Neal R wrote:
I have a customer with IP transport from Sprint and McLeod and fiber
connectivity to Sprint in the Chicago area. The person making the
decisions is not a routing guy but is very sharp overall. He is
currently examining the latency on trans-Atlantic links and has fixed on
the
I used to get about 60ms from router to router in TAT12/13 (I think)
from London Telehouse to NY Telehouse.
Security Admin (NetSec) wrote:
Sprint has probably the lowest latency in the industry; I use them for a Los
Angeles - London IPSec VPN. Typical latency is around 140-150 ms rt
Peter Dambier wrote:
Neal R wrote:
I have a customer with IP transport from Sprint and McLeod and fiber
connectivity to Sprint in the Chicago area. The person making the
decisions is not a routing guy but is very sharp overall. He is
currently examining the latency on trans-Atlantic
On Thu 28 Jun 2007 (18:20 -0500), Neal R wrote:
I have a customer with IP transport from Sprint and McLeod and fiber
connectivity to Sprint in the Chicago area. The person making the
decisions is not a routing guy but is very sharp overall. He is
currently examining the latency on
A reasonable latency to expect between Chicago and London would be 92ms
RTT.
Brian Knoll
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Neal R
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2007 6:21 PM
To: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: trans-Atlantic latency?
I have a
Apparently GoDaddy does not support v6 glue for their customers, who
does? I don't think requiring dual-stack v6 users perform v4 queries
to find records is all that great.
Any input would be helpful,
-Barrett
Christian,
On Jun 29, 2007, at 9:37 AM, Christian Kuhtz wrote:
Until there's a practical solution for multihoming, this whole
discussion is pretty pointless
The fact that a practical multihoming solution for IPv6 does not
exist doesn't mean that the IPv4 free pool will not be exhausted.
One note here is that even though you can get glue into com/net/org
using this method, there is no IPv6 glue for the root yet, as such
even
if you manage to get the IPv6 glue in, it won't accomplish much
(except
sending all IPv6 capable resolvers over IPv6 transport :) as all
Unless I
On Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 16:35:09 +0100, Neil J. McRae wrote:
I remember in the past an excellent system using Sesame Street characters
names.
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2100.html
Hi Nicolas,
you will never make 2GB of traffic go down one STM4 or even 3x STM4!
But you are asking me about load balancing amongst 3 upstreams...
Deaggregation of your prefix is an ugly way to do TE. If you buy from carriers
that support BGP communities there are much nicer ways to manage
;. IN NS
A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. 360 IN A 198.41.0.4
B.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. 360 IN A 192.228.79.201
C.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. 360 IN A 192.33.4.12
D.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. 360 IN A 128.8.10.90
I'm pretty disappointed now,
Searching the ICANN web site I found this:
http://www.icann.org/committees/security/sac018.pdf
Does anyone know what's been happening in the wake of that document?
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis
--- Barrett Lyon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't see any v6 glue there... Rather than having
conversations
about transition to IPv6, maybe we should be sure it
works natively
first? It's rather ironic to think that for v6 DNS
to work an
incumbent legacy protocol is still
Nicolás Antoniello wrote:
Hi Steve,
Sure... I've never mention 3 STM4... the example said 3 carriers.
OK, you may do it with communities, but if you advertise all in just one
prefix, even with communities, I find it very difficult to control the
trafic when it pass through 2 or more AS
Hi Joel,
To use AS path prepend when you advertise just one prefix does not solve
the problem...in this case it actually make it worth, 'cos you may find
all your trafic coming from only one of your uplinks.
Nicolas.
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
joelja Nicolás Antoniello wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007, Barrett Lyon wrote:
If you deploy dual-stack, it is much easier to keep doing the DNS
queries
using IPv4 transport, and there is not any practical advantage in
doing so
with IPv6 transport.
Thanks Jordi, not to sound too brash but, I'm already doing so. I am
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
perhaps a decent other question is: Do I want to let the whole world know
that router X with interfaces of type Y/Z/Q is located in 1-wilshire.
I suppose on the one hand it's helpful to know that Network-A has a device
with the right sorts of
At 9:23 -0700 6/29/07, Barrett Lyon wrote:
I would like to support v6 so a native v6 only user can still communicate
with my network, dns and all, apparently in practice that is not easy to
do, which is somewhat ironic given all of the v6 push lately. It also
seems like the roots are not even
On 29-jun-2007, at 19:06, Edward Lewis wrote:
I'm pretty disappointed now,
Searching the ICANN web site I found this:
http://www.icann.org/committees/security/sac018.pdf
Does anyone know what's been happening in the wake of that document?
Well:
Additional study and testing is
there are providers that have (in the US even if that matters) ipv6
connected auth servers, that could even help. I can't seem to make
one of
them want to be a registrar too :( but... maybe Ultra/Neustar could do
that for you?
Neustar/Ultra's .org gtld registration services apparently do
My view is that deploying only IPv6 in the LANs is the wrong approach in the
short term, unless you're sure that all your applications are ready, or you
have translation tools (that often are ugly), and you're disconnected from
the rest of the IPv4 Internet.
I'm deploying large (5000 sites) IPv6
One note here is that even though you can get glue into com/net/org
using this method, there is no IPv6 glue for the root yet, as such even
if you manage to get the IPv6 glue in, it won't accomplish much (except
sending all IPv6 capable resolvers over IPv6 transport :) as all
resolvers will
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007, Barrett Lyon wrote:
there are providers that have (in the US even if that matters) ipv6
connected auth servers, that could even help. I can't seem to make
one of
them want to be a registrar too :( but... maybe Ultra/Neustar could do
that for you?
23 matches
Mail list logo
