Hello,
my organization is considering PI addresses as a way to multihost.
Having read the archives regarding disadvantages and alternatives,
my question is how big a network must one have to be reasonably
sure the BGP routers will accept the route?
regards, JS
my organization is considering PI addresses as a way to multihost.
Having read the archives regarding disadvantages and alternatives,
my question is how big a network must one have to be reasonably
sure the BGP routers will accept the route?
/24
Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, [EMAIL
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007, John Smith wrote:
my organization is considering PI addresses as a way to multihost.
Having read the archives regarding disadvantages and alternatives,
my question is how big a network must one have to be reasonably
sure the BGP routers will accept the route?
A /24 is
This article paints a rather dismal picture:
Despite optimistic estimates that it would take only three weeks
to repair the massive damage done to what are now said to be
eight submarine cables by the Dec. 26, 2006, magnitude-6.7
earthquake near Taiwan, reports today indicate that not one of
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007, Frank Bulk wrote:
This article paints a rather dismal picture:
Despite optimistic estimates that it would take only three weeks
to repair the massive damage done to what are now said to be
eight submarine cables by the Dec. 26, 2006, magnitude-6.7
earthquake near Taiwan,
Hi,
This question is about the IPv6 section of ARIN Number Resource Policy
Manual.
From the manual (Section 6.5.1.1.c):
-
6.5.1.1. Initial allocation criteria
c. Plan to provide IPv6 connectivity to organizations to which it will
assign IPv6 address space, by advertising that
On Jan 16, 2007, at 8:36 AM, Wes Hardaker wrote:
A number of ISPs use njabl.org as a DNS BL server. However, starting
jan 2 a new domain exists njalb.org which is serving A records for
anything queried against it's DNS server. (note the difference: njaBL
vs njaLB). Previous to this date a
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007, Nicolás Antoniello wrote:
A /28 prefix may have a lot of incoming traffic associated to it, so I
believe the dissagregation (subnets) of the prefix should be allowed by the
policy.
What do you think? Do you have a similar problem?
Please achieve inbound load balancing
I'm interested as to why RIRs dont set the minimum PI allocatable
to /24 in order to fit with the current trend.
I mean, I can see the reason for smaller allocations where an LIR routes
and aggregates both but these are rare and probably legacy examples.
Changing the allocation policy such
On Jan 17, 2007, at 12:19 PM, David Freedman wrote:
I'm interested as to why RIRs dont set the minimum PI allocatable
to /24 in order to fit with the current trend.
In the 2002-3 micro-assignment policy, the RIR's assign a minimum of
a /22. As far as I know, all of the PI
/24's are
I need to talk to someone clueful at Shaw Cable about a core network
issue. The tech line as usual is not helpful.
Thanks very much,
Ken
--
Ken Simpson, CEO
MailChannels Corporation
Reliable Email Delivery (tm)
http://www.mailchannels.com
Pekka Savola wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007, Nicolás Antoniello wrote:
A /28 prefix may have a lot of incoming traffic associated to it, so I
believe the dissagregation (subnets) of the prefix should be allowed
by the policy.
I guess you are talking about 2800:a0::/28 which was allocated by
On 17-Jan-2007, at 12:43, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
On Jan 17, 2007, at 12:19 PM, David Freedman wrote:
I'm interested as to why RIRs dont set the minimum PI allocatable
to /24 in order to fit with the current trend.
In the 2002-3 micro-assignment policy, the RIR's assign a minimum
of a
4.3.2.1 Single Connection
The minimum block of IP address space assigned by ARIN to end-
users is a /20. [...]
4.3.2.2 Multihomed Connection
For end-users who demonstrate an intent to announce the
requested space in a multihomed fashion, the minimum block of IP
address space assigned is
On 17-Jan-2007, at 18:36, Owen DeLong wrote:
Actually, generally, the expectation under 4.4 is that the
addresses will not be advertised at all for the most part, since,
generally, there's no need to advertise the route to the exchange
point, itself, into the global routing table. 4.4
On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 03:35:30PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
SecureID might be helpful if you want to differentiate your product
between automatic and manual use, but it doesn't do anything to
authenticate the party you are relaying information to. But it's
useless in a phishing context.
If you don't have personal control over the mail system you are using,
it's possible that you don't have control over whether or not you use
HTML.
As an armchair security pundit, I think phishing has adequately highlighted
the ability of HTML to mislead, in the sense that its intended
(Snip)
but they could be
corrected with proper education (how about keeping every URL under one
second-level domain related to your company, perhaps companyname.com)
(Snip)
Proper education for whom, the people setting up the site probably know
this already. It's the bosses and marketing that
We used to have five phones with Sprint. Two months ago we dropped
them after six months of trying to get them to bill us for our plan. The
bills had been consistently 50% - 100% over what we expected. Each time
they were apologetic and a refund was issued. The final straw was an
hour
On Sat, Jan 06, 2007 at 02:35:25PM +, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
Oh I should be clear too. We use SI powers of 10, just like for
bandwidth, not powers of two like for storage. We quote in Megabytes
because caps are usually in gigabytes, so it's more clear for users.
IEC 60027-2 prefixes
Sprint certainly (luckily, not to me yet...) has a serious billing
problem under certain mysterious conditions that nobody seems to ever be
able to explain hence their ability to never fix..
I've been lucky but I have read of horror stories.. this not being the
first. :(
nealr wrote:
21 matches
Mail list logo
