G Pavan Kumar wrote:
I have been working on characterizing the internet hierarchy.
I noticed that 27% of the total possible tier-2 provider node pairs are
unreachable i.e., they dont have any tier-1 node connecting them nor a
direct peering link between them.
Multihoming can be used
At 20:05 23/03/2005, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Randy Bush writes:
We were recently assigned a 72.244/16 allocation from ARIN. Friendly
reminder that ARIN started allocating 72/8 since Aug. If you have a
static bogon filters, can you please make sure they are
a bit more coffee made me realize that what might best occur would
be for the rir, some weeks BEFORE assigning from a new block issued
by the iana, put up a pingable for that space and announce it on
the lists so we can all test BEFORE someone uses space from that
block.
ARIN meeting
a bit more coffee made me realize that what might best occur would
be for the rir, some weeks BEFORE assigning from a new block issued
by the iana, put up a pingable for that space and announce it on
the lists so we can all test BEFORE someone uses space from that
block.
Based on what I've seen
--- William Allen Simpson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
So, Utah law _already_ means no links to Planned
Parenthood et alia.
Planned Parenthood is quite alive and well in Utah.
Contraceptives are freely advertised on TV and given
out on campus at the U of U. All of the other stuff
you're
pornography, and said a legal challenge
is likely.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=storyncid=1212e=3u=/ap/20050324/ap_on_hi_te/internet_pornsid=95573501
- ferg
-- David Barak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
so while I agree that this is a goofy law which was
poorly written - there IS a demand
a bit more coffee made me realize that what might best occur would
be for the rir, some weeks BEFORE assigning from a new block issued
by the iana, put up a pingable for that space and announce it on
the lists so we can all test BEFORE someone uses space from that
block.
ARIN meeting
so while I agree that this is a goofy law which was
poorly written - there IS a demand for this type of
service, and we'll see how it plays out.
Right!
Not everyone needs or wants plain old raw Internet
access. That is a commodity service which appealed
to the early adopters who were
it seems that even bureaucrazy ripe managed to do it without
holding policy discussions; see henk's posting.
I believe that RIPE does these things BECAUSE it is
more bureaucratic than ARIN. As a result, RIPE staff
feel more empowered to do sensible projects outside of
the policy process.
In
1) unenforcable old blue laws similar to how Native
Americans need to be escorted by police in
Massachussetts (i.e. they never got around to fixing
old bad law, but noone cares anymore)
Actually, Indian towns were goverened by Blue Laws up the second half of
the 20th century. Not every law
In any case, it is not important how the message
gets communicated to ARIN. What is important is for
network operators to *TELL* ARIN what they need ARIN
to do. One way to talk to ARIN is through the public
meetings and another way is to email one of the
trustees.
and one is to send an
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In any case, it is not important how the message
gets communicated to ARIN. What is important is for
network operators to *TELL* ARIN what they need ARIN
is arin the problem here? or are 'lazy'/'dumb'/'mistaken'/'poorly
informed' admins the
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In any case, it is not important how the message
gets communicated to ARIN. What is important is for
network operators to *TELL* ARIN what they need ARIN
is arin the problem here? or are
In any case, it is not important how the message
gets communicated to ARIN. What is important is for
network operators to *TELL* ARIN what they need ARIN
is arin the problem here? or are 'lazy'/'dumb'/'mistaken'/'poorly
informed' admins the problem?
ARIN is not part of the problem, but
At 10:06 AM 3/24/2005, Jon Lewis wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In any case, it is not important how the message
gets communicated to ARIN. What is important is for
network operators to *TELL* ARIN what they need ARIN
is arin the problem here? or are 'lazy'/'dumb'/'mistaken'/'poorly
informed' admins the problem?
Lazy/misguided/ex admins / downsized networks are the problem.
if aol is not worried enough to tell us an address to ping, perhaps
you can see why we prospective pingers are not getting our undies
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Randy Bush
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2005 9:45 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: 72/8 friendly reminder
In any case, it is not important how the message
gets
David Barak wrote:
Planned Parenthood is quite alive and well in Utah.
Contraceptives are freely advertised on TV and given
out on campus at the U of U. All of the other stuff
you're seeing is either:
1) unenforcable old blue laws similar to ...
Don't know about Utah, but do know about
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005, Daniel Senie wrote:
At 10:06 AM 3/24/2005, Jon Lewis wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In any case, it is not important how the message
gets communicated to ARIN. What is important is
David Barak wrote:
snip
For crying out loud - this is UTAH, not the moon: the
people there are just like people everywhere. Yeah,
they tend to be a bit more socially conservative than
the libertarian-leaning NANOG membership is used to,
but it's not like they've got 2 heads and three arms -
if
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005, Randy Bush wrote:
ARIN is in a unique position to be able to do something to at
least try to mitigate the problem without too much effort before
handing damaged IP space out to members.
damaged? so you will do your bit to undamage unused ip space by
not bogon
At 15:17 + 3/24/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To begin with, nothing I have to say here has any bearing on the
other IRR's. There is a reason there are 4-5 IRRs, each should be
tuned to local sensibilities.
However, ARIN today is a very dysfunctional organization.
That is a very brash
The other consequence is that the membership takes on the
responsibility for ARIN's actions. Not the staff's actions, but
ARIN's actions. If there is any dysfunction in ARIN, I suspect that
it lay here.
Yes, this is what I believe. The ARIN membership is more
passive than I think is
--- William Allen Simpson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I'm assuming that you really operate an ISP in Utah.
And that you are
willing to spend some time in jail at various times,
have $10,000 or so
for bail, and a few $100,000 for attorney fees --
none of which you'll
get back even should
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
is arin the problem here? or are 'lazy'/'dumb'/'mistaken'/'poorly
informed' admins the problem?
Lazy/misguided/ex admins / downsized networks are the problem. ARIN is in
a unique position to be able to do something to at least try
If FairUCE can't verify sender identity, then it goes into
challenge-response mode, sending a challenge email to the sender,
Let me rephrase that more accurately:
...spamming everyone who has been so unfortunate as to
have their address forged into a mail message...
From: Michael.Dillon
Date: Thu Mar 24 11:34:52 2005
The other consequence is that the membership takes on the
responsibility for ARIN's actions. Not the staff's actions, but
ARIN's actions. If there is
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
J.D. Falk
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2005 1:37 AM
On 03/23/05, Sam Hayes Merritt, III [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Subject: Re: Vonage sold over not clearly informing customers re 911
service lacking
At 01:38 PM 3/24/2005, Oren Levin wrote:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
J.D. Falk
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2005 1:37 AM
On 03/23/05, Sam Hayes Merritt, III [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Subject: Re: Vonage sold over not clearly
Re:
Your Call Will Go To A General Access Line at the Public Safety
Answering
Point (PSAP). This is different from the 911 Emergency Response Center
where
traditional 911 calls go.
In talking with my local PSAP about VoIP services and this particular
issue, they (PSAPs collectively) are fairly
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 03:13:07PM -0800, Randy Bush wrote:
y'all might give us something pingable in that space so we can
do a primitive and incomplete test in a simple fashion.
randy
try 172.128.1.1
/vijay
try 172.128.1.1
thanks. yummy.
randy
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005, G Pavan Kumar wrote:
Actually, I am not doing what you think I am. I am using the RouteViews
aggregation of the BGP routing tables. RouteViews is a project at the
univ. of Oregon that peers with backbones.
Really? Could you tell us more about it? I
At 17:01 + 3/24/05, Andrew Dul wrote:
I agree, I'd certainly like to see more people actively participate in the
process. If nanog folks believe that the ARIN membership is not getting the
right stuff done... How do we fix this problem? How do we get more
operators involved and active in
On 2005-03-24-14:02:26, Network.Security [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not saying (nor do I hope the PSAPs are either) that Vonage
should cease and desist service because of the 911 issues, rather
greater partnership needs to be initiated to insure that VoIP
service and POTS have the same
I agree, I'd certainly like to see more people actively participate in
the process. If nanog folks believe that the ARIN membership is not
getting the right stuff done... How do we fix this problem? How do we
get more operators involved and active in the RIRs?
I'd like to point out that
---Original Message---
From: Edward Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: ARIN, was Re: 72/8 friendly reminder
Sent: 24 Mar 2005 12:20:08
At 17:01 + 3/24/05, Andrew Dul wrote:
I agree, I'd certainly like to see more people actively participate in the
process. If nanog
One question does haunt me about how the operations community views ARIN.
Most ARIN policies are concerned with address allocation, reporting, and
such. There are not many policies regarding the functional role ARIN
plays in the Internet, the only one that leaps to mind is a lame
delegation
--On Thursday, March 24, 2005 3:20 PM -0500 Edward Lewis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 17:01 + 3/24/05, Andrew Dul wrote:
I agree, I'd certainly like to see more people actively participate in
the process. If nanog folks believe that the ARIN membership is not
getting the right stuff
ARIN supports the idea of doing reachability testing on new /8 blocks issued
by the IANA and will begin to set a plan in motion to move forward on this.
Once more details have been worked out, we will notify the community.
Regards,
Leslie Nobile
Director, Registration Services
American Registry
At 12:53 -0800 3/24/05, Owen DeLong wrote:
NO. Operational specifications and routing are the domain of the IETF
and _NOT_ ARIN. ARIN is responsible for the stewardship of assigned
numbers within the ARIN region. This includes IP addresses, Autonomous
System Numbers, and, DNS delegations for
At 13:01 -0800 3/24/05, Owen DeLong wrote:
There are not many such proposals in play at the moment because the ARIN
community reached consensus around most of these issues over the last
two years. There seems to be general agreement that the current state of
things is acceptable in terms of Whois
Looking for some help...
Net 18/8 seems to be unable to reach significant portions of the
Internet. I suspect that someone is advertising a bogus route for us.
None of the regular looking glasses show any problems though.
If anyone from Ebay or Rogers Cable (AS812) is listening, I would really
On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 08:12:33PM -0500, William Allen Simpson wrote:
The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. or vice versa.
Conviction is worthless unless it is converted into conduct.
Defending *palatable* speech is unremarkable.
-- me
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth
On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 05:48:00AM -0800, David Barak wrote:
if you prick them, they'll bleed...
What color?
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Designer Baylink RFC 2100
Jeeze...
It seems there are all kinds of policy wonks ever so ready to errect
fantastic edifices and structure all manner of procedure and organization
in order to fix the problem of newly allocated address space being
filtered that is largely caused by a highly visible attractive nuisance,
and
On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 01:02:26PM -0600, Network.Security wrote:
I read on a Vonage customer forum about testing your 911 service with
them, I don't know that I'd advocate that as the PSAPs will likely be
ticked. But again, it emphasizes a point about collaboration between
Vonage and the
On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 04:20:10PM -0500, Member Services wrote:
ARIN supports the idea of doing reachability testing on new /8 blocks issued
by the IANA and will begin to set a plan in motion to move forward on this.
Once more details have been worked out, we will notify the community.
/me
David Barak wrote:
wouldn't it be cheaper and easier to simply get a
lawyer and an engineer in the same room and brainstorm
until you came up with something which
pretty-much-worked(tm) and was at least arguably
compliant with the law? There have been a couple of
ideas bandied about on this list
Just got a call from Tosten of a company called Bandwidth
Advisors. They represent themselves as a Independent Telco
Colo Consultants (see web page).
Seems that they are calling around ISPs and asking them if they
have an agent program. After talking to him a bit I find out
that they will
FYI:
-- Forwarded Message
From: Brownstein, Charles [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 17:05:58 -0500
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: can you assist in announcing this
To interested IP'ers
The Computer Science and Telecommunications Board of the National
Academies invites you to a
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Tim Pozar
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2005 6:58 PM
To: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Bandwidth Advisors - www.bandwidthadvisors.com
Just got a call from Tosten of a company called Bandwidth
Advisors.
Problem solved (sort of). Thanks to all who helped. An unamed ISP was
leaking routes they picked up via a biazzare (and apparently
nonfunctional path). The last hop before the path got to us was Sprint
(AS1239) (which we are connected to). We have withdrawn our route from
Sprint which made the
- Original Message -
From: Tim Pozar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: nanog@merit.edu
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2005 6:57 PM
Subject: Bandwidth Advisors - www.bandwidthadvisors.com
Just got a call from Tosten of a company called Bandwidth
Advisors. They represent themselves as a Independent
--- Mike Leber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip regarding attractive nuisance
Well, there has been some movement - Cisco has changed
their policy, as noted here:
http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/2005-02/msg00354.html
Now if we can just get everyone else to play along...
David Barak
Need
Hannigan, Martin wrote:
They're brokers. There's really nothing wrong with what they
are doing, although they may not have explained it to you too
well.
I guess not.
What they do is become an agent, or reseller, for a company and
they get a residual on anyone they refer. So if you are a corp IT
NO. Operational specifications and routing are the domain of the IETF
and _NOT_ ARIN.
whoever wrote this should share what they're smoking.
Let's say DNSSEC is ready for deployment.
and cash falls from the sky
randy
On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 12:18:34PM -0800, Bill Woodcock wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005, G Pavan Kumar wrote:
Actually, I am not doing what you think I am. I am using the RouteViews
aggregation of the BGP routing tables. RouteViews is a project at the
univ. of Oregon that
Hi,
I'm trying to set up a anycast DNS server farm for
customer service. In order to improve availability, we
plan to install those servers in
one LAN which has the similar structure like :
server-(1,3)---switch1---router-1---(outside)
|
|
--On Thursday, March 24, 2005 16:32 -0500 Edward Lewis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 12:53 -0800 3/24/05, Owen DeLong wrote:
NO. Operational specifications and routing are the domain of the IETF
and _NOT_ ARIN. ARIN is responsible for the stewardship of assigned
numbers within the ARIN region.
Here's my dilemma. On the one hand I hear calls for greater operational
input to ARIN. On the other hand is empirical evidence that there isn't
much input being given.
Correct... Generally, you hear those calls coming from ARIN because ARIN
is trying to maximize the involvement of its
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005, Bill Woodcock wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005, G Pavan Kumar wrote:
Actually, I am not doing what you think I am. I am using the RouteViews
aggregation of the BGP routing tables. RouteViews is a project at the
univ. of Oregon that peers with backbones.
Really?
On Mar 25, 2005, at 12:25 AM, G Pavan Kumar wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005, Bill Woodcock wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005, G Pavan Kumar wrote:
Actually, I am not doing what you think I am. I am using the
RouteViews
aggregation of the BGP routing tables. RouteViews is a project
at the
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 12:18:34PM -0800, Bill Woodcock wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005, G Pavan Kumar wrote:
Actually, I am not doing what you think I am. I am using the RouteViews
aggregation of the BGP routing tables. RouteViews is a project
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Owen DeLong
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 12:00 AM
To: Edward Lewis
Cc: Andrew Dul; nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: ARIN, was Re: 72/8 friendly reminder
[ snip ]
Right... So, things divide into two
1) should each dns cache server be configured a static
default route (0.0.0.0/0.0.0.0)? If server-(1,3) is
configured statically to use
router-1 as default router, will Quagga make it use
router-2 when router-1 is not reachable?
No, because both routers are reached
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005, Patrick W Gilmore wrote:
Okie, this has gone on long enough.
If you would like some help, please stop, take a deep breath, count to ten
slowly, then ask nicely and some people here might teach you something.
May be you should spend more time on networking than your partime
thanks.
No, because both routers are reached through the
same L1/L2 medium, so
Quagga can't use link-state to determine
reachability of the next-hop.
You could fix that by getting rid of the switches,
and just having a bunch
of router interfaces facing two Ethernet interfaces
on each
68 matches
Mail list logo
