Randy Bush wrote:
the only stuff that makes me feel at all safe is what mike hughes
of linx described, or something even stricter, but i bow to mike's
experience.
and folk wonder why the grown-ups use pnis for anything important.
Isn't this due to the fact their engineering scale is bigger?
just wait for ipv6 and toasters with webservers! :) Actually, as
more things get a network stack I imagine more interconnection will
occur
requiring more bandwidth and taxing the infrastructure even more :)
Imagination is becoming reality...
A webserver the size of a match head
This report has been generated at Fri Nov 11 21:45:55 2005 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
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Randy Bush) [Thu 10 Nov 2005, 03:35 CET]:
[ the voice of experience speaks ]
[..]
thanks! this approaches reassuring. why does it tolerate 100
macs? at first blush, i would think three or four would be a
bad enough sign.
I've seen several cases where a router goes
Randy Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
but it will be a classic. if you can get and edit it, send
it to boing boing or /.
Pearls before swine.
In my rss aggregator, boingboing and /. are labeled a Directory for
Dilettantes and News for Goobers respectively.
but it will be a classic. if you can get and edit it, send
it to boing boing or /.
Pearls before swine.
that's what a number of i* members have publicly stated is their
opinion of talking to us operators. i saved in my mementos the
following quote from an ipv6 architect and current iab
Be careful Owen - i think you may be falling into a libertarian trap
- worrisome because I respect highly things i have seen you write in
past.
Think about what you are saying: Something to consider about this
proposed regulation... It is actually
in many ways proposed deregulation
On Nov 10, 2005, at 5:56 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Begin forwarded message:
From: Brett Glass [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: November 9, 2005 10:43:40 AM EST
Here's the latest draft of the Internet
regulation bill, dated November 3rd. Note that, like earlier
versions, it subjects all ISPs and
On Nov 11, 2005, at 4:06 AM, Will Hargrave wrote:
Randy Bush wrote:
the only stuff that makes me feel at all safe is what mike hughes
of linx described, or something even stricter, but i bow to mike's
experience.
and folk wonder why the grown-ups use pnis for anything important.
Isn't this
Who said big carriers don't join IXes? There are plenty of
networks who have more traffic than some teir ones at IXes.
Hell, RANDY has a presence at least one IX.
well, one of my routers does :-) and it moves almost 50kb/sec!
i have spent long enough i don't want to count years trying to
On Nov 11, 2005, at 9:33 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
Who said big carriers don't join IXes? There are plenty of
networks who have more traffic than some teir ones at IXes.
Hell, RANDY has a presence at least one IX.
well, one of my routers does :-) and it moves almost 50kb/sec!
:-)
i have
NAPs these days are stable, scalable, and useful.
IXs (there were only four NAPs, and i'm too old and lazy to
play droid terminology drift) have pretty much always been
scalable (for the then current meaning of scale) and useful.
though i have admiration and sympathy for folk such as
steve,
On Thu, 2005-11-10 at 20:37 -1000, Randy Bush wrote:
btw, for another great giggle (many thanks to brian candler
for reporting it)
From the documentation for Cisco's VPN client software for
Linux:
None that I have spoken with. What I hear continually is that people
would like operational viewpoints on what they're doing and are
concerned at the fact that operators don't involve themselves in IETF
discussions.
On Nov 11, 2005, at 6:03 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
that's what a number of
thank you Vint.folks please note Vint's remarks on common carriage. This stuff gets very complicate very fast and i do not have it all at the tip of my tongue by any means. Vint did engage with Fred Goldstein, Andrew Odlyzko, David Isenberg and others in a discussion of this about 3 weeks
Randy Bush wrote:
but it will be a classic. if you can get and edit it, send
it to boing boing or /.
Pearls before swine.
that's what a number of i* members have publicly stated is their
opinion of talking to us operators. i saved in my mementos the
following quote from an ipv6 architect
On Nov 11, 2005, at 10:43 AM, Gordon Cook wrote:
thank you Vint.
folks please note Vint's remarks on common carriage. This stuff
gets very complicate very fast and i do not have it all at the tip
of my tongue by any means. Vint did engage with Fred Goldstein,
Andrew Odlyzko, David
Blaine: This is about all I can offer under the circumstances. It
is from page 45 of my nov-dec issue published about sept 30.
you do ask a Reasonable question.
===
From Brett Glass on September 17 via Dave Farber’s IP List - Here it
comes: Regulation of the Internet and ISPs
On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 07:39:09AM -0800, Fred Baker wrote:
None that I have spoken with. What I hear continually is that people
would like operational viewpoints on what they're doing and are
concerned at the fact that operators don't involve themselves in IETF
discussions.
Thinking of services in terms of /etc/services will get you nowhere
with this. It's like using the term best effort to a lawyer.
It's all about context.
-Benson
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, 11
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 14:15:40 + (GMT)
From: Edward B. Dreger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Networking Pearl Harbor in the Making
RB Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 14:43:54 -0600 (CST)
RB From: Robert Bonomi
RB Re-coding to eliminate all 'possible' buffer overflow situations is a
*big*
RB
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005, Gordon Cook wrote:
Please note also Vint's remark:
If ISPs were to inspect packets and interfere with those of
competing application providers (voice, video), I would consider
that a violation of the principle of network neutrality.
Would packet classification and
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 12 Nov, 2005
On Thu, 2005-11-10 at 20:37 -1000, Randy Bush wrote:
btw, for another great giggle (many thanks to brian candler
for reporting it)
From the documentation for Cisco's VPN client software for
Linux:
Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
On Thu, 2005-11-10 at 20:37 -1000, Randy Bush wrote:
btw, for another great giggle (many thanks to brian candler
for reporting it)
From the documentation for Cisco's VPN client software for
Linux:
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005, Crist Clark wrote:
Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
encrypted how? cyrpt? md5? cisco7? Some way proven to take 'very long' to
decrypt? is the passwd really necessary or is only the hash required? this
is just wholey irresponsible of any vendor, nevermind one that
None that I have spoken with.
that's what a number of i* members have publicly stated is their
opinion of talking to us operators.
i imagine you speak with the one i was quoting rather often,
though you were not there when it was said. i was. ask
others who were there, pitsburgh ietf, a
On Nov 11, 2005, at 10:09 AM, Sam Crooks wrote:
The password string is encrypted in the Profile, however, when you
save
it...
http://www.unix-ag.uni-kl.de/~massar/bin/cisco-decode
yes, a specific member of the IAB said that. A few moments ago, I was
chatting with the chair of the IAB, who wondered out loud whether he
had noticed everyone else on the IAB edging away from him (something
about lightning strikes emanating from the dagger-eyes of fellow IAB
members I
--- Blaine Christian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
I suspect the section regarding nondiscriminatory access could have
been worded better. Half the text is repeated. Are they paid by
the word you think?
I believe this part is how utilities (ele, gas, tel(traditional),
sewage, etc) who
Do we *really* want to do anything to encourage a higher burn rate
of AS numbers
before we've deployed 32-bit AS number support?
The only way to get 32-bit AS number support deployed is to run out
of AS numbers in
the 16 bit space.
Tony
[ many folk may wish to skip to the *** ]
yes, a specific member of the IAB said that.
and we have let their name live in peace. and my message made
it very clear that it was one member speaking.
wondered out loud whether he had noticed everyone else on the
IAB edging away from him
At 7:10 PM -1000 11/10/05, Randy Bush wrote:
reported from tonight's iitf iab (internet archetecture board)
plenary. proclaimed by an esteemed iab member from the podium:
it is bad in the long term to add hierarchy to routing
this will save a lot of work. whew!
That is exceptionally good
have been attacked as a clueless operator, and heard operators
as a class denigrated, by each and every one of them [0].
randy
---
[0] - just yesterday, i wore my bottom feeding scum sucker
tee shirt from ivtf, i think, summer '95.
mar1996 - Los Angeles.
CIDRd
On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 04:29:33PM -0500, John Curran wrote:
At 7:10 PM -1000 11/10/05, Randy Bush wrote:
reported from tonight's iitf iab (internet archetecture board)
plenary. proclaimed by an esteemed iab member from the podium:
it is bad in the long term to add hierarchy to
On Nov 11, 1:14pm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The only way to get 32-bit AS number support deployed is to run out
of AS numbers in
the 16 bit space.
Exactly.
- When will the Internet deploy X?
- Just before it's too late.
How many people on this list remember the transition from BGP3
On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 09:41:49PM +, Per Gregers Bilse wrote:
On Nov 11, 1:14pm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The only way to get 32-bit AS number support deployed is to run out
of AS numbers in
the 16 bit space.
Exactly.
- When will the Internet deploy X?
- Just before
CIDRd working group.
ahh yes. a memorable period of openness, cooperation, and
respect for operators in the ivtf community.
i still have the artwork
i always loved the baby diaper yellow shirt color far more
than the barely decipherable koi on the back. great color!
but please don't plan yet another the wonderful things the
ivtf is doing in area x.
Actually, that is not at all what I had intened or
planned, and if it came across that way then to some
extent we failed. In any event, I do appreciate this
feedback.
try
On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 09:41:49PM +, Per Gregers Bilse wrote:
On Nov 11, 1:14pm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The only way to get 32-bit AS number support deployed is to run out
of AS numbers in
the 16 bit space.
Exactly.
- When will the Internet deploy X?
- Just before
On Nov 11, 9:50pm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
EGP-BGP
BGP-BGP2
BGP2-BGP3
Yes ... but those were easier, more overlap was possible, especially at
the edge. We had EGP peers right into BGP4 times. CIDR was more
universal, outright a 'flag day' all things considered. But never
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
Actually, thinking about this, does a bit cost more when delivered from
china or 'mci' (pick any domestic isp)? I'm asking not about the total
cost, but say the cost from (to pick on sbc) SBC's front door to the
consumer's front door ? Does a
Okay, so as people pointed out, I forgot that hardware engineers like
to make assumptions about software for the sake of efficiency in ASICs
and the like. So add a few exponents of pain. Still shouldn't be *all*
that bad I wouldn't think.
On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 03:19:45PM -0700, Wayne E.
In a message written on Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 05:26:59PM -0500, Sean Donelan
wrote:
MCI Friends Family charged different rates for phone calls depending
[snip]
rate? Level 3 charges different rates for on-net versus off-net
It's not that any of these are bad, but it's that the consumer must
be
On Nov 11, 2005, at 2:50 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
we clustered the engineers into the IETF terminal
room
since we're reminiscing, we did this at dallas ietf in 1995, i think
it was (yes, http://merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/2000-11/
msg00222.html). we had hit a timer bug in
On Nov 11, 2005, at 5:19 PM, Wayne E. Bouchard wrote:
I think, however, that this will be less dramatic than other
things. This is a relatively simple software change. The one thing
it *will* do is make sure that all the old hardware out there that
runs BGP won't work anymore and have to be
i think you misunderstand the h/w / s/w distinction here.
BGP is a 'control-plane'-driven protocol. control-plane = software.
no vendor would have BGP in hardware per-se (although its forseeable
that they may have 'AS# accounting for netflow' in h/w and that may be
limited to addressing
Hi Dave,
In response to your request for more interaction w/the IAB, here's a
peeve I've been developing lately and perhaps this outlet might be
appropriate for it.
There are some resources, like IP addresses and AS numbers, the proper
operation of which hinges on their uniqueness.
Generally,
48 matches
Mail list logo
