On 6/17/12 10:24 , valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 13:10:59 -0400, Arturo Servin said:
>> Wouldn't BCP38 help?
>
> The mail I'm replying to has as the first Received: line:
>
> Received: from ?IPv6:2800:af:ba30:e8cf:d06f:4881:973a:c68?
> ([2800:af:ba30:e8cf:d06f:4881:9
On 6/17/12 13:22 , valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 10:53:52 -0700, Joel jaeggli said:
>> On 6/17/12 10:24 , valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
>
>>> So - who owns 2800:af:ba30:e8cf:4881:973a:c68? And how does an LEO
>>> find that info quickly if
On 6/17/12 16:29 , Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On Jun 17, 2012, at 10:53 AM, Joel jaeggli wrote:
>
>> On 6/17/12 10:24 , valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
>>> On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 13:10:59 -0400, Arturo Servin said:
>>>>Wouldn't BCP38 help?
>>>
>
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 1:35 PM, PC wrote:
> While you're at it, I've been also trying to complain about them using
> RFC1918 (172.16.) address space for the DNS servers they assign to their
> datacard subscribers. Causes all sorts of problems with people trying to
> VPN in as the same IP range
On 6/30/12 12:11 AM, Tyler Haske wrote:
I am not a computer science guy but been around a long time. Data centers
and clouds are like software. Once they reach a certain size, its
impossible to keep the bugs out. You can test and test your heart out and
something will slip by. You can say the
On 7/3/12 01:54 , Wolfgang S. Rupprecht wrote:
>
> Steven Bellovin writes:
>> See
>> http://landslidecoding.blogspot.com/2012/07/linuxs-leap-second-deadlocks.html
>
> Maybe we should stop wrenching the poor system time back and forth. We
> no longer add or subtract daylight savings time (or tim
On 7/3/12 07:51 , valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 07:02:33 -0700, Joel jaeggli said:
>
>> Apps are buggy sounds like a really poor excuse for doing so.
>
> When the published API has been "the system clock is in UTC" for some 3
> decades, I
On 7/4/12 8:48 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Given that we don't seem to be able to eliminate the absurdity of DST,
I doubt that either of those proposals is likely to fly. Owen
Before we had timezones your clock offset was forward or backward 4
minutes every-time you crossed a meridian.
On 7/9/12 00:09 , Aftab Siddiqui wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> As per IPv6 prefixes announced by AS9583 via bgp.he.net -
>> http://bgp.he.net/AS9583#_prefixes6 we can see multiple /64s.
you likely won't see them in your table though.
>>
> The question is why their upstreams are accepting /64? It shouldn't b
On 7/20/12 13:40 , Jared Mauch wrote:
>
> On Jul 20, 2012, at 4:30 PM, Ron Broersma wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jul 20, 2012, at 1:04 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
>>> On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 05:10:41 +1000, Routing Analysis Role Account said:
BGP routing table entries examined:
On 7/18/12 6:24 PM, Andrey Khomyakov wrote:
So some "comments" on the intertubes claim that DoD ok'd use of it's
unadvertized space on private networks. Is there any official reference
that may support this statement that anyone of you have seen out there?
The arpanet prefix(10/8) was returned to
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 8:43 AM, John Kristoff wrote:
> Some UDP applications will use zero as a source port when they do not
> expect a response, which is how many one-way UDP-based apps operate,
> though not all. This behavior is spelled out in the IETF RFC 768:
That would only be applicable
On 7/25/12 13:15 , Tina TSOU wrote:
> Dear all,
> If you know there is any testing or commercial IPv6 only streaming video we
> can access, let me know.
> Thank you.
speaking as a content provider, ipv6-only service requests are misguided.
> Tina
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Artu
On 7/25/12 21:43 , Tina TSOU wrote:
> Dear Joel,
> Who requests IPv6 only service?
you did... check the title of this thread.
> Tina
>
> On Jul 25, 2012, at 8:48 PM, "Joel jaeggli" wrote:
>
>> On 7/25/12 13:15 , Tina TSOU wrote:
>>> Dear all,
>>
ess 74.125.225.38
youtube.com has IPv6 address 2001:4860:b007::5d
> Tina
>
> On Jul 25, 2012, at 9:48 PM, "Joel jaeggli" <mailto:joe...@bogus.com>> wrote:
>
>> On 7/25/12 21:43 , Tina TSOU wrote:
>>> Dear Joel,
>>> Who requests IPv6 on
On 7/30/12 10:57 AM, Steven Noble wrote:
The fix for this issue is trivial. Every new signup should require a sponsor or
a deposit of funds into a new member fund. Once a member has made a relevant
post regarding a NANOG related item their funds are returned.
If someone spams they forfeit the
On 8/4/12 8:44 AM, Mike Jones wrote:
On 4 August 2012 04:07, Frank Bulk wrote:
As someone else posted, many FTTH installations are centralized as much as
possible to avoid having non-passive equipment in the plant, allowing for
the practicality of onsite generators. That's what we do. But for
On 8/5/12 9:19 PM, William Herrin wrote:
On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 10:41 PM, Frank Bulk wrote:
Would I like to have the same uptime
at my home as we have in the CO? or data center? Sure, but collectively we
aren't willing, nay, able, to pay that price.
We paid the price for 3-nines on the home c
On 8/6/12 7:08 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 9:07 AM, William Herrin wrote:
As much as I'd love for
Verizon to offer BGP directly over FIOS there are fewer than 40,000
I'm curious as to your number... where is that from?
sent to your mailbox every week
AS Sum
On 8/8/12 6:52 AM, 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?
Given an uneven distribution of sizes it's kind of hard t
On 8/15/12 6:55 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
While I understand that in the face of IPv4 exhaustion long quarantine
periods are probably no longer a good idea, I think 6 weeks is
shockingly short. I also think to blanket apply the quarantine is
a little short sighted, there are cases that need a long
On 8/15/12 10:24 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
In a message written on Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 08:01:15AM -0700, joel jaeggli
wrote:
Remediation of whatever wrong with a given prefix is an active activity,
it's not likely to go away unless the prefix is advertised.
Actually, that's not t
On 8/15/12 10:28 AM, Robert Glover wrote:
On 08/15/2012 10:16 AM, Anurag Bhatia wrote:
Seems like BGP Play - http://bgplay.routeviews.org/ does not works anymore?
It is not accepting prefixes and gives error to check if prefix is
announced globally or not.
I sent an email to the contacts liste
Can we all just agree that the whole pole needs to be restrung?
That's horrible!
On Aug 20, 2012, at 3:25 PM, Harry Hoffman wrote:
> What? That's totally legit. Look! There's even bubble wrap there for
> cushioning! ;-)
>
> On 08/20/2012 03:09 PM, Eric Wieling wrote:
>> For a while we have had
On 8/22/12 10:50 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
So I would say they've come into posession of a rather undesirable
piece of IP address real-estate, as it were.
The days when undesirability of a given ipv4 unicast prefix would play a
significant role in assignment policy are pretty much coming to a close
On 8/23/12 10:57 AM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
I would really hope that wireless providers are planning for IPv6
instead, although a recent thread about Sprint LTE indicates maybe this
is wishful thinking. I know Verizon is but the single LTE MiFi I have
doesn't do IPv6, but I've seen customers with V
On 8/23/12 2:11 PM, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
Owen DeLong wrote:
AT&T should just be glad there was a /12 for them to get.
That isn't going to be true for much longer.
If you are counting on an IPv4 free pool to run your business next
year, you are making a bad bet.
The 16777214 IP addresses (
On 8/24/12 3:07 PM, Lori Jakab wrote:
On 8/24/2012 11:33 AM, Routing Analysis Role Account wrote:
[...]
Analysis Summary
BGP routing table entries examined: 264582
Isn't this supposed to be >400K? What happened this week?
yes it disagrees with t
On Aug 31, 2012, at 12:27 PM, JC Dill wrote:
> So if you DO decide to test for color vision, make sure you know your rights
> and responsibilities for handling any employee or applicant who fails the
> test.
>
> IANAL - if you have any questions be sure to get advice from an attorney -
> pref
On 9/16/12 9:24 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Gaurab Raj Upadhaya"
So you're *REALLY* motivated on this "reduce the coverage" thing,
then.
you could say yes :), reduce the coverage per-AP. Most APs I have seen
will start failing with about ~100 associations and n
On 9/16/12 9:22 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Mon, 17 Sep 2012, Randy Bush wrote:
and don't bs me with how humongous the v6 address space is. we once
though 32 bits was humongous.
Giving out a /48 to every person on earth uses approximately 2^33
networks, meaning we could cram it into a
On 9/17/12 8:23 AM, Adrian Bool wrote:
Hi Mike,
On 17 Sep 2012, at 16:04, Mike Simkins wrote:
RIPE 552 (I think), allows you to request up to a /29 without additional
justification if needed.
Sure, but you're just tinkering at the edges here.
32-bits would be a more sensible allocation size
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2012/08/how-low-power-can-you-go.html
On 9/17/12 8:16 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
True, but at a price that means this won't occur on very many of earth's many
CM and even if it did, when you subtract the space required for cooling them
and the space requ
On 9/19/12 10:42 AM, Jo Rhett wrote:
And second, have you ever worked on a private intranet that wasn't
connected to the internet through a firewall? Skipping oob networks
for equipment management, neither have I.
Plenty of people on this list have worked on private internet(s) with
real AS num
On 9/20/12 12:09 AM, George Herbert wrote:
On Sep 19, 2012, at 9:58 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
There is still no technical reason that 240/4 cannot be
rehabilitated, other than continued immaterial objections to doing
anything at all with 240/4, and given the rate of IPv6 adoption thus
far, if n
On 9/20/12 9:52 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
I'm quite certain I have a good idea of the magnitude of what you'd
charge for professional services for such work, and I would expect it
to be 2-3 orders of magnitude larger than what a Worldcon Concom could
afford to pay. :-) I would also be very surpri
On 9/21/12 6:40 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
On 2012-09-21 15:31 , Mark Radabaugh wrote:
The part of IPv6 that I am unclear on and have not found much
documentation on is how to run IPv6 only to end users. Anyone care to
point me in the right direction?
Can we assign IPv6 only to end users? What
On 9/27/12 5:58 AM, Darius Jahandarie wrote:
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 8:51 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
http://slashdot.org/topic/datacenter/terabit-ethernet-is-dead-for-now/
Terabit Ethernet is Dead, for Now
I recall 40Gbit/s Ethernet being promoted heavily for similar reasons
as the ones in this a
On 9/30/12 12:05 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
On 9/29/12, Masataka Ohta wrote:
Jared Mauch wrote:
...
The problem is that physical layer of 100GE (with 10*10G) and
10*10GE are identical (if same plug and cable are used both for
100GE and 10*10GE).
Interesting.Well, I would say if there are no
On 10/4/12 7:36 AM, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
On Oct 4, 2012, at 9:26 PM, Sander Steffann wrote:
The closer you get to the edge the more common it might become...
iACLs should be implemented at the network edge to drop all IPv4 and IPv6
traffic - including non-initial fragments - directed toward
On 10/4/12 1:31 AM, Marco Hogewoning wrote:
On Oct 4, 2012, at 12:21 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
IEEE 802 was expected to provide unique numbers for all computers ever built.
Internet was expected to provide unique numbers for all computers actively on
the network.
Obviously, over time, the latte
On 10/4/12 8:15 AM, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
On Oct 4, 2012, at 9:58 PM, joel jaeggli wrote:
Likewise with the acl I have the property that the initial packet has
all the info in it while the fragment does not.
For iACLs, just filter non-initial fragments directed to infrastructure IPs. Cisco
http://bgp.he.net/net/100.100.0.0/24#_bogon
A surprising number of large transit ASes appear to be more than willing
to accept this prefix from AS4847.
I'd be a lot happier if there were fewer.
thanks
joel
On 10/5/12 5:08 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
http://bgp.he.net/net/100.100.0.0/24#_bogon
A surprising number of large transit ASes appear to be more than willing
to accept this prefix from AS4847.
a private address space leak? and propagated. i am deeply shocked.
wtf did people think would happen?
On 10/5/12 8:18 AM, Jared Mauch wrote:
On Oct 5, 2012, at 11:07 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 8:29 AM, joel jaeggli wrote:
by all accounts this has been advertised since 8/24.
space allocated: 2012-03-13
that's 5 months and 11 days too long.
I suspect not eve
On 10/5/12 5:05 PM, jim deleskie wrote:
I know that I should know better then comment on networks others then
my own, ( and I know to never comment on my own publicly :) )
But here goes, 210x the size of normal really? 210% I'd have a hard
time believing. Did anyone else anywhere see a route l
On 10/19/12 10:56 AM, Arturo Servin wrote:
Wait!
Are you suggesting to not use it as intended by RFC6598?
"to
be used as Shared Address Space to accommodate the needs of Carrier-
Grade NAT (CGN) devices. It is anticipated that Service Providers
will use this Shared
Does anyone have a good contact to report outside plant issues in the
Denver, CO area?
Some construction equipment in my neighborhood snagged and snapped a
messenger cable between poles, and probably stretched some copper.
I'd like to make sure that CL actually gets notified and gets it
fixed. My
On 10/17/12 10:59 AM, Darren O'Connor wrote:
I've just set up a vpn tunnel to Amazon's AWS and as part of the config they
required me to configure to /30 tunnels using addressing from the
169.254.0.0/16 space.
RFC3927 basically says that this address should only be used as a temp measure
unti
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 9:18 AM, Mike Jones wrote:
> IPv4 addresses ending in .0 and .255 can't be used either because the
> top and bottom addresses of a subnet are unusable.
>
> Why would hetzner be making such assumptions about what is and is not
> a valid address on a remote network? if you ha
On 11/1/12 2:01 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
There are better ways to avoid neighbor exhaustion attacks unless you have
attackers
inside your network.
All of the migrations are compromises of one sort or another. We thought
this one was important enough to include in an informational status
RFC (6
On 11/7/12 12:13 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Nov 07, 2012, at 00:07 , Jian Gu wrote:
Where did you get the idea that a Moratel customer announced a google-owned
prefix to Moratel and Moratel did not have the proper filters in place?
according to the blog, all google's 4 authoritative DNS
On 11/14/12 2:40 PM, Joe Abley wrote:
On 2012-11-12, at 14:43, Jim Mercer wrote:
Is there a common practice of providers to vet / validate requests to advertise
blocks?
Yes, most providers whose customers request a particular route to be pointed
towards them will ask for ambiguous instructio
On 11/19/12 5:59 AM, Saku Ytti wrote:
What I'm trying to say, I can't see youtube generating anywhere nearly
enough revenue who shift 10% (or more) of Internet. And to explain
this conundrum to myself, I've speculated accounting magic (which I'd
frown upon) and leveraging market position to get
On 11/20/12 9:10 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 11:55 AM, George, Wes wrote:
From: Christopher Morrow [mailto:morrowc.li...@gmail.com]
http://www.theverge.com/2012/11/17/3655442/restoring-verizon-service-m
anhattan-hurricane-sandy
hey lookie! 'free uprades'!
[WEG] Be
On 11/20/12 10:20 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 12:49 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:
On 11/20/2012 12:10 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
it's acutally kinda nice that at least from CO -> building now
there maybe more highspeed links... and maybe lower long term costs?
Be care
On 11/20/12 7:32 AM, Paul Rolland (ポール・ロラン) wrote:
Hello,
On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 10:14:18 +0100
Tomas Podermanski wrote:
It seems that today is a "big day" for IPv6. It is the very first
time when native IPv6 on google statistics
(http://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html) reached
On 11/24/12 8:29 PM, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
On Nov 25, 2012, at 10:09 AM, joel jaeggli wrote:
from goeff huston's data they have more v6 at home.
And not purposely, either - because it's enabled by default on recent client
OSes. My guess is that a non-trivial fraction of obs
On 8/13/14 8:55 AM, Paul Ferguson wrote:
> Apologies for replying to my own post, but... below:
>
> On 8/13/2014 7:05 AM, Paul Ferguson wrote:
>
>
>> p.s. I recall some IPv6 prefix growth routing projections by Vince
>> Fuller and Tony Li from several years ago which illustrated this,
>> but ca
On 9/18/14 1:19 PM, Job Snijders wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 03:12:29PM -0400, Daniel Corbe wrote:
>
>>> a) you're paying less, as you're not receiving the traffic
>>
>> This ventures into the realm of an operator doing something responsible
>> to protect me vs routing me unwanted traffic and
On 9/18/14 11:06 AM, John Kristoff wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 13:53:52 -0400
> Daniel Corbe wrote:
>
>> Is there anything in the air about widening the adoption base? Cisco?
>> Brocade?
>
> I've seen some suggesting that increased support, but even at Juniper,
> actions seem to speak larger t
> On Sep 20, 2014, at 10:37, Bacon Zombie wrote:
>
> So when was the last time you patched this internet facing device?
Sunday sept 4 2005?
Seems like a good run. If it hasn't been rooted or fallen over since then it's
apparently pretty secure...
> On Sep 20, 2014 7:12 PM, "Matthew S. Crock
On 10/3/14 6:01 PM, John Schiel wrote:
>
> On 10/03/2014 03:23 PM, Keenan Tims wrote:
>>> The question here is what is authorized and what is not. Was this to
>>> protect their network from rogues, or protect revenue from captive
>>> customers.
>> I can't imagine that any 'AP-squashing' packets a
On 10/3/14 7:12 PM, Wayne E Bouchard wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 02:23:46PM -0700, Keenan Tims wrote:
>>> The question here is what is authorized and what is not. Was this to
>>> protect their network from rogues, or protect revenue from captive
>>> customers.
>>
>> I can't imagine that a
On 10/8/14 1:29 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
> On 10/8/2014 08:47, William Herrin wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:42 AM, Roy wrote:
>>> On 10/7/2014 10:35 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
On 10/7/2014 23:44, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Oct 2014 23:10:15 -0500, Larry Sheldon said:
>
On 10/8/14 7:35 PM, Brandon Wade wrote:
>
>
>>> For a newbie, how does one go about learning the basic's of IRRd.
>
> That pretty much sums it up. I feel like I'm stuck reading RFC's that are too
> overly complex for something that seems like it shouldn't be complex. Anyone
> know of a
> quic
On 10/9/14 8:45 AM, TJ wrote:
>> On Thu, 2014-10-09 at 10:22 -0400, Daniel Corbe wrote:
>>> Has anyone successfully gotten a RIR to assign anything bigger than a
>>> /32? I seem to recall in recent history someone tried to obtain a /31
>>> through ARIN and got smacked down.
>>
>>
> Yes; ISTR sever
On 10/9/14 10:35 AM, ryanL wrote:
> you may remember me from the weird cogent route retention / loop
> problem i brought up last week. it remains unsolved by cogent to date.
>
> also remembering i'm a relatively new cogent customer, i recently
> noticed some packets floating into my network that h
On 10/12/14 3:00 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 1:41 AM, Faisal Imtiaz
> wrote:
>> A follow up question on this topic..
>>
>> For Router Loopback Address what is wisdom in allocating a /64 vs /128 ?
>> (the BCOP document suggests this, but does not offer any explanation
On 10/22/14 9:29 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
> On 10/22/2014 23:02, Jim Mercer wrote:
>
>> if reducing boot time from 20 minutes down to 1 minute, in a server
>> environment,
>> is a serious issue for you, maybe you should be looking at why you
>> need to
>> reboot so often?
>
>
> That is the quest
On 10/27/14 9:27 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> There are boxes that do that, but it’s really not a good solution… Here’s why:
>
> 1.TV signals in NTSC max out at 640x480. In ATSC, you get up to 1920x1080.
> Many monitors today are capable of 2560x1440 or more.
>
> 2.It’s expensive and ha
You might look at your local community college's offerings. Probably
better bang for the buck than many other offerings.
On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Colton Conor
wrote:
> We have a couple of techs that want to learn cisco and networking in
> general. What do you recommend for learning and
looks about right in the neighborhood of 9k miles...
from lax or therebouts.
Upstream Intf Nexthop Sent LossMinAvg
MaxDev
cogentx x 10 0.0%194.814
210.255240.989
16.518
comcast x
On 11/8/14 6:28 PM, Roland Dobbins wrote:
>
> On 9 Nov 2014, at 8:59, Frank Bulk wrote:
>
>> I've written it before: if there was a software feature in routers
>> where I
>> could specify the maximum rate any prefix size (up to /32) could receive,
>> that would be very helpful.
>
> QoS generally
On 11/8/14 1:02 PM, Frank Bulk wrote:
> The Google angle is also being discussed on outages. Initial suspicions are
> PTB packets not flowing through tunneled connections.
you can also have problems in the other direction e.g. if your tunnel
ingress sends a ptb towards a load balanced service it
ftdi chipsets work on both mac and windows devices.
http://www.amazon.com/Serial-Console-Rollover-Cable-Routers/dp/B00M2SAKMG/ref=sr_1_16?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1415653377&sr=1-16&keywords=ftdi+serial
On 11/10/14 10:39 AM, Max Clark wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> DB9 ports seem to be a nearly extinct f
On 11/12/14 11:16 AM, james jones wrote:
> I am current going through some vendor selection for tier 1 providers. I
> was trying get some opinions on Zayo. I have personally never heard of
> them. Thoughts?
Think abovenet...
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On 11/19/14 12:40 PM, Justin Wilson wrote:
> I am looking at an order for a well known upstream provider. They are
> handing me a circuit at a data center. The contract reads if we use more
> than 50% of the outbound the price gets re-priced and almost doubles. How
> many folks have ran into th
described.
> Justin
>
>
> --
> Justin Wilson
> http://www.mtin.net <http://www.mtin.net/blog>
> Managed Services xISP Solutions Data Centers
> http://www.thebrotherswisp.com
> Podcast about xISP topics
> http://www.midwest-ix.com
> Peering Transit Internet Excha
On 11/21/14 1:07 AM, Mark Tinka wrote:
> On Friday, November 21, 2014 12:00:47 AM Curtis L. Parish
> wrote:
>
>> We have recently added a second ISP (third if you count
>> I2). Our first "ISP" is actually a private state
>> network that peers with two Tier 1 providers. We own an
>> AS number a
I don't see this in my home market, but I do see it in someone else's...
I kind of expect this for port 25 but...
J@mb-aye:~$telnet 147.28.0.81 587
Trying 147.28.0.81...
Connected to nagasaki.bogus.com.
Escape character is '^]'.
220 nagasaki.bogus.com ESMTP Sendmail 8.14.9/8.14.9; Thu, 27 Nov 2014
On 11/29/14 6:32 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 3:09 PM, John Levine wrote:
>> In article
>> you
>> write:
>>> backing up a bit in the conversation, perhaps this is just in some
>>> regions of comcastlandia? I don't see this in Northern Virginia...
>>
>> I don't see it
On 11/24/14 8:58 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 11/23/2014 11:20 AM, joel jaeggli wrote:
>> Their grasp of load-balancing seems a
>> bit shallow also.
>
>
> Are there discussion/guidance papers that one can point to, to improve
> the depth of understanding, or at lea
On 12/10/14 4:33 PM, Phil Bedard wrote:
> Curious what the use case is where a photonic or L1 switch wouldn't get
> the job done?
>
> With the robotic system you still need to wire everything up so it's
> available to be xconnected.
We've done electromechanical cross connect termination befo
On 12/10/14 7:45 PM, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Dec 2014, Yucong Sun wrote:
>
>> It is not the same thing though. In my case, they just say we want
>> you to
>> buy our IP, if you don't and want use you own Arin allocated IP blocks
>> through bgp, then we got to charge you anyway!
>
> A
On 12/11/14 1:14 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> On Dec 10, 2014, at 23:11 , joel jaeggli wrote:
>>
>> On 12/10/14 7:45 PM, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
>>> On Wed, 10 Dec 2014, Yucong Sun wrote:
>>>
>>>> It is not the same thing though. In my case, they
We're have a little bit of trouble reaching your customers with a prefix
advertised in SIN and there's little or no visibility from the 9506
vantage point.
Thanks in Advance.
Joel (as54113)
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On 12/23/14 12:40 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> I was hoping that everyone just put 175.45.176.0/22 in their bogon list.
> why? is it something despicable such as the dee cee propaganda engine?
Because poorly targeted prefix filtering works so well for spam and
ddos... except that it doesn't.
> randy
>
On 12/31/14 4:08 AM, Marcin Kurek wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I'm reading Randy's Zhang BGP Design and Implementation and I found
> following guidelines about designing RR-based MPLS VPN architecture:
> - Partition RRs
> - Move RRs out of the forwarding path
I'd find it odd if the RR were the nexthop
2914:429 is ntt's do not advertise to any peer community
bgp communities are transitive attributes, e.g. you can just pass them
to peers unmolested. so someone that's presumably not ntt ( e.g. the
neighbor is digital ocean) is sending that commmunity to route views as
part of their export.
Their
On 1/7/15 12:48 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> On 07/01/2015 20:07, Bill Woodcock wrote:
>> Correct. It gets you a blob of text. Sometimes, a blob is just a blob.
>> Other times, it contains what _appear_ to be key-value pairs, but are
>> instead loosely-formatted text. Other times, it contains
>> t
On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 6:46 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
> You hit my honeypot IPs, blackholed for 30 days. You do a DNS request to
> my non-DNS servers, blackholed for 30 days. Same goes for NTP, mail, web,
> etc. You have more than say 5 bad login attempts to my mail server in 5
> minutes, blackho
On 1/26/15 5:43 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
> Aren't most of the new whitebox\open source platforms based on
> switching and not routing? I'd assume that the "cloud-scale" data
> centers deploying this stuff still have more traditional big iron at
> their cores.
A L3 ethernet switch and a "router" are
On 1/27/15 5:45 AM, Song Li wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> Recently I studied the BGP AS path looping problem, and found that in
> most cases, the received BGP routes containing local AS# are suspicious.
> However, we checked our BGP routing table (AS23910,CERNET2) on juniper
> router(show route hidden
On 1/28/15 1:32 AM, Song Li wrote:
> Hi Joel,
>
> It is right that the BGP route containing the local ASN will be droped.
> However, such routes can still be displayed on router.
There is also the non-zero probability that they don't arrive.
If this is and edge router if y
On 1/30/15 9:37 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
>> Don't squirrels go back to their stash? Could a squirrel get through that
>> hole, or were those just a lost stash?
>
> Eh, if the number of small oak trees I find sprouting in my flower beds
> is any indication, the squirrels' brains are smaller than the
On 1/30/15 8:29 AM, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Jan 2015, Eric Louie wrote:
>
>> It also sounds like the Internet (aka the upstream/Tier 1 carriers) don't
>> want me to advertise anything longer than my /32 into BGPv6. Is that
>> true?
>> (I'm getting that from the spamming comments ma
Hello folks,
We (Fastly) are seeing some funny performance issues with the recursive
resolvers inside Free from the vantage point of our customers and atlas
probes embedded in the network. I'd love to talk to somebody with the
ability to look, about what's going on.
Thanks
joel
sig
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 10:47 AM, Roland Dobbins wrote:
>
> On 6 Feb 2015, at 0:38, Raymond Burkholder wrote:
>
> > There must some sort of value in that?
>
> No - patch the servers.
>
Patching servers protects against >0 Day attacks only.
This does not protect against 0 day attacks, unless you
Postel's Law seems relevant to this issue.
Sorry for contributing to the noise.
501 - 600 of 1185 matches
Mail list logo
