Jan 28, 2014, at 1:50 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 28 Jan 2014 08:06:31 -0500, Jared Mauch said:
>>>
>>>>
On Jan 28, 2014, at 2:57 PM, Nick Olsen wrote:
> Agreed.
>
> Our's listed for AS36295 are two customers, Which I know for a fact have
> their default route set out of a GRE tunnel interface. So while we hand them
> the request to their interface IP we've assigned them. The response is
> actu
On Jan 28, 2014, at 4:07 PM, Nick Olsen wrote:
> While I see what you're saying. It's still not "Spoofed".
>
> The device in question receives the request. And then generates a response
> with the src address of the egress interface of the device dst to the IP and
> port that requested it...
On Jan 28, 2014, at 2:16 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:
>
> On Jan 28, 2014, at 1:50 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 28 Jan 2014 08:06:31 -0500, Jared Mauch said:
>>
>>> 52731 ASN7922
>>
>>> It includes IP address where you send a
On Jan 29, 2014, at 12:35 PM, Philip Lavine wrote:
> Is it best practice to have the internet facing BGP router's peering ip (or
> for that matter any key gateway or security appliance) use a statically
> configured address or use EUI-64 auto config?
>
> I have seen comments on both sides a
On Jan 30, 2014, at 12:17 AM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> Or you could just accept that there needs to be more routing slots
> as the number of businesses on the net increases. I can see some
> interesting anti-cartel law suits happening if ISP's refuse to
> accept /28's from this block.
i suspect i
On Feb 1, 2014, at 4:05 PM, Phil Bedard wrote:
> As for 10GBase-T in a transceiver, I haven't seen that on anyone's
> roadmap. It will probably come eventually but not for awhile.
It must exist, as there is this:
http://store.apple.com/us/product/HC294LL/A/atto-thunderlink-nt1102-thunderbolt-
On Feb 3, 2014, at 12:45 AM, Michael DeMan wrote:
> The recently publicized mechanism to leverage NTP servers for amplified DoS
> attacks is seriously effective.
> I had a friend who had a local ISP affected by this Thursday and also another
> case where just two asterisk servers saturated a 1
On Feb 3, 2014, at 1:59 PM, Octavio Alvarez wrote:
> On 02/03/2014 05:33 AM, Ammar Salih wrote:
>> Hello NANOG list members,
>>
>> I have a question for you, are you happy with the current network
>> diagnostic tools, like ping, trace route .. etc,
>
> What tools are you referring to by "..."?
On Feb 3, 2014, at 3:29 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
>>> It seems thata hosts sending large amounts of NTP traffic over the
>>> public Internet can be safely filtered if you don't already know that
>>> it's one of the handful that's in the ntp.org pools or another well
>>> known NTP master.
>>
>>
On Feb 4, 2014, at 11:04 AM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 5:17 PM, Cb B wrote:
>> And, i agree bcp38 would help but that was published 14 years ago.
>
> Howdy,
>
> If just three of the transit-free networks rewrote their peering
> contracts such that there was a $10k per day
> On Feb 4, 2014, at 11:52 AM, William Herrin wrote:
>
>
>
>> Those that are up in arms about this stuff seem to not be the ones asking
>> the vendors for features and fixes.
>
> Like I said, the "tier 1's" can't be the source of the solution until
> they stop being part of the problem.
Thi
Please let us know your results.
Jared Mauch
> On Feb 4, 2014, at 1:55 PM, William Herrin wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 1:03 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:
>>>> On Feb 4, 2014, at 11:52 AM, William Herrin wrote:
>>>> Those that are up in arms about this stu
On Feb 5, 2014, at 8:52 AM, Jeffrey Haas wrote:
>> This draft does not cater for the use case of describing a 32-bit ASN peering
>> with a 32-bit route server, which would require a 4-byte Global Administrator
>> as well as a 4-byte Local Administrator sub-field.
>
> I think that's the first cl
On Feb 5, 2014, at 9:21 AM, Jeffrey Haas wrote:
> The wide comms draft (and flex comms, where some of the ideas were pulled in
> from) was intended to address the messier case where the meaning of a
> community was already structured. To pick on one of the items in the list:
> http://www.onesc.
On Feb 5, 2014, at 3:35 AM, Saku Ytti wrote:
> If what you say was actual reason, it could be solved by logging ACL.
>
> We the community, could produce tooling to automate this in few popular
> platforms. Automatically builds the ACL, web interface for humans to classify
> the logged/unknown.
On Feb 7, 2014, at 10:56 AM, Matthew Huff wrote:
> Working in the financial world, the best practices is to have 4 ntp servers
> (if not using PTP).
>
> 1) You need 3 to determine the correct time (and detect bad tickers)
> 2) If you lose 1 of the 3 above, then you no longer can determine the
On Feb 13, 2014, at 12:06 PM, Cb B wrote:
> Good write up, includes name and shame for AT&T Wireless, IIJ, OVH,
> DTAG and others
>
> http://blog.cloudflare.com/technical-details-behind-a-400gbps-ntp-amplification-ddos-attack
>
> Standard plug for http://openntpproject.org/ and
> http://openre
On Feb 13, 2014, at 1:47 PM, John wrote:
> On 02/13/2014 10:06 AM, Cb B wrote:
>> Good write up, includes name and shame for AT&T Wireless, IIJ, OVH,
>> DTAG and others
>>
>> http://blog.cloudflare.com/technical-details-behind-a-400gbps-ntp-amplification-ddos-attack
>>
>> Standard plug for htt
So, be careful as the Juniper solution varies depending on the platform
involved.
Make sure you check your devices. It took a few iterations for us to get the
right filters on everything.
- Jared
On Feb 17, 2014, at 12:26 AM, Yucong Sun wrote:
> Just for the reference, here is a more comple
On Feb 18, 2014, at 1:40 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> Barry is a well respected security researcher. I'm surprised he posted this.
>
> In his defense, he did it over a year ago (June 11, 2012). Maybe we should
> ask him about it. I'll do that now
I'm not surprised in any regard. There
On Feb 18, 2014, at 2:44 PM, Eric J Esslinger wrote:
> I've talked to HP and Cisco and neither side will commit to any kind of
> answer to this question, so I thought I'd ask it here:
> Does anyone know if a Cisco switch equipped with a 1000BASE-BX10-D SFP will
> connect to an HP switch equipp
On Feb 20, 2014, at 4:08 AM, shawn wilson wrote:
> A while ago I got Comcast's business service. Semi-idle connections
> are get dropped (I haven't really diagnosed this - I just no that it
> isn't the client or server but some network in between). However the
> second and most obvious issue is
On Feb 20, 2014, at 11:34 AM, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
>
> On Feb 20, 2014, at 11:23 PM, Brian Rak wrote:
>
>> That's not a new term.
>
> It isn't used by folks involved in operational security. It's a marketing
> term.
>
I'll split the difference, folks in operational security dislike the
On Feb 20, 2014, at 3:51 PM, John Weekes wrote:
> On 2/20/2014 12:41 PM, Edward Roels wrote:
>> Curious if anyone else thinks filtering out NTP packets above a certain
>> packet size is a good or terrible idea.
>>
>> From my brief testing it seems 90 bytes for IPv4 and 110 bytes for IPv6 are
>>
I was seeing database connect errors earlier. I suspect the host resources are
limited.
Jared Mauch
> On Feb 20, 2014, at 7:05 PM, "Mr. James W. Laferriere"
> wrote:
>
>Hello Harlen ,
>
>> On Wed, 19 Feb 2014, Harlan Stenn wrote:
>> Folks,
>>
On Feb 21, 2014, at 5:08 PM, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
> Hi
>
> The following would probably be illegal so do not actually do this. But
> what if... there are just 4 billion IPv4 addresses. Scanning that
> address-space for open NTP is trivially done in a few hours. Abusing these
> servers for ref
On Feb 26, 2014, at 5:33 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Feb 2014 11:44:55 -0600, Brandon Galbraith said:
>
>> Blocking chargen at the edge doesn't seem to be outside of the realm of
>> possibilities.
>
> What systems are (a) still have chargen enabled and (b) common enough to m
I've had problems with DTMF originating from comcast voice in the past (going
into t1/pri from xo terminated on Cisco-ISR with voice modules).
Was a pain to troubleshoot. I would be interested to hear your results, much
depends on how they implement the service.
- Jared
> On Feb 28, 2014, at
No issues for me over IPv6 on Comcast.
Perhaps some local network issue? Any reported issues if you try to visit
http://www.test-ipv6.com/ ?
- Jared
On Mar 17, 2014, at 2:55 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
> Windows 8 running Google Chrome as the browser.
>
> Matthew Kaufman
>
> On 3/17/2014 11
; without issue from nearly all the probes.
JSON link as well:
https://atlas.ripe.net/api/v1/measurement/1584700/result/
- Jared
On Mar 17, 2014, at 3:35 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:
> No issues for me over IPv6 on Comcast.
>
> Perhaps some local network issue? Any reported issues if
On Mar 21, 2014, at 2:08 PM, Keegan Holley wrote:
> How come no one ever asks if competition is required?
I think the issue here is there is competition, but those you are seen as
competing with are in a different strata providing the same service.
eg: Cellular data competes with DSL/DOCSIS/F
On Mar 21, 2014, at 11:01 AM, Joe Greco wrote:
> Why wouldn't you instead charge for the build out as a NRC and then charge
> for maintenance as a MRC?
I for one would be willing to bear a high NRC start-up cost for someone
building fiber to my home. Not everyone would make that tradeoff. I
On Mar 21, 2014, at 12:22 PM, Joe Greco wrote:
>> On Mar 21, 2014, at 11:01 AM, Joe Greco wrote:
>>> Why wouldn't you instead charge for the build out as a NRC and then =
>> charge=20
>>> for maintenance as a MRC?
>>
>> I for one would be willing to bear a high NRC start-up cost for someone =
On Mar 25, 2014, at 12:53 PM, Bob Evans wrote:
> Like every governing body, it's easy to criticize it. However, if it were
> some big monopoly with giant hidden agendas accomplished behind closed
> doors, I wouldn't see networks like Verizon disappointed at an ARIN
> meeting as their perspective
On Mar 28, 2014, at 3:42 PM, Chip Marshall wrote:
> On 2014-03-28, David Hubbard sent:
>> Has anyone had issues with Level 3 leaking advertisements out their
>> Global Crossing AS3356 for customers of 3549, but not accepting the
>> traffic back? We've been encountering this more and more recen
On Mar 31, 2014, at 10:51 PM, Joe wrote:
> Pardon for the ignorance regarding this. If folks can point me to something
> I may have missed as a participant for over 14 years, to powering this
> Alzheimers.
>
> I received several reports today regarding some scans for udp items from
> shadowserv
On Apr 2, 2014, at 8:38 AM, Mark Allman wrote:
>
> [catching up]
>
>> That's a good question, but I know that during the ongoing survey
>> within the Open Resolver Project [http://openresolverproject.org/],
>> Jared found thousands of CPE devices which responded as resolvers.
>
> Not thousand
You can get 100G-LR4 CFP for ~10k from good vendors. You can get them sub-10k
from china what i'm hearing, but those failure rates are higher..
- Jared
On Apr 21, 2014, at 2:57 PM, Tim Durack wrote:
> As a follow up, I did not miss a zero. TenGig. If you want to know why:
> https://ripe67.rip
Aol doesn't have a lot of mail users for me anymore either, but I don't have a
lot of retail users on my lists.
Jared Mauch
> On Apr 25, 2014, at 11:00 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
>
>
>> On Apr 23, 2014, at 12:45 AM, Grant Ridder wrote:
>>
>> Thought
On May 2, 2014, at 3:44 PM, Deepak Jain wrote:
>
> Between peering routers on a dual-stacked network, is it considered best
> practices to have two BGP sessions (one for v4 and one for v6) between them?
> Or is it better to put v4 in the v6 session or v6 in the v4 session?
We use v4 transpor
I was also going to recommend the EdgeRouter Pro as it has dual SFP ports and
the Vyatta/Linux stuff works quite well.
I suspect you will be very surprised with the quality experience. If you've
not used Vyatta, it's very JunOS-like.
- Jared
On May 5, 2014, at 8:14 PM, Cryptographrix wrote:
On May 6, 2014, at 9:11 PM, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
> On 6 May 2014 15:17, David Conrad wrote:
>> Constantine,
>>
>> On May 6, 2014, at 4:15 PM, Constantine A. Murenin
>> wrote:
Protocol 112 was assigned by IANA for VRRP in 1998.
When did OpenBSD choose to squat on 112?
On May 8, 2014, at 12:19 PM, Nolan Rollo wrote:
> TL;DR: Ubiquiti has good, inexpensive equipment but it might not always be
> ready for production networks or very patient customers. For what you’re
> looking for though no one else can match that price point.
+1
If you have hardware in-hand
On May 13, 2014, at 6:24 PM, Zaid Ali Kahn wrote:
> Case in point on Sprint/Softbank merger
> http://www.theverge.com/2013/3/28/4155714/us-wants-sprint-softbank-deal-to-avoid-chinese-network-equipment/in/3252625
Any such deal would also be subject to CFIUS and mandatory 5-year reviews as
well
Owen,
I've seen a vast difference between Comcast and others in the "marketplace".
Right now, if I had the choice between Comcast and a "legacy" telco, I would
pick Comcast hands-down for:
a) performance
b) IPv6 support
c) willingness to work on issues
- Jared
On May 14, 2014, at 5:14 PM, Mc
On May 15, 2014, at 11:50 AM, McElearney, Kevin
wrote:
> There is no gaming on measurements and disputes are isolated and temporary
> with issues not unique over the history of the internet. I think all the
> same rhetorical quotes continue to be reused
>
Kevin,
in the past most issues we
On May 15, 2014, at 1:11 PM, Jean-Francois Mezei
wrote:
>
> It had been my impression that ONTs, like most other consumer modems,
> came with built-in router capabilities (along with ATA for voice).
>
> The assertion that ONTs have built-in routing capabilities has been
> challenged.
>
> Can
On May 16, 2014, at 4:22 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
> In the US, we just surpassed 1/2 of the population who have that capability,
> iirc. They
> call them phones nowadays.
Many of them have native IPv6 as well, this also hasn't gotten significant
number of legacy/incumbents to deploy yet eith
On May 21, 2014, at 7:17 PM, Ca By wrote:
> Verizon Wireless is at 50% ipv6 penetration
I suspect this would go up significantly if Twitter and Instagram would IPv6
enable their services. Same for pintarest.
Other folks like bit.ly have briefly toyed with IPv6, and with the
helpdesk.test-ip
On May 22, 2014, at 8:04 AM, Livingood, Jason
wrote:
> On 5/21/14, 9:38 PM, "Jared Mauch" wrote:
>
>> On May 21, 2014, at 7:17 PM, Ca By wrote:
>>
>>> Verizon Wireless is at 50% ipv6 penetration
>>
>> I suspect this would go up significan
On May 22, 2014, at 12:51 AM, Beleaguered Admin
wrote:
> Apologies for the non-personal email address, but I don't want to give
> our attacker any additional information than I need to.
>
> I'd be happy to send personal contact/ASN information to any nanog
> admins or regular members of nanog
On May 22, 2014, at 9:14 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>
>
> On Thursday, May 22, 2014, Jared Mauch wrote:
>
> On May 22, 2014, at 8:04 AM, Livingood, Jason
> wrote:
>
> > On 5/21/14, 9:38 PM, "Jared Mauch" wrote:
> >
> >> On May 21
My IPMI (super micro) you can put v6 and v4 filters into for protecting the ip
space from trusted sources. Has my home static ip ranges and a few intermediary
ranges that I also have access to.
> On Jun 2, 2014, at 5:10 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
>
> so how to folk protect yet access ipmi? it is p
The answers you want are:
1) it was not worth the whole list
2) warren wants to hassle me on my birthday at IETF. If you are there, please
do say hello in person.
Everyone else, sorry for the noise and hope you are entertained.
Jared Mauch
> On Jun 4, 2014, at 6:26 PM, "Mr. Queue
I have no issues reaching AKAMAI(weather.gov)
- jared
On Jun 11, 2014, at 10:52 PM, Bryan Tong wrote:
> Im wondering if anyone else is seeing strangeness.
>
> |--|
> | W
If you are still seeing problems can you please contact me with details? I’ve
seen some things done and am looking for confirmation it’s fixed. (or still
broken).
- Jared
On Jun 13, 2014, at 1:48 AM, Bryan Socha wrote:
> The problem we are seeing we had to route around.There is a problem
I think that's a bit harsh. I congratulate them for getting the first step done
in the process of making it available for all customers.
Jared Mauch
> On Jun 17, 2014, at 10:35 AM, "rw...@ropeguru.com" wrote:
>
> Not impressed at all. DO customers have been asking
On Jun 17, 2014, at 11:26 AM, rw...@ropeguru.com wrote:
> I don't think it is harsh when they lead their customers on with no progress.
>
> https://www.digitalocean.com/community/questions/is-ipv6-available
>
> digitalocean.uservoice.com/forums/136585-digital-ocean/suggestions/2639897-ipv6-addr
On Jun 17, 2014, at 12:30 PM, Bryan Seitz wrote:
> Agreed as well. It isn't hard to dual stack, maybe they bought some junk
> gear that has issues in the older datacenters? :)
We all have junk kicking around that we wish we didn't have.
> Howevveeerrr they are also the cheapest thing goi
On Jun 17, 2014, at 5:41 PM, Lee Howard wrote:
>
>
> On 6/17/14 4:20 PM, "Jay Ashworth" wrote:
>
>> Here's what the general public is hearing:
>
> But only while they still have IPv4 addresses:
> ~$ dig arstechnica.com +short
> ~$
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> http://arstechnica.com/information
On Jun 17, 2014, at 7:24 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> In message <32832593.4076.1403046439981.javamail.r...@benjamin.baylink.com>,
> Ja
> y Ashworth writes:
>> - Original Message -
>>> From: "Jared Mauch"
>>
>>> It does ri
On Jun 17, 2014, at 8:46 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> One could make a valid argument that this is no worse than systems with
> misconfigured IPv4 who cannot reach Google at all even if they don't publish
> records because their IPv4 is so badly misconfigured that it doesn't
> work either. I
On Jun 24, 2014, at 2:25 PM, rw...@ropeguru.com wrote:
> It has been one of those days that doing a reverse had not occurred to me to
> try as suggested by another reply. I am seeing about the same on the reverse
> so I am good to go.
Keep in mind that latency isn't the end-all-be-all in measu
On Jun 24, 2014, at 4:37 PM, Chuck Anderson wrote:
> Cheap DIY SFP programmer using a Raspberry Pi:
>
> http://eoinpk.blogspot.com/2014/05/raspberry-pi-and-programming-eeproms-on.html
>
> Software:
>
> https://code.google.com/p/sfppi/
>
> Now we just need some code to brute-force the OEM pas
On Jul 2, 2014, at 1:52 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> People will notice you streaking across a football field. They won't
> pay the slightest attention to what you have to say but they sure will
> notice you. Shall we organize a naked routing run?
No, but how else do you suggest we work to addre
401 - 500 of 1270 matches
Mail list logo
