-- On Thursday, November 14, 2002 11:11 PM -0500
-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] supposedly wrote:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2002 17:59:59 CST, Chris Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
You don't. If you configure your name server to block resolution of
terrorist.com, you'll never find out that it goes to an Akamai
This report has been generated at Fri Nov 15 21:51:38 2002 AEST.
The report analyses the BGP Routing Table of an AS4637 (Reach) router
and generates a report on aggregation potential within the table.
Check http://www.cidr-report.org/as4637 for a current version of this report.
Recent Table
Is there a way or tool to find the route between two arbitrary hosts from
one of my local machines? In other words, given two host IP addresses A
and B, I would like to find the route between A and B. I can use a source
route, 'traceroute -g', to approximate the route. I have tried this
option.
On Thu, 14 Nov 2002 12:36:54 -0500 David Diaz wrote:
People seem to prefer cost of quality at this time.
Good
Fast
Cheap
Honey, part of our success is that I don't accept the above. Sooner
or later, you will have to compete with someone who believes:
Good
Fast
Cheap
we do all
On Thu, 14 Nov 2002 14:48:17 -0800 (PST) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Its possible/likely that what Paul is saying may happen, but it requires
a lot of locality-specific high-bandwidth applications (none exist now or
in demand now) and technologies that make it possible (cost-effective) to
Anyone that calls me honey is in question.
It's standard, you cant have everything in life. You attempt to
achieve all three however it's all relative. You can have a DSL line
now instead of a T1, it's fast and cheap but most arent as good as a
T1 and the SLAs arent there right?
Usually you
This is AFAIK _not_ what DirectPC does, but have you taken a look at
RFC3077 and the UDLR draft
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-udlr-experiments-00.txt ?
This covers the complications of doing IP over very assymetric links as part of the IP, including
both multicast and TCP
Who is 'they', Patrick ? Suppose Spain introduces that law. Fine, but
that doesn't mean that other countries have to (or will ever) abide by
that. Certainly in the U.S. you won't find that many who would support
even the idea.
This thread was started 'cause the Spanish (?) government
Unnamed Administration sources reported that [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
This is not correct. Such laws tend to cover whatever is shown to the
Spanish citizens, no matter by whom.
Oh?
A friend of mine is such. He just happens to live in the DC area,
and has for 30 years...
How would such a
Unnamed Administration sources reported that [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
This is not correct. Such laws tend to cover whatever is shown to the
Spanish citizens, no matter by whom.
Oh?
A friend of mine is such. He just happens to live in the DC area,
and has for 30 years...
How
Warning , this post won't configure a router.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2002 12:36:54 -0500 David Diaz wrote:
People seem to prefer cost of quality at this time.
Good
Fast
Cheap
Honey, part of our success is that I don't accept the above. Sooner
or later, you will have
On Fri, 15 Nov 2002 11:42:46 -0500 Richard Irving wrote:
Huh, must be in marketing or sales, perhaps a CEO, even.
Yup, I am a CEO. I am also (still) one of the most experienced and
best educated IP engineers around. It is fun being CEO. Rather than
throw stones, you might want to
On Fri, 2002-11-15 at 08:39, Minseok Kwon wrote:
Is there a way or tool to find the route between two arbitrary hosts from
one of my local machines? In other words, given two host IP addresses A
and B, I would like to find the route between A and B. I can use a source
route, 'traceroute -g',
On Fri, 15 Nov 2002 11:20:36 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
relatively cheap. I know our costs are lower and quality is higher
than our competitors and I believe the reason is that we go for a
simple network designed around cheap routers and fat pipes. We made
OK. I'll bite. What do you
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yup, I am a CEO.
1-900-psy-kick
Call now, Mon, we're a waiting for ya!
I am also (still) one of the most experienced
and best educated IP engineers around.
And humble, too. :\
[Said to a list where Van Jacobson and Vixie have been known to lurk]
The next NANOG meeting will be held February 9-11, 2003, in Phoenix,
Arizona, where it will be warm and sunny. Registration opens January 2.
Our hosts for this meeting are Rodney Joffe and UltraDNS. Rodney, this is
the third time you've hosted NANOG, and we are very grateful for your
long-term
On Fri, 15 Nov 2002 14:37:08 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
relatively cheap. I know our costs are lower and quality is higher
than our competitors and I believe the reason is that we go for a
simple network designed around cheap routers and fat pipes. We made
OK. I'll bite. What do
Hi Susan,
Is this date absolutely set in stone? First Halloween, now Valentine's
Day... how is a girl supposed to toss a good party if you put everyone in
airports for all the fun holidays? Geesh. -ren
The next NANOG meeting will be held February 9-11, 2003, in Phoenix,
Arizona, where it
On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 04:41:10PM +0100, Jurian van der Knaap wrote:
You might get some info out of the Linux DirecPC driver, or maybe the
developers of the driver can help.
Find it at http://sourceforge.net/projects/direcpc
Hope this is of any help,
Yeah, this helped. It showed me
The next NANOG meeting will be held February 9-11, 2003, in
Arizona, where it will be warm and sunny.
Is this date absolutely set in stone? First Halloween, now Valentine's
Day.
and it butts right against nordnog, essentially preventing attendance
at both.
randy
Crist,
I am a contributor of RFC3077 and we will have a IETF meeting in
Atlanta. I will discuss the issue which you wrote below at the UDLR-WG
meeting. Now we are preparing a updated draft which support the
operation the network employing RFC3077.
Thank you.
Jun Takei
Crist J. Clark
Absent source routing capability, you will need to be on one of the
machines.
It is also important to understand that traceroute displays the route from
a to b while depending on both the route from a to b and the route from each
hop to the source of the traceroute probe packets. It will only
Hi All,
I am trying to collect information about using RFC 1918 space on an ISP
backbone. I have read the RFC several times, and I don't see where it
says that you cannot use 10/8 space to number your backbone links (/30s).
I know this is an old thread that has been rehashed several times,
Very old thread!
Private hosts can communicate with all other hosts
inside the enterprise, both public and private. However, they cannot
have IP connectivity to any host outside of the enterprise.
All other hosts will be public and will use globally unique address
space assigned
Generally it is not prohibited by the RFC, but it is bad form if you send
out ICMP that originates from 10space to places outside your network.
As such, it's generally bad form to use these numbers on intefaces in the
backbone, since those interfaces are likely to show up in ICMP time exceeded
While we are at it...
Those that still believe in using Sneaker-Net will be attending the following
convention...
Western Shoe Association (WSA)
Las Vegas 8-11 Feb 2003
...I don't think we have people that are members of both WSA NANOG.
Also, I know that we have had NANOG's that
Looking at the categories of hosts in the rfc, it would be my opinion that a
router that connects you to the outside world would fall into category3 and
therefore need globally unique space. Just my opinion for the day. Most
people frown heavily upon traffic that goes from one public node to
At 11:20 AM 11/15/2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unnamed Administration sources reported that [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
This is not correct. Such laws tend to cover whatever is shown to the
Spanish citizens, no matter by whom.
Oh?
A friend of mine is such. He just happens to live in
Some thoughts:
- Coast-to-coast "guaranteed latency" seems too low in most cases that I've
seen. Not calling CEOs and marketers liars but the real world doesn't seem to do
as well as the promises. As VOIP takes off "local" IPexchanges will
continue/increase in importance because people
Hey,
Usually numbering backbone routers with a 10/8 is not a necessary practice.
Any backbone routers communicating with the outside world are marked category
three and should have globally unique IP numbers. Plus, if you are an ISP (in
which it looks like you are..), it will help others on
Greetings,
I pose this question do its puzzling major. Two nights ago at
approximately 10:20 PM PST I started receiving enough invalid routes
that it caused my processor on router B to reach 100 percent utilization
for 30 second interval every 3 min. While doing a debug on updates I
discovered
Title: Re: PAIX
At 16:01 -0800 11/15/02, Jere Retzer wrote:
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-7
Content-Description: HTML
Some thoughts:
- Coast-to-coast guaranteed latency seems too low in
most cases that I've seen. Not calling CEOs and marketers liars but
the real world doesn't seem
Anyone seeing odd crashes on Lucent PM3's tonight? We have boxes dying all
over the network with hard lockups. The machines are in different physical
locations with different telcos. It smells alot like a DOS of some sort.
Mark Radabaugh
Amplex
(419) 720-3635
- Coast-to-coast guaranteed latency seems too low in most cases that =
I've seen. Not calling CEOs and marketers liars but the real world doesn't =
seem to do as well as the promises. As VOIP takes off local IP exchanges =
will continue/increase in importance because people won't tolerate
Once upon a time, Mark Radabaugh [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Anyone seeing odd crashes on Lucent PM3's tonight? We have boxes dying all
over the network with hard lockups. The machines are in different physical
locations with different telcos. It smells alot like a DOS of some sort.
Do you
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You could also use RFC1918 numbers for your point-to-point /30
aggregation blocks with the customers.. But.. since that would have
effect on customer's premise equipment, it would be better to give
them globally unique space as well, who knows if your customer comes
A friend of mine is such. He just happens to live in the DC area,
and has for 30 years...
How would such a block be enforced...?
Very simple. Someone names him in a lawsuit. A spanish judge issues
subpoena. He ignores it and does not appear in court. The same judge would
I
On Fri, 15 Nov 2002, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Mark Radabaugh [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Anyone seeing odd crashes on Lucent PM3's tonight? We have boxes dying all
over the network with hard lockups. The machines are in different physical
locations with different telcos. It
38 matches
Mail list logo
