On 16 Apr 2008, at 13:33 , Simon Waters wrote:
Ask anyone in the business if I want a free email account who do I
use.. and
you'll get the almost universal answer Gmail.
I think amongst those not in the business there are regional trends,
however. Around this neck of the woods (for some
On 15 Apr 2008, at 11:22 , William Herrin wrote:
There's a novel idea. Require incoming senior staff at an email
company to work a month at the abuse desk before they can assume the
duties for which they were hired.
At a long-previous employer we once toyed with the idea of having
On 10 Apr 2008, at 23:58 , Rob Szarka wrote:
At 02:23 PM 4/10/2008, you wrote:
Maybe we all should do the same to them until they quit spewing out
all the
Nigerian scams and the like that I've been seeing from their
servers lately!
If there were an coordinated boycott, I would
On 25 Mar 2008, at 09:11 , Dorn Hetzel wrote:
It would sure be nice if along with choosing to order servers with
DC or AC power inputs one could choose air or water cooling.
Or perhaps some non-conductive working fluid instead of water. That
might not carry quite as much heat as water,
On 17-Mar-2008, at 06:07, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you're providing content or network services on v6 and you
don't have both a Teredo and 6to4 relay, you should - there
are more v6 users on those two than there are on native
v6[1]. Talk to me and I'll give you a
On 14-Mar-2008, at 12:42, Joe Shen wrote:
Is there any way to solve problem above?
The approach described in http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0505/abley.cluster.html
would probably work, so long as the routers choosing between the
ECMP routes are able to make route selections per flow, and
On 12-Mar-2008, at 16:06, Frank Bulk - iNAME wrote:
Slightly off-topic, but tangentially related that I'll dare to ask.
I'm attending an Emerging Communications course where the instructor
stated that there are SOHO routers that natively support IPv6,
pointing to
Asia specifically.
Do
On 27-Feb-2008, at 15:09, Mark Smith wrote:
Don't worry if the ISOC website times out, their firewall isn't TCP
ECN compatible.
Isn't it the case in the real world that the Internet isn't TCP ECN
compatible?
I thought people had relegated that to the nice idea but, in
practice, waste
On 28-Feb-2008, at 01:56, Paul Wall wrote:
UU/MFS tried running IP on the 'protect' path of their SONET rings
10 years ago. It didn't work then.
Well, it works so long as whoever was trying to troubleshoot the
circuits at 3am on US Thanksgiving understands that having the system
switch
On 28-Feb-2008, at 09:26, Adrian Chadd wrote:
Then you probably haven't been on the ass end of a continental fibre
link
drop. That actually mattered.
If both sides of your SONET ring drop, then surely you're as dead in
the water as you would be if each side of the ring was being used as
On 4-Feb-2008, at 00:19, Scott Morris wrote:
You mean do you have to express it in hex?
There are two related things here: (a) the ability to represent a 32-
bit word in an IPv6 address in the form of a dotted-quad, and (b) the
legitimacy of an IPv6 address of the form ::A.B.C.D, where
On 20-Jan-2008, at 15:34, William Herrin wrote:
Perhaps your definition of entry level DFZ router differs from mine.
I selected a Cisco 7600 w/ sup720-3bxl or rsp720-3xcl as my baseline
for an entry level DFZ router.
A new cisco 2851 can be found for under $10k and can take a gig of
RAM.
On 18-Jan-2008, at 18:56, Randy Bush wrote:
The .com/.net registry has supported RRs for over five years
(since May, 2002). The issue you may be encountering is that not
every .com/.net registrar supports them.
way cool.
do you happen to know if opensrs registrars have a path to do
On 18-Jan-2008, at 05:39, Randy Bush wrote:
similarly for the root, as rip.psg.com serves some tlds.
The request has to come from a TLD manager (anyone which uses
rip.psg.com)
i can go down the hall to the mirror and ask myself to ask me to do
it. :)
:-)
but, of course, you would get
On 16-Jan-2008, at 07:09, Rod Beck wrote:
6. I am not aware of any Dutch per se ISP conferences although that
market is certainly quite vibrant. I am also disappointed to see the
Canadians and Irish have next to nothing despite Ireland being the
European base of operations for Google,
On 15-Jan-2008, at 11:40, Ben Butler wrote:
Defaults wont work because a routing decision has to be made, my
transit
originating a default or me pointing a default at them does not
guarantee the reachability of all prefixes..
Taking a table that won't fit in RAM similarly won't guarantee
On 15-Jan-2008, at 12:50, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
Anycast gives you BGP distance, not topological distance.
Yeah, it's topology modulated by economics :-)
Joe
On 8-Dec-2007, at 00:18, sana sohail wrote:
I am looking for a typical percentage of external(inter-domain) routes
versus typical percentage of internal (intra-domain) routes in a core
router with couple of hundred thousand entries in the routing table.
Can anyone please help me in this?
I
On 13-Nov-2007, at 10:08, Drew Weaver wrote:
Hi there, I just had a real quick question. I hope this is
found to be on topic.
Is it to be expected to see rfc1918 src'd packets coming from
transit carriers?
You should not send packets with RFC1918 source or destination
On 13-Nov-2007, at 10:35, Robert Bonomi wrote:
On 13-Nov-2007, at 10:08, Drew Weaver wrote:
Hi there, I just had a real quick question. I hope this is
found to be on topic.
Is it to be expected to see rfc1918 src'd packets coming from
transit carriers?
You should not send packets
On 16-Oct-2007, at 0950, Betty J. Burke wrote:
Please encourage everyone to take advantage of the process ..
Voting activity picked up a lot this morning, but if the level of
participation doesn't increase rapidly, we may have a lower
turnout than last year. I think last year we had about
Since I've heard from a couple of people who are having problems,
allow me to channel Betty:
Follow:
To create username and password: https://www.nanog.org/registration/
username.epl
or
To have username and password resent: https://www.nanog.org/
registration/password.epl
If anybody has
On 10-Oct-2007, at 1256, Sean Figgins wrote:
Spam, on the other hand, always seemed to be a scarlet topic here.
If someone mentions spam or mail servers, there are those here that
start breathing fire and claiming that their email should not be
subject to spam filters. I don't know that
On 9-Oct-2007, at 0512, Paul Ferguson wrote:
- -- vijay gill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Really, reading this thread has left me stupider. I guess instead of
focusing on things like the lightweight agenda, abysmal content and
actual value to be had from NANOG,
I'm glad someone finally said
On 9-Oct-2007, at 1053, Stephen Wilcox wrote:
i think the SC should review the idea of 2 meetings per year tho,
maybe that will bring focus and relevance. can i ask you to take it
to your next SC meeting?
I will not be on the SC after NANOG 41, but I will certainly bring it
up there.
On 9-Oct-2007, at 1206, Stephen Wilcox wrote:
i'm not sure that sounds like improvement. why cant the charter
just allow them to decide a presentation is worth having without
going through all the hoops that Paul mentions if its appropriate?
I think the charter gives the PC lots of
On 9-Oct-2007, at 1553, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, I'd like to rent a box somewhere outside of the US, for geographic
redundancy and other reasons.
[...]
I'd prefer if they spoke English, but weren't in the UK or US. I
could deal with it if they only spoke Spanish.
Lots of options in
On 4-Oct-2007, at 1416, Joe Greco wrote:
It'd be interesting to know what the average utilization of an
unlimited
US broadband customer was, compared to the average utilization of an
unlimited AU broadband customer. It would be interesting, then, to
look
at where the quotas lie on the
On 25-Sep-2007, at 1128, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ARIN has set up a wiki at http://www.getipv6.info to publish
information
that will help ISPs, large and small in implementing IPv6 and
migrating
to an IPv6 Internet.
It might be worth syncing up with the people who
On 11-Sep-2007, at 1514, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
Some of the local old-school Bell Atlantic/Verizon techs also did
very clean work, but most of them took the early retirement
packages that were offered 4-5 years ago.
This (the general subject of how to keep real-world cabinets tidy and
On 3-Sep-2007, at 1328, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Spurred on by a widespread belief that TCP is showing its age and
needs replacing
I don't mean to hijack this thread unnecessarily, but this seems like
an interesting disconnect between ops people and research people
(either that or I'm
On 13-Aug-2007, at 23:31, Wguisa71 wrote:
Does anyone known some tool for network documentation with:
- inventory (cards, serial numbers, manufactor...)
- documentation (configurations, software version control, etc)
- topology building (L2, L3.. connections, layer control, ...)
All-in-one
On 28-Jun-2007, at 13:16, Randy Bush wrote:
Interoperability is achieved by having public facing
servers reachable via IPv4 and IPv6.
that may be what it looks like from the view of an address allocator.
but if you actually have to deliver data from servers you need a path
where
On 7-Jun-2007, at 02:48, Brandon Butterworth wrote:
#1 NAT advantage: it protects consumers from vendor
lock-in.
Speaking of FUD... NAT does nothing here that is not also
accomplished
through the use of PI addressing.
True, diy PI (mmm, PI) is a major reason people use it for v4
On 7-Jun-2007, at 10:47, Jon Lewis wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007, James Blessing wrote:
Sorry for the cross posting to a number of lists but this is an
important topic for many of you (especially if you get multiple
copies).
As many people are aware there is an 'expectation' that
On 4-Jun-2007, at 02:03, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 02:53:52AM +, Paul Vixie wrote:
ipv6 load balancers exist, one's current load balancer is/may
probably
not be up to the task.
my favourite load balancer is OSPF ECMP, since there are no extra
boxes,
just
On 24-May-2007, at 09:43, Brighten Godfrey wrote:
I'm a Ph.D. student from UC Berkeley who will be attending the
upcoming NANOG in Bellevue. If anyone is interested in splitting a
hotel room to reduce costs, please drop me an email. (I have a
room booked already but could cancel.)
I
On 24-May-2007, at 03:42, Forrest W. Christian wrote:
Earlier today I had an issue where a circuit to one of my two BGP
connected upstreams went away for an hour or so.
During this period, I expected BGP to act as expected and migrate
the traffic to the second circuit with a second
On 11-May-2007, at 13:55, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
On Fri, 11 May 2007, Jared Mauch wrote:
If there is interest, perhaps I can make a call to DoJ and
see if someone can present on CALEA at nanog in a few weeks? (incase
the PC can accomodate them).
that seems like a great idea,
On 23-May-2007, at 14:56, Joe Abley wrote:
On 11-May-2007, at 13:55, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
On Fri, 11 May 2007, Jared Mauch wrote:
If there is interest, perhaps I can make a call to DoJ and
see if someone can present on CALEA at nanog in a few weeks?
(incase
the PC can
On 21-May-2007, at 10:26, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
I wonder how the .de or .uk folks see things? Is the same true
elsewhere?
I think the phenomenon of that doesn't look right because it doesn't
end in .com is peculiar to the US.
Elsewhere, you don't need a particularly large TLD zone to
On 13-May-2007, at 15:33, Neal Rauhauser wrote:
I don't know much about Juniper but I'm about to learn with a new
job. If I'm going to take full routes from a couple of upstreams
and have a couple of peers will the M10i (768M max) be enough or is
the M20 (2048M max) a better choice.
I
On 9-May-2007, at 05:25, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
but I'm still unclear on
what an MIB actually _is_,
A MIB is the database schema for an object-oriented hierarchical
database.
I believe that (some?) purists would assert that there is but one
MIB, and that all other
On 24-Apr-2007, at 10:15, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You might try taking a look at the various presentations at
NANOG/RIPE/ARIN/
APNIC/APRICOT about the whole idea. Central point: the
entity that gives
you a suballocation of its own address space signs something
that says you
now hold it.
On 24-Apr-2007, at 11:51, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How can anybody be sure that the random peering tech they are
talking
to really works for the organisation listed in the whois record? By
visual inspection of the e-mail address?
Do people really talk to random peering techs? I thought that
On 15-Apr-2007, at 06:38, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
With IPv6, there's of course still manual configuration, but PPP is
out because it can't negotiate IPv6 addresses.
I've heard you say this a few times now, but I am also told by
various people in various places that they have
On 1-Apr-2007, at 22:30, Gadi Evron wrote:
But building a wall to protect your port from attacks by pirates
will not
make the pirates go away, and unfortunately, we can't convince
everybody
to build walls and our security is nwoadays dependent on others'.
If you consider the possibility
On 27-Mar-2007, at 16:26, Philip Lavine wrote:
I have an east coast and west coast data center connected with a
DS3. I am running into issues with streaming data via TCP and was
wondering besides hardware acceleration, is there any options at
increasing throughput and maximizing the
On 27-Mar-2007, at 16:35, Joe Abley wrote:
You might take a look through RFC 2488/BCP 28, if you haven't
already. The circuit propagation delays in that scenarios painted
by that document are far higher than yours, but the principles are
the same.
... in *the* scenarios... I am having
On 16-Mar-2007, at 19:56, Wil Schultz wrote:
Almost ALL?
Surely all those except those who are competing with you for the same
customers should multi-home. :-)
Joe
On 13-Mar-2007, at 11:27, Roland Dobbins wrote:
On Mar 13, 2007, at 8:17 AM, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
what business drivers are there to put more bits on the wire to
the end user?
BitTorrent.
So long as most torrent clients are used to share content illicitly,
that doesn't sound like
On 13-Mar-2007, at 14:15, Todd Vierling wrote:
Depends on how rural the area is. Some parts of the US have
problematic terrain and *very* sparse population; there, the cost
would far outweigh the subscriber uptake. Should someone want
bandwidth in such an area, powerline or satellite are
On 13-Mar-2007, at 18:36, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Keeping this in perspective, the CIA Factbook says that Niue had a
population
of 2,166 in July 2006, an area of 100 square miles (1.5 times the
size of Wash DC),
and a highest elevation of a whole whopping 250 feet.
They used to have a
On 11-Mar-2007, at 04:54, Martin Hannigan wrote:
Minutes for the 22 FEB SC meeting have been posted.
http://www.nanog.org/sc.minutes07.html#feb22
Thanks, Marty.
Those looking for minutes from the subsequent meeting to that one
(which would normally have happened last Thursday) should
Hi all,
We have had an organisation come forward with a proposal to host the
Jan/Feb 2008 meeting in the Dominican Republic.
It appears that we can expect hotel costs to be quite a bit lower
than than at most recent NANOG meetings (perhaps as low as $100 per
night). Flights might cost a
On 26-Feb-2007, at 11:39, Cat Okita wrote:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2007, Joe Abley wrote:
We would be interested to hear what people think about this idea.
For example:
How would this fit with your corporate travel policies?
Would you be more or less likely to attend a winter meeting
On 26-Feb-2007, at 14:13, Aamer Akhter (aakhter) wrote:
This may or may not be of concern, but what are the requirements
for entry into DR? I'm watching the IETF-prague buildup and there
seems to be a lot of questions regarding 1) health insurance 2)
proof of funds, etc. If we do decide
On 26-Feb-2007, at 14:39, Martin Hannigan wrote:
On 26-Feb-2007, at 13:05, Martin Hannigan wrote:
What reason would NANOG have for holding a meeting in DR?
Same as for any other place -- it's a location that we received a
good proposal for.
If you received a proposal to hold one in
On 26-Feb-2007, at 15:43, Martin Hannigan wrote:
I'm saying that you don't
have to have a meeting somewhere because someone will pay.
It's not practical to hold a meeting somewhere that we don't have a
host.
I'm not surprised that you resorted to the strawman argument. I
think it's
On 26-Feb-2007, at 14:09, Rodney Joffe wrote:
Probably the appropriate discussion to have first...
DR is considered Central America, not North America.
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/dr.html
There are probably more definitions of North America in circulation
than there
On 26-Feb-2007, at 17:39, Jared Mauch wrote:
On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 07:21:31AM +0900, Randy Bush wrote:
I don't know how many people that attended NANOG in Toronto had
to go
through the international travel approval that some of us had to.
probably not the canadians.
this is NAnog, not
On 20-Feb-2007, at 11:05, Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
[snip]
Sure, but not really my point. In fact, sadly enough, the merit
majordomo does not even allow the which command, and that is
just plain dumb. Stupid. Silly.
Upon reflection, I regret that comment. Perhaps I might
On 20-Feb-2007, at 14:26, Martin Hannigan wrote:
On 20-Feb-2007, at 13:25, Martin Hannigan wrote:
And this should be requirements driven instead of
brand driven.
I have no reason to think that isn't happening.
That wasn't necessarily directed at you or Madame Etaoin.
I know :-)
On 15-Feb-2007, at 10:39, Carl Karsten wrote:
That is a really nice list. Is there a wiki somewhere I could post
this to?
http://nanog.cluepon.net/ !
On 14-Feb-2007, at 09:59, MARLON BORBA wrote:
I agree with Gadi. Everything which affects Internet stability
(e.g. DNS
denial-of-service attacks) deserves attention of network operators.
IMHO
it's time to think about a new NANOG AUP.
The NANOG charter says that the people responsible
On 14-Feb-2007, at 13:38, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007, MARLON BORBA wrote:
my intention, when suggested that reading, was to get your attention
about that recent attack which targeted DNS top-level servers and to
i thought it was actually covered on-list... during the
On 12-Feb-2007, at 09:23, Brandon Butterworth wrote:
Sure it degrades to effective unicast if too few people watch the same
channel in the same area (so just use unicast for those channels),
that
doesn't mean it's no use for the popular channels that have
millions of
viewers.
I think
On 7-Feb-2007, at 15:24, virendra rode // wrote:
Looking at these attacks, F in particular, if my memory serves me
correct, there are 35 f-root anycast nodes deployed. Maybe this helped
in some respect.
Dave Knight's lightning talk in Toronto seemed to indicate that F's
anycast platform
On 1-Feb-2007, at 12:31, Joe Abley wrote:
For those attending NANOG 39 in Toronto next week who don't already
see enough generic data centre space in their normal work week,
there will be a TorIX tour on Tuesday February 6, some time after
the last BOF/Tutorial finishes
On 4-Feb-2007, at 00:58, Trent Lloyd wrote:
The flaw here is that DNS operates over 53(UDP), last time I
checked SSH
doesn't do UDP port forwarding?
In the interests of dispelling a common myth, DNS operates over both
53/udp and 53/tcp. However, given that a substantial portion of most
On 3-Feb-2007, at 06:20, Fergie wrote:
Use OpenDNS?
OpenDNS provides service on other than 53/tcp and 53/udp?
If so, how do you configure your client operating system of choice to
use the novel, un-proxied ports instead of using port 53?
Joe
On 1-Feb-2007, at 06:50, Stefan Schmidt wrote:
Well...
reject-all.vix.com. 3600IN NS ns.lah1.vix.com.
reject-all.vix.com. 3600IN NS ns.sql1.vix.com.
dig any 2.0.0.127.reject-all.vix.com @ns.sql1.vix.com gives
status: REFUSED
and as ns.lah1.vix.com does
[Apologies for the following non-operational content; if you are not
coming to Toronto next week, hit delete now]
For those attending NANOG 39 in Toronto next week who don't already
see enough generic data centre space in their normal work week, there
will be a TorIX tour on Tuesday
We have a BOF slot in Toronto to discuss the general topic meeting
hosting, from the perspective of learning from past mistakes and
making the organisation of future events easier, and with the
additional goal of demystifying the process to those who might like
to host a meeting, but
On 29-Jan-2007, at 15:56, Andrew Gristina wrote:
I have two racks in London UK. The colocation is
currently in London. The contract is up soon and most
of the feet on the ground in the UK of the company is
in the greater Birmingham area. So I'm interested in
colocating about two racks of
On 29-Jan-2007, at 16:16, Joe Abley wrote:
I've never heard of anybody acquiring peering in Birminghag.
For the record that was a typo, not some kind of weird dig at
Birmingham :-)
Joe
On 29-Jan-2007, at 20:12, Brandon Galbraith wrote:
On 1/29/07, Henning Brauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Joseph S D Yao [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-01-30 01:59]:
IPv6 firewalls? Where? Good ones?
OpenBSD's pf has support for v6 for years now.
Do a fair amount of appliance firewalls support
I'm looking at a somewhat convoluted switched gigE path between an
M7i and an ERX, both of which I am expecting to be able to fill a
gigabit ethernet interface, but in practice the throughput is maxing
out at around half a gig of internet-sized packets in each direction.
(This is nothing
On 23-Jan-2007, at 17:53, Todd Underwood wrote:
surely you realise that kanadistan has a higher rate of gun ownership
than the US, right? it probably is the climate, though: people
simply don't kill each other as often when it's colder and up here at
these locales, it's colder a lot more
On 24-Jan-2007, at 10:01, Jamie Bowden wrote:
Some days it kills
me that v6
is still not really viable, I keep asking providers where they're at
with it. Their most common complaint is that the operating systems
don't support it yet. They mention primarily Windows since
that is what
is most
On 21-Jan-2007, at 07:14, Alexander Harrowell wrote:
Regarding your first point, it's really surprising that existing
P2P applications don't include topology awareness. After all, the
underlying TCP already has mechanisms to perceive the relative
nearness of a network entity - counting
On 21-Jan-2007, at 14:07, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Every torrent indexing site I'm aware of has RSS feeds for newly-
added torrents, categorized many different ways. Any ISP that
wanted to set up such a service could do so _today_ with _existing_
tools. All that's missing is the budget and
On 17-Jan-2007, at 21:05, Joseph Jackson wrote:
Proper education for whom, the people setting up the site probably
know
this already. It's the bosses and marketing that don't care about DNS
structure. Damn it they want mazdausa.com and not usa.mazda.com and
they will have it their way!
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
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 16-Jan-2007, at 16:52, Christian Koch wrote:
Anyone aware of any issues as of right now? Seems I may have lost
connectivity at amsix
The [EMAIL PROTECTED] list is probably a better place to find signs
of widespread problems (and since I've heard no noise on that list
today, I
On 15-Jan-2007, at 08:48, Michal Krsek wrote:
This system works perfectly in our linear-line distribution
(channels). As user you can choose time you want to see the show,
but not the show itself. Capacity on PVR device is finite and if
you don't want to waste the space with any
On 8-Jan-2007, at 22:26, Gian Constantine wrote:
My contention is simple. The content providers will not allow P2P
video as a legal commercial service anytime in the near future.
Furthermore, most ISPs are going to side with the content providers
on this one. Therefore, discussing it at
On 9-Jan-2007, at 11:29, Gian Constantine wrote:
Those numbers are reasonably accurate for some networks at certain
times. There is often a back and forth between BitTorrent and NNTP
traffic. Many ISPs regulate BitTorrent traffic for this very
reason. Massive increases in this type of
On 9-Jan-2007, at 13:04, Gian Constantine wrote:
You are correct. Today, IP multicast is limited to a few small
closed networks. If we ever migrate to IPv6, this would instantly
change. One of my previous assertions was the possibility of
streaming video as the major motivator of IPv6
On 8-Jan-2007, at 02:34, Sean Donelan wrote:
On Sun, 7 Jan 2007, Joe Abley wrote:
Setting aside the issue of what particular ISPs today have to pay,
the real cost of sending data, best-effort over an existing
network which has spare capacity and which is already supported
and managed
On 7-Jan-2007, at 15:17, Brandon Butterworth wrote:
The only time that costs increase is when I download
data from outside of BT's network because the increased
traffic reaquires larger circuits or more circuits, etc.
Incorrect, DSLAM backhaul costs regardless of where the traffic
comes
On 27-Dec-2006, at 18:22, Mark Newton wrote:
On Thu, Dec 28, 2006 at 12:13:07AM +0100, Leo Vegoda wrote:
My driving license doesn't have a photograph on it, so using it as an
identity document is pointless.
There's no way for a minimum-wage security grunt to verify the
particulars of my
On 18-Dec-2006, at 12:04, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
Drew Weaver wrote:
I am looking for opinions of what US carriers have the best
connectivity with the international players such as teleglobe, etc.
Mainly, we are trying to determine if there is any way for us to get
less latency from
On 8-Dec-2006, at 11:52, Geo. wrote:
Actually, reading your reply (which is the same as my own, pretty
much), I
figure the guy asked a question and he has a real problem.
Assuming he
doesn't want to clean them up is not nice of us.
Infected machines (bots) will cause a lot more than
On 6-Dec-2006, at 13:05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
this is done today for the AS112 servers.
Actually, I think the origin AS of the AS112 prefix 192.175.48.0/24
is intended to be consistent, and the view from route-views.oregon-
ix.net doesn't contradict that theory, in practice.
On 6-Dec-2006, at 13:03, James Jun wrote:
Check 192.88.99.0/24. It is an anycasted prefix for 6to4
tunneling. No AS
number was assigned for 6to4, thus it has inconsistent AS origin,
and works
without any problems.
Well, without any problems that a consistent origin AS would fix,
On 5-Dec-2006, at 05:39, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
since you can't register w/o specifying a shirt size,
this is not an unreasonable assumption.
[For context, this is a thread that is happening on the nanog-futures
mailing list. To subscribe, echo subscribe nanog-futures |
Hey Marty,
On 30-Nov-2006, at 11:30, Martin Hannigan wrote:
There's a brief discussion in the minutes related to this. This hasnt
been addressed vigorously at the community meetings, i.e. an increase,
but the overall finances have.
Actually, there was quite a bit of discussion at one of the
On 30-Nov-2006, at 12:35, Martin Hannigan wrote:
I believe the current policy is that where multiple presenters are
listed for a single presentation, only one of them gets free
attendance at the meeting. I'm not sure that we want a more
restrictive policy than that (or are you proposing that
1 - 100 of 483 matches
Mail list logo
