On 1/18/14, 10:30 AM, John van Oppen wrote:
> This is exactly what pushed us into 6PE... it was the only way to make
> performance similar to v4 from a routing standpoint.
This statement is a bit facile... What platform are you referring to?
> John @ AS11404
>
>
signature.asc
Description
On 1/19/14, 9:05 AM, Saku Ytti wrote:
> On (2014-01-19 16:11 +), Nick Hilliard wrote:
>
>> attacks for hardware-forwarded routers, so generally the only sensible
>> option is to drop packets with long EH chains.
>
> I think sensible is to handle HW when possible and punt rate-limited when
> m
Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Douglas Otis:
>
>> On Sun, 2007-04-08 at 03:27 +, John Levine wrote:
>>> But on today's Internet, if you want to get your mail delivered, it
>>> would be a good idea not to live in a bad neighborhood, and if your
>>> ISP puts you in one, you need a better ISP.
>>> Th
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Addressing the complaint that my response to Gadi was too harsh, I can
>> only say
>> that, to someone who isn't aware of the history, my response may seem
>> harsh,
>
> I *AM* aware of the history and your response seems harsh. Especially so
> because you complained
Gadi Evron wrote:
> On Wed, 16 May 2007, Ian Mason wrote:
>> - so much so that this is the first time I was explicitly aware that he
>> offers paid consultancy in this area, if that is indeed the case.
>
> I don't. Nor do I work for a colsultancy.
Your work for a vulnerability assessment vendor.
Jeroen Massar wrote:
> Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 May 2007 00:39:19 -0400
>> Randy Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> you have something new and interesting about ipv6? if so, did you
>>> submit?
>>>
>> Given the ARIN statement, I think it's time for more discussion of v6
>> migr
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Tue, May 29, 2007 at 06:14:51PM +0100, Brandon Butterworth wrote:
>> You get one shot at fixed prefix size filters, miss and you'll pay
>> forever. Which is more scarce, /32's or routing table entries.
>
> your first lema is false.
> and RTE are more scar
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>
> On 1-jun-2007, at 20:51, Randy Bush wrote:
>
>> we still need a operator to make a short summary preso extolling
>> the virtues of ula central at the bof.
>
> How exactly are the opinions of people who operate ISP networks about
> address space that's never used
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 15:35:29 EDT, Donald Stahl said:
>
>> That said- your v6 support does not have to match your v4 support to at
>> least allow you to begin testing. You could set up a single server with v6
>> support, test, and not worry about it affecting productio
John Curran wrote:
> Interoperability is achieved by having public facing
> servers reachable via IPv4 and IPv6.
The end to end principle is preserved by having hosts have unique public
ip addresses which are routed so they can be reached.
Seth Mattinen wrote:
>
> So we should deploy IPv6... I get it. The argument comes up time
> and time again. I would do it tomorrow - nay, today - if I had an answer
> to one thing: How the heck do I multihome? I have v6 space from Sprint
> to play with, but I'm reluctant to use it because I can't
Nicolás Antoniello wrote:
> Hi Joel,
>
> To use AS path prepend when you advertise just one prefix does not solve
> the problem...in this case it actually make it worth, 'cos you may find
> all your trafic coming from only one of your uplinks.
Sure if you overdo it..
Robert Blayzor wrote:
> How practical is it really also that you need CRS-1 at the residence for
> this. I agree with Sean. Since for most people the line card alone
> costs more than the house. :-)
40Gb/s per slot routers are not that rare at this point. So the notion
that you need a crs-1 in
On 04/08/2010 06:00 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 08, 2010, Joe Greco wrote:
>
>> Because a legacy holder doesn't care about ARIN; a legacy holder has
>> usable space that cannot be reclaimed by ARIN and who is not paying
>> anything to ARIN. The point here is that this situation does n
On 04/09/2010 09:56 AM, Dave Israel wrote:
> +Bonus Uncertainty: There is a lack of consensus on how IPv6 is to be
> deployed. For example, look at the ongoing debates on point to point
> network sizes and the /64 network boundary in general. There's also no
> tangible benefit to deploying IPv6 r
On 04/09/2010 11:01 AM, William Herrin wrote:
> Fun movies notwithstanding, they generally issue a fine and work it
> through the civil courts.
>
> If you were doing something extraordinary, like jamming emergency
> communications, I expect they might well call the police for
> assistance. But tho
On 04/09/2010 07:49 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
> some nut i procmail wrote
>>> No, ARIN is not a regulator. Regulators have guns or access to
>>> people with guns to enforce the regulations that they enact. ARIN has
>>> no such power.
>> I'm a little confused on the distinction you're making.
>
> co
On 4/12/2010 10:22 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
The man did say "carrier class" .. not "small webhost for four
families and dog". You're talking multiple mailservers + filtering
gateways / appliances etc, clustered .. rather tough to do that with
one pizzabox 1U running a linux that's not
On 04/16/2010 08:35 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Apr 2010, William Jobs wrote:
>
>> Has anyone else undertaken a similar setup? What were the difficulties
>> you
>> encountered especially in terms of reduced throughput, packet loss
>> etc. Any
>> recommended media converters?
>
>
On 04/16/2010 08:53 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Apr 2010, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 04/16/2010 08:35 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
>>> On Fri, 16 Apr 2010, William Jobs wrote:
>>>
>>>> Has anyone else undertake
On 4/18/2010 6:28 PM, Patrick Giagnocavo wrote:
Franck Martin wrote:
Sure the internet will not die...
But by the time we run out of IPv4 to allocate, the IPv6 network will not have
completed to dual stack the current IPv4 network. So what will happen?
Reality is that as soon as SSL web ser
On 4/18/2010 9:56 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Mon, 19 Apr 2010, Franck Martin wrote:
Anybody has better projections? What's the plan?
My guess is that end user access will be more and more NAT444:ed (CGN)
while at the same time end users will get more and more IPv6 access (of
all types),
On 4/19/2010 10:40 AM, David Conrad wrote:
Bryan,
On Apr 19, 2010, at 10:22 AM, Bryan Fields wrote:
Here is some unverified calculations I did on the problem of scaling nat.
Right now I'm using 42 translation entries in my nat table. Each entry takes
up 312 bytes of FIB memory, which is ~12.7
On 4/20/2010 10:29 AM, Roger Marquis wrote:
Interesting how the artificial roadblocks to NAT66 are both delaying the
transition to IPv6 and increasing the demand for NAT in both protocols.
Nicely illustrates the risk when customer demand (for NAT) is ignored.
This is really tiresome. IPv4 NAT e
On 4/20/2010 6:34 PM, Karl Auer wrote:
On Tue, 2010-04-20 at 12:59 -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Apr 20, 2010, at 12:31 PM, Roger Marquis wrote:
NAT _always_ fails-closed
I love this statement particularly in the context of enterprise networks...
When you pop the label off an l3 vpn or pseudo
On 4/20/2010 6:34 PM, Karl Auer wrote:
On Tue, 2010-04-20 at 12:59 -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Apr 20, 2010, at 12:31 PM, Roger Marquis wrote:
NAT _always_ fails-closed
I love this statement particularly in the context of enterprise networks...
When you pop the label off an l3 vpn or pseudo
On 04/22/2010 08:25 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
>
> On Apr 22, 2010, at 11:04 AM, John Lightfoot wrote:
>
>> That's Hedley.
>>
>
> I believe that he is talking about Hedy Lamarr, the co-inventor of
> frequency hopping spread spectrum.
The patent which bears her and George Antheil's name is by
On 04/22/2010 11:23 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 12:13 PM, Bill Bogstad wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 11:03 AM, David Conrad wrote:
>>> On Apr 21, 2010, at 10:48 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> So what happens when you change providers? How are you going to ke
On 04/22/2010 10:18 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
> Owen DeLong wrote:
>> On Apr 22, 2010, at 5:55 AM, Jim Burwell wrote:
>>
>>
>>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>> On 4/22/2010 05:34, Simon Perreault wrote:
>>>
On 2010-04-22 07:18, William Herrin wrote:
On 4/26/2010 8:07 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 10:34 AM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Don't forget the hotspot vendor that returns an address of 0.0.0.1 for
every A query if you have previously done an query for the same
name (and timed out). That's a fun one.
so... a
On 05/09/2010 09:30 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> On Sun, May 09, 2010 at 10:54:46AM -0500, Larry Sheldon wrote:
>
>> And when I drive someplace, I do indeed go by the signs I see, which are
>> not erected by a central authority, as I move along. (I don't have a
>> route from here to Fairbanks, Alas
On 2010-05-13 19:43, Frank Bulk wrote:
Thirty percent? If "no access" includes financial means or developed
interest, that may be true, but 99% of all zip codes have at least person
with internet access. And the FCC has stated that "95 percent of Americans,
or 290 million people, have terrestri
On 2010-05-14 22:04, Alastair Johnson wrote:
Mark Foster wrote:
What about developing nations where Internet isn't yet as commonplace as
it is in the 'west' ?
They skip dialup.
dial modems are the end game for a 140 year old technology (300-3400hz
pots lines).
There is literally no reaso
On 2010-05-19 14:18, Aaron D. Osgood wrote:
Probably because MO/MT (mobile originated/mobile terminated) SMS takes place on the cellular
"control" channel (somewhat like the "D" channel on a PRI span) and is not seen as
"data" by the carrier.
A GPRS station class A device can do this... they
On 05/12/2010 02:41 PM, Scott Weeks wrote:
>
>
> --- da...@tcb.net wrote: From: Danny McPherson On May
> 12, 2010, at 9:40 AM, Jay Nakamura wrote:
>
>> I just tested this and, yes, with Cisco to Cisco, changing the
>> setting won't reset the connection but you have to reset the
>> connection
On 2010-05-20 09:36, Owen DeLong wrote:
We're scraping the bottom of the barrel for IPv4 space these days.
It is what it is, and it's only going to get worse in IPv4. Time to go
to IPv6.
in ipv6 we're using our arin /32 in all regions where we appear...
joel
Owen
On 2010-05-20 11:25, Rafael Ganascim wrote:
Hi all,
I have a doubt about the bellow scenario, where the ISP1 use eBGP
sessions to its peers and is a BGP Transit AS.
NSP 1 -- ISP 1 Router2 --- NSP 2
| |
|
Tutorial: Introduction to BGP
http://nanog.org/meetings/nanog47/abstracts.php?pt=MTQ0MSZuYW5vZzQ3&nm=nanog47
Tutorial: BGP 102
http://nanog.org/meetings/nanog48/abstracts.php?pt=MTUyMiZuYW5vZzQ4&nm=nanog48
http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Manual:BGP_Case_Studies
On 2010-05-21 14:4
On 2010-05-23 18:55, Ingo Flaschberger wrote:
Dear Lorell,
We will implement OSPF.
so what arguments speak against 2 bgp upstreams?
It's not an either or proposition...
ospf carries your internal routes, ibgp carries you external routes
between internal routers. you can carry default arou
On 2010-05-27 10:42, andrew.wallace wrote:
Look at it from an attackers point of view. If you're thinking about
carrying out an electronic jihad of some kind when is the best time?
A normal working day or during an engineers strike that only happens
once every 23 years?
Not to put to fine a poi
On 2010-05-27 17:38, Ken Gilmour wrote:
Wow, very fast responses, Thanks Larry Sheldon and Ricardo Tavares!
On 27 May 2010 18:07, Ricardo Tavares wrote:
Not sure if I correctly undestand you but default route its the route
that the packet must follow if it do not have a specific route for the
On 2010-05-27 17:57, andrew.wallace wrote:
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 1:17 AM, joel jaeggli
wrote:
On 2010-05-27 10:42, andrew.wallace wrote:
Look at it from an attackers point of view. If you're thinking
about carrying out an electronic jihad of some kind when is the
best time? A normal wo
sps...
I wouldn't do that becuase the alternatives are better and not exactly a
lot of work, but will it work? yes.
joel
On 2010-06-07 13:50, Dale Cornman wrote:
Has anyone ever heard of a multi-homed enterprise not running bgp with
either of 2 providers, but instead, each provider statically
On 2010-06-08 13:03, J. Oquendo wrote:
Jorge Amodio wrote:
All humor aside, I'm curious to know what can anyone truly do at the end
of the day if say a botnet was used to instigate a situation. Surely
someone would have to say something to the tune of "better now than
never" to implement BCP fil
On 06/13/2010 06:13 PM, Bruce Williams wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 6:42 AM, Joe Greco wrote:
>>> Generally speaking, it will be treated as damage and routed around.
>>
>> That fable only really stands a chance when the damage is accidental; in
>> the case where such "damage" is being delibe
On 2010-06-18 10:49, Akyol, Bora A wrote:
This is not exactly true.
With the 3G networks (GSM) you can get.
7.2-Mbps HSDPA (downstream)
5.8-Mbps HSUPA (upstream)
3gpp rel7 hsdpa/hsupa goes about 4 fold faster than that down and twice
as fast up without having to resort to mimo.
whether any
There was a lightning talk on Netdot at Nanog 48 I'd take a look at the
presentation and the the website. It's quite useful from the documentation and
discovery standpoint
After the initial whit board I generally sit down and document what we're going
to build then we build a transition plan th
On 06/21/2010 08:46 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> There was a lightning talk on Netdot at Nanog 48 I'd take a look at the
> presentation and the the website. It's quite useful from the documentation
> and discovery standpoint
meh, it was nanog 49, and the link is:
http://www
not sure how they propose to enforce that, instrumentation approaches
that look inside the home gateway have a non-trivial falsh positive rate
and you've got a lot more hosts than ip addresses.
On 06/22/2010 11:30 AM, Gadi Evron wrote:
> http://www.zdnet.com.au/make-zombie-code-mandatory-govt-repo
just fyi,
identifying the prefix in question and the origin AS will likely result
in a lot more potentially useful eyeballs looking at including those
that can take action.
joel
On 2010-06-24 12:37, Eric Williams wrote:
AT&T is currently advertising my address space to the inte
If the data you need to preload is sufficiently large (e.g. 10s or
hundreds of terabytes then yeah it should come as no surprise that it
might be more convenient to move by shifting around disks. 100TB of raw
disk is around $8000.
On 2010-06-28 21:50, JC Dill wrote:
Jonathan Feldman wrote:
On 2010-07-03 12:45, Alan Bryant wrote:
On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 2:22 PM, Mike wrote:
Mikrotik is great at lower end stuff where you have ethernet interfaces.
Real POS OC-3 however, ain't in it's repertory and would not be what I would
choose to route at those interfaces/speeds. However, if you
On 2010-07-07 19:14, Jon Lewis wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jul 2010, Patrick Giagnocavo wrote:
andrew.wallace wrote:
Article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704545004575352983850463108.html
Why does it cost $100 million to install and configure OpenBSD on a
bunch of old systems?
Havi
Specifying the prefix in question is likely to produce more rapid and
cogent response.
joel
On 7/12/10 2:20 AM, Popov Max wrote:
Hello!
I am an owner of the small telecom business in Eastern Europe. We have the
provider independent network and own autonomous system number.
Due to the
On 7/13/10 11:11 AM, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
On Jul 14, 2010, at 1:02 AM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
Dangerous in places where forwarding table exceeds hardware cache
limits. (See Code Red worm stories)
During the Code Red/Nimda period (2001), and on into the
Slammer/Blaster/Nachi period (2003),
On 7/16/10 6:02 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 20:57:15 PDT, Henry Linneweh said:
Can we get a consensus definition on these definition's and what hardware
vender's make edge routers and what hardware vender's make core routers.
I got a router, it's got 5-6 10GE interfa
On 7/16/10 11:07 AM, Tony Finch wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010, Chris Adams wrote:
A simple XSLT will transform it into any needed format.
XSLT can't turn root-anchors.xml into the DNSKEY RR that BIND requires.
Tony.
anchors2keys will.
Yeah oops.
Just noticed that
Joel's iPad
On Jul 16, 2010, at 5:34 PM, Jeffrey Ollie wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 1:12 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>> On 7/16/10 11:07 AM, Tony Finch wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, 16 Jul 2010, Chris Adams wrote:
>>>>
&
On 8/11/10 12:29 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
> Nice to see this change
>
> APAC has been obliged to pay the cost to peer with the US (long
> distance links are expensive). Now that US wants to peer with Asia,
> pricing may become more balanced...
I think the question is more like why am I being
On 8/11/10 2:03 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
>
> On 11 Aug 10, at 2:53 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>
>> I think the question is more like why am I being quoted $100 A
>> megabit in India for transit in India? Not why am I being charged
>> for for the transport cost across
On Aug 14, 2010, at 8:05, Owen DeLong wrote:
> On Aug 13, 2010, at 8:01 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>
> The lack of end-site multihoming (more specifically the lack of PI for
> end-sites) was created by the IETF and resolved by the RIRs.
> The beginning of resolving this was ARIN proposal 2002-3.
>
On Aug 14, 2010, at 10:27, Jimi Thompson wrote:
> It was 40 acres and a mule - FYI
No 40 acres was 1/4 of 1/4 of a section. That's 's Sherman's field order (1865)
not the homestead act (which was 160). Or the circa 1790 activity referred to
in this thread.
Joel's iPad
>
>
> On 8/14/10 11
On 8/19/10 5:30 AM, Joakim Aronius wrote:
> * Hannes Frederic Sowa (han...@mailcolloid.de) wrote:
>>
>> But most people just don't care. My proposal is to have some kind of
>> sane defaults for them e.g. changing their prefix every week or in the
>> case of a reconnect. This would mitigate some of
On 8/18/10 4:20 PM, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 11:16 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
>>> In IPv4-land I have the possibility to
>>> reconnect and get a new unrelated ip-address every time.
>>>
>>
>> They're issued by the same ISP, to they're related.
>
> Ups. Unrelated in the sens
On 8/19/10 10:58 AM, Joakim Aronius wrote:
> * Joel Jaeggli (joe...@bogus.com) wrote:
>>
>> manual configuration of ip address name mappings seems like a
>> rather low priority for the average home user...
>>
>> I don't expect that will be a big activity
On 8/21/10 11:52 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
>> I can remember early network printers using bootp and the assuming that
>> they could use that one ip address forever. today the printer will dhcp
>> and advertise it's availability in the same broadcast domain and may
>> well reregister it's name in dy
On 8/23/10 2:31 AM, Leigh Porter wrote:
> I very often see 1918 space in ICMP responses. It's quite dumb.
you wouldn't if you filtered rfc 1918 source addresses on your border.
> -Original Message-
> From: valdis.kletni...@vt.edu [mailto:valdis.kletni...@vt.edu]
> Sent: 16 August 2010 14
On 8/23/10 2:59 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 22:23:19 -1000, Michael Painter said:
>> Researchers in South Korea have built a networking router that
>> transmits data at record speeds from components found in most
>> high-end desktop computers
>> http://www.technologyr
On 8/23/10 12:25 PM, Andrew Kirch wrote:
> On 8/23/2010 1:17 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>> What it really comes down to is packets per watt or packets per dollar,
>> if it's cheaper to do it this way then people will, if not BFD.
>
> I disagree here. Core routing isn
On 8/29/10 6:25 AM, John Jason Brzozowski wrote:
> Franck,
>
> As you know 6to4 is enabled by default in many cases and is used perhaps
> more than folks realize. Because of this and other observations we decided
> to deploy our own relays.
Right prior to this the nearest 6to4 relay router from
On 8/29/10 9:31 AM, Bjørn Mork wrote:
> Richard A Steenbergen writes:
>
>> Just out of curiosity, at what point will we as operators rise up
>> against the ivory tower protocol designers at the IETF and demand that
>> they add a mechanism to not bring down the entire BGP session because of
>>
On 8/27/10 1:07 PM, Mike Gatti wrote:
> where's the change management process in all of this.
> basically now we are going to starting changing things that can
> potentially have an adverse affect on users without letting anyone know
> before hand Interesting concept.
BGP is transitive, cha
On 9/3/10 11:25 AM, Bill Bogstad wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 9:49 AM, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
>>
>> On Sep 3, 2010, at 7:58 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
>>> However, scanning in IPv6 is not at all like the convenience of
>>> comprehensive scanning of the IPv4 address space.
>>
>>
>> Concur, but I
On 9/4/10 9:31 AM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
> On 9/4/10 6:35 AM, Ryan Shea wrote:
>> Anyone with a contact at Doster with the ability to make things happen?
>> Apparently they do not support v6 glue records and they have been
>> unresponsive to my ticket. This seems a kooky reason to change registrars.
Inline...
On Sep 4, 2010, at 15:24, William Allen Simpson
wrote:
> On 9/3/10 7:43 AM, Matthias Flittner wrote:
> >> Since recently we noticed "Neighbour table overflow" warnings from
> >> the kernel on a lot of Linux machines. As this was very annoying for
> >> us and our customers I started t
On 9/14/10 5:38 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> Instead of handpicking names or letting people insert data into your DNS
> servers, some people are deploying PowerDNS with custom backends for
> this that either convert the IPv6 address into a 128bit hex number,
> optionally stripping the first 64 bits a
assuming the whois data has been cleaned up the next resource to look at
is:
routeviews or ris table dumps to see where or if it was advertised in
the past, and from where.
google and rbl lists are also worth querying in that context.
joel
On 9/14/10 1:51 PM, Greg Whynott wrote:
> probably
On 9/20/10 11:38 AM, Nathan Eisenberg wrote:
>> Devil's Advocate here,
>>
>> What would you say to ISP A that provided similar speeds as ISP B,
>> but B took payments from content providers and then provided the
>> service for free?
>>
>> Gives you the choice, ISP A, which costs, and ISP B, which
On 9/21/10 2:10 PM, Michael Painter wrote:
> David DiGiacomo wrote:
>> Instead of a rifle, how about a shotgun? It fires a nice wide spread
>> shot pattern. I think you would be much more likely to do
>> some damage (ie: knock fiber off a pole) with something like that.
>> Here in New Jersey it is
On Sep 25, 2010, at 9:05, Seth Mattinen wrote:
> On 9/24/10 5:28 PM, Alex Rubenstein wrote:
>>> While this question has many dimensions and there is no real
>>> definition of either I suspect that what many people mean when they
>>> talk about a DC routers is:
>>
>>> From the datacenter operato
If one has a cisco 7200, then you have a software based border router.
Considerations, for a given router platform are capacity, susceptability to
dos, features required etc. Depending on the capacity required a software
device could do fine. If it's in front of hosting environment you want to
On Sep 26, 2010, at 8:26, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Joel Jaeggli said:
>> On Sep 25, 2010, at 9:05, Seth Mattinen wrote:
>>>>> From the datacenter operator prospective, it would be nice if some of
>>>>> these vendors would acknowledg
Joel's widget number 2
On Sep 26, 2010, at 10:47, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Joel Jaeggli said:
>> On Sep 26, 2010, at 8:26, Chris Adams wrote:
>>> There are servers and storage arrays that have a front that is nothing
>>> but hot-swap hard dri
The longest part of our 2009 prefix assignment was getting our accounts payable
system to handle the additional supplier.
If you have all of you documentation in order you can easily run through the
process in two weeks.
Joel's widget number 2
On Oct 2, 2010, at 3:19, Bret Clark wrote:
> We
Gadi Evron wrote:
> I asked him about it on IM, wondering if it is real:
> "looks like that
> but requires a sctp app to be running"
And which sctcp transport utiltizing app pray tell do you commonly find
running on linux based routers and network infrastructure?
Seth Mattinen wrote:
>
> I hear this a lot, but how many "linksys default channel 6" end users
> really have more than one subnet, or even know what a subnet is?
By definition, every single one of them that buys wireless router, then
buys another and hangs it off the first. That happens more oft
In modern data Centers drop ceiling is installed. The reason being you
can create a AIR plenum. If your not going to have a air plenum then
you should not have a drop ceiling. If you look at the in the link
below you will see were the red arrows are thats were you would
installed dro
Just knowing your spacing and were to places perforated tiles is very
helpful in maxmizing air and not shortcycling it..
Establishing a Floor Plan
[1]http://www.apcmedia.com/salestools/VAVR-6KYMZ7_R0_EN.pdf
May 2, 2009 08:41:50 AM, [2]a...@corp.nac.net wrote:
Calculating heat
Jitter (e.g. variability in one way or rtt) smokeping is rather good at
measuring...
The question is do you want to instrument the phenomena through active
measurement as smokeping is doing or do you have some application (e.g.
streaming media as an example) that you'd like to instrument because t
it personally and
please drop me a line.
Thanks for your consideration, and I look forward to seeing you all in
Philadelphia.
joel
66 60.0%20 317.4 319.6 314.1 328.0
> 4.5
> 13. he-in-f147.google.com45.0%20 323.9 321.5 312.1 332.9
> 6.9
>
>
> ---
> Peter Beckman Internet
> Guy
> beck...@angryox.com
> http://www.angryox.com/
>
> ---
>
>
>
--
joel esler | Sourcefire | gtalk: jes...@sourcefire.com | 302-223-5974 |
http://twitter.com/joelesler
345 ms 2.342 ms 3.132 ms
>>
>
>
> 3 axr01asm-7-1-0-1.bellsouth.net (65.83.237.90) 3.338 ms 3.331 ms 3.322
>>
>
>
> ms
>>
>
>
> 4 axr00msy-0-3-1.bellsouth.net (65.83.236.46) 3.112 ms 3.105 ms 3.095 ms
>>
>
>
> 5 65.83.238.202 (65.83.238.202) 3.503 ms 3.654 ms *
>>
>
>
> 6 cr2.attga.ip.att.net (12.122.140.22) 4.489 ms 3.823 ms 3.795 ms
>>
>
>
> 7 12.123.22.129 (12.123.22.129) 3.591 ms 3.094 ms 3.079 ms
>>
>
>
> 8 12.88.97.6 (12.88.97.6) 3.197 ms 3.172 ms 3.160 ms
>>
>
>
> 9 72.14.233.56 (72.14.233.56) 3.322 ms 3.490 ms 72.14.233.54
>>
>
>
> (72.14.233.54) 3.510 ms
>>
>
>
> 10 209.85.254.249 (209.85.254.249) 16.887 ms 3.501 ms 72.14.239.127
>>
>
>
> (72.14.239.127) 4.261 ms
>>
>
>
> 11 209.85.253.214 (209.85.253.214) 12.987 ms 12.979 ms 209.85.253.218
>>
>
>
> (209.85.253.218) 3.882 ms
>>
>
>
> 12 gx-in-f99.google.com (74.125.65.99) 4.357 ms 4.740 ms 4.481 ms
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --Patrick Darden
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
joel esler | Sourcefire | gtalk: jes...@sourcefire.com | 302-223-5974 |
http://twitter.com/joelesler
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 9:31 AM, Nitin Sharma wrote:
> I can reach Google News through icmp traceroutes, but the HTTP response
> says
> "Server Error".Anyone seeing this too?
>
All fine here.
--
joel esler | Sourcefire | gtalk: jes...@sourcefire.com | 302-223-597
The African Network Operators Group has quite a good set of workshop
materials for both isp routing (including v6) and DNS (seperate workshops)
weeklong course materials for the routing track are here:
http://www.ws.afnog.org/afnog2009/sie/detail.html
Bryan Campbell wrote:
> This is the Nanog
Oliver Hookins wrote:
> Hi all, hopefully this isn't too off topic (since it's datacentre related).
>
> We have an APC AP7952 rack PDU which has stopped working. I believe the
> management module is faulty, and it is about 5 years old. APC don't service
> these outside of warranty at all so I'm
If the pdu contains a surge suppressor and was designed for 120v, plugging in
to 220 will cause the MOV that protects against transient over-voltage to emit
smoke. The breaker or fuse is a current limiting device.
Joel
Pete Templin wrote:
>Dave Larter wrote:
>> Seems like if th
It's pretty trivial if know where all the construction projects on your
path are...
I've seen this happen on a university campus several times. no black
helicopters were involved.
joel
Charles Wyble wrote:
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/30/AR20090530
Charles Wyble wrote:
>
>
> Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>> It's pretty trivial if know where all the construction projects on your
>> path are...
>
> How so? Setup OTDR traces and watch them?
When you lose link on every pair in a bundle, but don't lose any of the
link-layer encryption for sonet/atm quite resistant to traffic
analysis... The pipe is full of pdus whether you're using them or not.
valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Jun 2009 13:54:44 EDT, Martin Hannigan said:
>> It would also be cheaper to add an additional layer of security with
>>
your abstract in, the higher the probablity that we will be able to
accept your talk.
Thanks
Joel
701 - 800 of 1185 matches
Mail list logo
