If you think a little - having hundreds of web services, it is reasonable
_do not renumber_. Of course, it will require extra efforts when getting IP
block(s) or require do not change main provider(s).
- Original Message -
From: Richard A Steenbergen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Patrick W
Of course individual links are likely to have little difference .. it'll come
down to a combination of the smallest link between source and destination and
the end to end latency.
Steve
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004, Cody Lerum wrote:
Work with the network operators on each side of the link to
Hi - I've tried multiple methods to get BOGONs and
blacklisted IP's removed from these domains with very limited success, so could
someone from these companies respond to meoffline, if
possible,concerning our IP ranges being denied access to send
e-mails
Many thanks
Simon
Simon
On Fri, 2004-07-02 at 15:04, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
SNIP
From ChinaTechNews.com:
China's New Generation Of IPv9 Network Technology Ready
http://www.iana.org/assignments/version-numbers
8---
Assigned Internet Version Numbers
Decimal KeywordVersion
On Fri, 2004-07-02 at 15:04, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
[...]
From ChinaTechNews.com:
China's New Generation Of IPv9 Network Technology Ready
July 2, 2004
At the New Generation Internet Ten-Digit Network Industrialization
Development Seminar held on June 25th at Zhejiang
Timo Mohre wrote:
Hmmm... IPv9 born again?
http://rfc.net/rfc1606.html
this seems to be a new (and possibly hot air) product though, rather
than rehashing of an old joke.
though, what's surprising is who's going to deploy this ipv9 across
all the networks they say they'll deploy it.
It may be just me, but the choice of version number
makes me think that Jim Fleming may be involved in this.
Regards
Marshall Eubanks
On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 18:34:21 +0530
Suresh Ramasubramanian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Original Message
Subject: [IP] Intriguing Progress
On 2 Jul 2004, at 00:18, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
So, I thought of it like this:
1) Rodney/Centergate/UltraDNS knows where all their 35000billion
copies of
the 2 .org TLD boxes are, what network pieces they are connected to at
which bandwidths and the current utilization
2)
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 19:09:52 -0500
Erik Amundson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have a question regarding information on my ISP's peering relationships.
Are the speeds of some or all peering relationships public knowledge, and if
so, where can I find this? By speed, I mean bandwidth (DS3, OC3,
In a message written on Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 10:22:09AM -0400, Joe Abley wrote:
This leaves the anycast servers providing all the optimisation that
they are good for (local nameserver in toplogically distant networks;
distributed DDoS traffic sink; reduced transaction RTT) and provides a
On Fri, 2 Jul 2004 10:22:09 -0400, Joe Abley wrote:
With the fix above, the problem becomes hey, *some* of the nameservers
for ORG are dead! We should fix that, but since not *all* of them are
dead, at least ORG still works.
Sorry, I missed the top of this thread. I cannot mail an ORG
On 2 Jul 2004, at 10:43, Leo Bicknell wrote:
Note in the later pages what happens to particular servers under
packet loss. They all start to show an affinity for a subset of
the servers. It's been said that by putting some non-anycasted
servers in with the anycasted servers what can happen is
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Jul 2 10:35:42 2004
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 08:29:16 -0700 (PDT)
From: Dave Dennis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: NANOG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Need 3M System Admin contact
Dear NANOG,
Anyone know how to contact responsible mail admin for 3M corp? The whois contact
This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet
Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan.
Daily listings are sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If you have any comments please contact Philip Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED].
Routing Table Report 04:00 +10GMT Sat 03 Jul, 2004
On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 11:12:31PM -0400, Joe Maimon wrote:
Come to think about it, there was a thread here a while back about this
very thing. root server robustness and all that.
What number/timeframe reported .org hiccup does this make?
It's at least the 2nd. Last big one was
On Jul 2, 2004, at 2:32 PM, Jeff Wasilko wrote:
Can't we just go back to non-anycast, please?
You mean like the roots Er, wait a second
Now, if you suggest a combination, that might be reasonable. (I don't
run .org, I just think a blanket statement anycast is bad is, well,
bad.)
--
On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 02:38:12PM -0400, Patrick W Gilmore wrote:
On Jul 2, 2004, at 2:32 PM, Jeff Wasilko wrote:
Can't we just go back to non-anycast, please?
You mean like the roots Er, wait a second
Now, if you suggest a combination, that might be reasonable. (I don't
On Fri, 2 Jul 2004, Joe Abley wrote:
All the failure modes that ISC has seen with anycast nameserver
instances can be avoided (for the authoritative DNS service as a whole)
by including one or more non-anycast nameservers in the NS set.
Am I missing something..
So you say:
10.1.0.1
Hello everyone,
I'm working on a project to characterize and summarize traffic info
using netflow. I have completed a prototype and have been testing it on
our network but would like to see how it performs with some 'real'
traffic. Is there someone out there that wouldn't mind exporting some
using RouteViews data
http://www.caida.org/analysis/routing/astypes/
k
On Fri, 2 Jul 2004, Leo Bicknell wrote:
So the question is not so much is 500ms towards the server
bad, it's can I build a single server (cluster) that will take
all the load worldwide when the client software does bad things.
DNS traffic, surprisingly, is not very fat. It is no HTTP nor
On or about July 1 2004, Erik allegedly at myevilempire.net Amundson
allegedly asked about peering point bandwidth.
Some North American ISPs will tell you that under non-disclosure,
but almost all of them will point you to their standards for peering,
and you won't find many Tier 1 ISPs that
On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 07:09:52PM -0500, Erik Amundson wrote:
NANOG,
I have a question regarding information on my ISP's peering relationships.
Are the speeds of some or all peering relationships public knowledge, and if
so, where can I find this? By speed, I mean bandwidth (DS3, OC3,
On Jul 2, 2004, at 9:31 PM, Stewart, William C (Bill), RTSLS wrote:
Also, if you're dealing with ISPs that use public peering points,
those may be a performance concern, but in the US that's mostly not
Tier1-Tier1.
(Linx is a different case entirely, assuming you want your traffic to
be in
Indeed, I agree.
I remember earlier times when there were serious concerns over
serious traffic bottlenecks, primarily due to the lag in speed-of-bits-on-the-wire
technology ramp up. I recall the
NSFnet backbone at a whopping 56kb trunk speed prior to the
node transition(s)!
We, collectively,
25 matches
Mail list logo
