Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

On 29/08/2021, Jay Hennigan wrote: > On 8/29/21 11:42, Constantine A. Murenin wrote: > >> It would seem reasonable to leave the whole issue up to the courts, >> instead of engaging in contempt of foreign courts, and to stop the >> vigilante justice against any of the par

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

This whole discussion reminds me of the situation the security and vulnerability researchers often face from the corporate overlords. Why is noone talking about the real issue? Namely, how could a RIR be so easily shutdown by the courts with the jurisdiction? Why is this mailing list used to

Re: Uganda Communications Commission shutdown order

On 13/01/2021, Andy Ringsmuth wrote: > >> On Jan 13, 2021, at 3:39 PM, Alejandro Acosta >> wrote: >> >> >> On 13/1/21 4:05 PM, Sean Donelan wrote: >>> >>> The Uganda Communications Commission has issued a shutdown order for the >>> operation of all Internet gateways in Uganda beginning January

Re: Florida: Voter registration website overwhelmed at deadline

On 06/10/2020, Sean Donelan wrote: > > Florida has had notoriously unreliable state I.T. infrastructure for > years. Florida's unemployment websites were broken for months during the > Spring 2020 COVID unemployment demand surge. So its very likely crappy > state I.T. infrastructure problems

Re: Curious Cloudflare DNS behavior

When you're not paying for service, you're not the customer, you're the product. I don't understand why anyone, especially anyone frequenting NANOG, would use Cloudflare for their DNS. Cloudflare runs a racket business, and their whole business model depends on them being a monopoly; plus people

Re: ATT Microcell in Austin, TX

On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 at 10:10, Darin Steffl wrote: > I believe that when this happens, they should proactively block or limit > video and file download/upload traffic as much as possible to make sure > communications like calls and texts can go through with the highest success > rate possible.

Re: Wikipedia drops support for old Android smartphones; mandates TLSv1.2 to read

Just to make it clear: are you suggesting that it should be a requirement to always verify the site where anonymous people make anonymous edits? Let that sink in. C. On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 at 05:31, J. Hellenthal wrote: > ... because you should be able to verify the site you are at is actually >

Re: Wikipedia drops support for old Android smartphones; mandates TLSv1.2 to read

Well, that would be nothing, because they're blocking your device from having any access. C. On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 at 04:04, John Adams wrote: > because no one should know what you read about or check out at wikipedia > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Dec 31, 2019, at 00:30, Matt Hoppes < >

Re: Wikipedia drops support for old Android smartphones; mandates TLSv1.2 to read

On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 at 02:29, Matt Hoppes wrote: > Why do I need Wikipedia SSLed? I know the argument. But if it doesn’t > work why not either let it fall back to 1.0 or to HTTP. > > This seems like security for no valid reason. Exactly. I used the wording from their own page; but I think

Re: Wikipedia drops support for old Android smartphones; mandates TLSv1.2 to read

On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 at 01:40, Quan Zhou wrote: > > On 12/31/19 15:34, Constantine A. Murenin wrote: > > removing support for insecure TLS protocol versions, specifically > > TLSv1.0 and TLSv1.1 > > This is actually a good thing. There are many *valid technical reasons* &

Wikipedia drops support for old Android smartphones; mandates TLSv1.2 to read

Dear all, It came to my attention that anyone visiting en.wikipedia.org site from an "old Android smartphone", as Wikipedia puts it, will be redirected to https://en.wikipedia.org/sec-warning ( http://web.archive.org/web/20191217154700/https://en.wikipedia.org/sec-warning), which, amongst other

Re: power to the internet

On Thu, 26 Dec 2019 at 13:19, Stephen Satchell wrote: > Longer term, review your backhauls and interconnects. Dark fiber would > be preferred here, because you would be controlling backup power at both > ends, and not depending on intermediate nodes. > What about the NSA taps? Do they tap the

Re: power to the internet

On Wed, 25 Dec 2019 at 22:08, Michael Thomas wrote: > > On 12/25/19 7:26 PM, Constantine A. Murenin wrote: > > > > I'm an ex-California resident myself here > > Good riddance. This has nothing to do with the climate change that is > actually happening here. > >

Re: power to the internet

On Wed, 25 Dec 2019 at 20:29, Michael Thomas wrote: > > On 12/25/19 6:16 PM, Michael Loftis wrote: > > > > Having lived through the blackouts that was entirely different. 90% Enron > manipulating the markets. There was plenty of capacity both in transmission > and generation, but Enron

Re: power to the internet

On Wed, 25 Dec 2019 at 19:32, Michael Thomas wrote: > On the dark side, this is probably coming to a lot more states and > countries due to climate change. Australia. Sigh. > Do you have a source for this? It would seem that these power issues are rather unique to California not because of

Re: Gmail email blocking is off the rails (again)

On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 at 15:12, John Levine wrote: > > In article > you > write: > >Google still rejects email from my own domain name as outlined in a > >prior message on this list a month or two ago: > > Google accepts my mail just fine, including from my mailing lists. > Their goal is to make

Re: Gmail email blocking is off the rails (again)

On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 at 16:43, Matthew Pounsett wrote: > > > > On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 at 17:39, John R. Levine wrote: >> >> >> Or maybe users are tired of the useless monthly messages and report them >> as spam. > > > Again, these are not a user messages or regular list traffic, they're >

Re: Gmail email blocking is off the rails (again)

I think at this point we should upgrade the classification of this issue from being Spam-filter-related to being a fundamental interoperability issue of Google Mail and G Suite with regards to email and SMTP. Google has a monopoly on corporate email nowadays (even OPs own domain name is still

Re: Russian government’s disconnection test

Unpopular opinion: other countries should do the same. If somehow all the transatlantic (and/or transpacific) cables are offline; will the whole internet outside of the US stop working, too? AWS and all the other providers have DCs all over the world, but would they still work if they can't

Re: Unable to email anyone from my primary domain name; thanks Google Mail and G Suite.

On Thu, 24 Oct 2019 at 11:41, Joe Klein wrote: […] I suspect that by changing your 5321.MailFrom, you changed the signal > calculus, for now. I bet in a bit, provided that you don’t change any other > behaviors, that these emails will eventually be rejected too. > Of course. This is just a

Re: Unable to email anyone from my primary domain name; thanks Google Mail and G Suite.

le number] reject ip6 from me6 to any 587 > > Good luck. > > - > Alain Hebertaheb...@pubnix.net > PubNIX Inc. > 50 boul. St-Charles > P.O. Box 26770 Beaconsfield, Quebec H9W 6G7 > Tel: 514-990-5911 http://www.pubnix.netF

Unable to email anyone from my primary domain name; thanks Google Mail and G Suite.

Dear NANOG@, I'm not sure where else to post this, and this is not really new, either, but I think I have a new take here. I use my own personal domain name for various UNIX stuff, including sending log-related things to myself out of cron, which end up in my own Gmail.com account, either

Re: Widespread Firefox issues

On Fri, 3 May 2019 at 20:57, Brielle Bruns wrote: > Just an FYI since this is bound to impact users: > > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1548973 > > Basically, Mozilla forgot to renew an intermediate cert, and people's > Firefox browsers have mass-disabled addons. > > Whoops. >

Re: Facebook (account)

#DeleteFacebook. On Tue, 9 Apr 2019 at 21:18, J. Hellenthal via NANOG wrote: > Delete fB account ... > > -- > J. Hellenthal > > The fact that there's a highway to Hell but only a stairway to Heaven says > a lot about anticipated traffic volume. > > > On Apr 9, 2019, at 21:05, Nathan Anderson

Re: Banned by Akamai (or some websites hosted with Akamai)

I think it's a general problem with a lot of these application firewall companies these days. There's been a long time I couldn't access both staples.com and officedepot.com, and officedepot.com is still broken for me to this day. (Ironically, they're both using the same CDN — so much for the

Re: SMTP Over TLS on Port 26 - Implicit TLS Proposal [Feedback Request]

he TLS world where "opportunistic" means to use it even if it doesn't actually work, just because it's advertised as (potentially) available. C. […] > --srs > > ________ > From: Constantine A. Murenin > Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2019 10:08 AM >

Re: SMTP Over TLS on Port 26 - Implicit TLS Proposal [Feedback Request]

On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 22:00, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Most new MTA implementations over the past several years default to TLS with > strong ciphers. So how much of a problem is low or no TLS right now? The real problem is that opportunistic StartTLS stops being opportunistic the minute

Re: SMTP Over TLS on Port 26 - Implicit TLS Proposal [Feedback Request]

On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 20:01, William Herrin wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 5:52 PM Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan > wrote: > >> In addition, it bypasses all the security folks have built around the > >> idea of blocking port 25 traffic from sources which should not be > >> operating as mail

Re: Facebook doesn't have a route to my ISP's (Cogeco) IPv6 space?

On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 at 22:12, Brian J. Murrell wrote: > > On Thu, 2018-12-20 at 17:28 -0600, Constantine A. Murenin wrote: > > Hi Brian, > > Hi, > > > But what's exactly at 2a03:2880:f012:3:face:b00c:0:1? > > It's one of the endpoints involved in Facebook

Re: Facebook doesn't have a route to my ISP's (Cogeco) IPv6 space?

Hi Brian, With all the CoGeCo  vs. CogentCo  confusion, I don't think anyone asked the obvious question yet… But what's exactly at 2a03:2880:f012:3:face:b00c:0:1? I've tried reaching it on port http, and it doesn't answer: % curl -6 -v --head --resolve

Re: Facebook doesn't have a route to my ISP's (Cogeco) IPv6 space?

The most famous lack of IPv6 connectivity is between AS6939 (Hurricane Electric LLC) and AS174 (Cogent Communication), not to be confused with AS7992 (Cogeco Cable), which actually does peer with both cogentco.com and he.net, including on IPv6. The HE/Cogent issue is so widely known that,

Re: Non-profit IX vs. neutral for-profit IX

On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 at 13:44, Mike Hammett wrote: > What are your thoughts on why a network would join a non-profit IX, but not a > neutral, for-profit IX? Let's assume that traffic levels are similar. But are traffic levels actually similar? Most areas have one or the other dominating the

Re: Facebook doesn't have a route to my ISP's (Cogeco) IPv6 space?

They should probably just rebrand to CoGeCo, but that does look kinda silly, so, they probably won't. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogeco > Cogeco is an acronym for Compagnie Générale de Communication ("General > Communications Company"). Both Cogent Communications and Cogeco are in pretty

Re: Whois vs GDPR, latest news

On 17 May 2018 at 08:03, Niels Bakker

Re: Whois vs GDPR, latest news

I think this is the worst of both worlds. The data is basically still public, but you cannot access it unless someone marks you as a "friend". This policy is basically what Facebook is. And how well it played out once folks realised that their shared data wasn't actually private? C. On 16 May

Re: Northern California fires and telecomm outages

Hi Mike, Thanks for sharing the story in what must be quite a difficult time. You mention that Level3 also has presence in the county, including their own independent route. Did they also suffer an outage during this latest incident? If not, then why did their connection not allow at least

Re: US/Canada International border concerns for routing

On 20/07/2017, Hiers, David wrote: > Hi, > We're looking to extend some services into Canada. While our lawyers dig > into it, I thought that I'd ask the hive mind about border restrictions. > > For traffic routing, is anyone constraining cross-border routing between >

Re: Verizon wireless to stop issuing static IPv4

On 08/03/2017, Miles Fidelman wrote: > Seems to me that the only people who get static, wireless, IP addresses > are people who put sensors on vehicles and IoT applications. Who gets a > static IP for a phone? This might cause some serious heartburn for my > previous

Re: Stop IPv6 Google traffic

On 10 April 2016 at 14:48, Jon Lewis wrote: > On Sun, 10 Apr 2016, Max Tulyev wrote: > >> Hi All, >> >> I need to stop IPv6 web traffic going from our customers to Google >> without touching all other IPv6 and without blackhole IPv6 Google >> network (this case my customers are

Re: About inetnum "ownership"

On 2 March 2016 at 03:46, William Herrin wrote: > On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 1:12 AM, Karl Auer wrote: >> Testing in court the idea that you may not advertise my routes would be >> a fascinating exercise. If you falsely advertised them it would be a >> different

Re: google search threshold

On 29 February 2016 at 08:53, Paul S. wrote: > DO's SG range is allocated out of a single /64 (I think?) and Google > basically asks for captcha on every single request over IPv6. :( The solution is to not signup with providers that have no respect for RFCs and BCPs. Proper

Re: Southwest Airlines captive portal

On 27 February 2016 at 10:26, Frank Bulk wrote: > Anyone from Southwest Airlines on this list? > > On a recent flight I discovered I couldn't complete payment through PayPal > because my web browsers properly noticed that the Southwest Airlines SSL > certificate that the

Re: Cogent & Google IPv6

I completely agree, the only possible explanation would be if they actually get paid by Google for IPv4 transit (either directly or indirectly), or somehow use Google's IPv4 traffic as a leverage to pad the in/out ratios (and/or overall traffic levels) such as to continue to enjoy settlement-free

Re: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it

On 21 January 2016 at 19:42, Matthew D. Hardeman wrote: > An excellent point. Nobody would tolerate this in IPv4 land. Those disputes > tended to end in days and weeks (sometimes months), but not years. > > That said, as IPv6 is finally gaining traction, I suspect we’ll

Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.

On 10 January 2016 at 20:12, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> On Jan 9, 2016, at 08:01 , Jeremy Austin wrote: >> >> On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 5:06 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: >> >>> >>> The best solution for everybody is the solution most consumers are

Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.

> > > > - > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > > > Midwest Internet Exchange > http://www.midwest-ix.com > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Constantine A. Murenin" <muren...@gmail.com

Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.

On 7 January 2016 at 19:43, Valdis Kletnieks wrote: > So we went round and round back in November regarding Binge On! and whether > it was net neutrality. So here's some closure to that... > > The EFF did some testing and discovered that what T-Mobile is actually doing >

Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

On 23 November 2015 at 20:05, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> On Nov 23, 2015, at 17:28 , Baldur Norddahl >> wrote: >> >> On 24 November 2015 at 00:22, Owen DeLong wrote: >> >>> Are there a significant number (ANY?) streaming video providers

Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

On 23 November 2015 at 20:45, Mark Andrews wrote: > T-Mo could have just increased the data limits by the data usage > of 7x24 standard definition video stream and achieved the same thing > in a totally network neutral way. Instead they choose to play > favourites with a type of

Re: IPv6 Cogent vs Hurricane Electric

On 6 December 2015 at 18:24, Max Tulyev wrote: > On 04.12.15 01:19, Baldur Norddahl wrote: >> On 1 December 2015 at 20:23, Max Tulyev wrote: >>> I have to change at least one of my uplinks because of it, which one is >>> better to drop, HE or Cogent? >>>

Re: World's Fastest Internet™ in Canadaland

On 26 June 2015 at 11:04, Hank Disuko gourmetci...@hotmail.com wrote: Bell Canada is apparently gearing up to provide the good people of Toronto with the World's Fastest Internet™. http://www.thestar.com/news/city_hall/2015/06/25/bell-canada-to-give-toronto-worlds-fastest-internet.html Only

Re: ATT uVerse blocking SIP?

On 26 January 2015 at 13:26, Brad Bendy b...@1stclasshosting.com wrote: Has anyone seen issues where a end user on uVerse trying to connect to either another provider or ATT non uVerse (in this case DIA) is having SIP blocked? SIP leaving the uVerse network going to another uVerse DSL account

Re: Muni Fiber and Politics

On 22 July 2014 09:09, Miles Fidelman mfidel...@meetinghouse.net wrote: Well yeah, the LECs would definitely come unglued. But... first off, what do you mean by free? Someone has to pay the capital and operating budgets - so if not from user fees, then from taxes. So.. it's a nice thought,

Re: Muni Fiber and Politics

On 21 July 2014 13:56, Alex Rubenstein a...@corp.nac.net wrote: What timing. I live in 07874. Out here, only 50 miles from New York City, we have a problem. Verizon's network in this area is older than most people who are subscribed to this list. The copper is literally falling off the

Re: Muni Fiber and Politics

On 21 July 2014 18:25, Miles Fidelman mfidel...@meetinghouse.net wrote: goe...@anime.net wrote: On Mon, 21 Jul 2014, Miles Fidelman wrote: - the anti-muni laws hurt small localities the most, where none of the big players have any intent of deploying anything This is exacatly why ashland

Re: Listing or google map of peering exchange

On 9 July 2014 11:18, Dennis Burgess dmburg...@linktechs.net wrote: Looking for a good listing of US/Canada peering exchange, similar to Torx in Toronto. http://www.dmoz.org/Computers/Internet/Routers_and_Routing/Internet_Exchanges/North_America/ C.

Re: US patent 5473599

On 7 May 2014 15:09, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: CARP uses a VRRP version number that has not been defined by VRRP, hence there is no conflict there, either. The link from the quote above has a quote from Henning. Which means that in addition to squatting on the VRRP port, VRRP

Re: US patent 5473599

On 7 May 2014 17:56, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: On Wed, 07 May 2014 17:10:32 -0700, Constantine A. Murenin said: Also, would you please be so kind as to finally explain to us why Google can squat on the https port with SPDY, Because it doesn't squat on the port. It politely asks Do you

Re: US patent 5473599

On 6 May 2014 07:56, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: On Tue, 06 May 2014 09:22:37 +0200, Henning Brauer said: * Nick Hilliard n...@foobar.org [2014-04-26 22:56]: the situation was created by the openbsd team, not the ieee, the ietf or iana. that's nothing short of a lie. Umm.. remind me

Re: US patent 5473599

On 6 May 2014 12:31, David Conrad d...@virtualized.org wrote: Constantine, On May 6, 2014, at 11:54 AM, Constantine A. Murenin muren...@gmail.com wrote: As a final note of course, when we petitioned IANA, the IETF body regulating official internet protocol numbers, to give us numbers

Re: US patent 5473599

On 6 May 2014 15:17, David Conrad d...@virtualized.org wrote: Constantine, On May 6, 2014, at 4:15 PM, Constantine A. Murenin muren...@gmail.com wrote: Protocol 112 was assigned by IANA for VRRP in 1998. When did OpenBSD choose to squat on 112? If you don't use it, you lose it. Are you

Re: US patent 5473599

On 6 May 2014 18:51, Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net wrote: On May 6, 2014, at 9:11 PM, Constantine A. Murenin muren...@gmail.com wrote: On 6 May 2014 15:17, David Conrad d...@virtualized.org wrote: Constantine, On May 6, 2014, at 4:15 PM, Constantine A. Murenin muren...@gmail.com wrote

Re: Europe-to-US congestion and packet loss on he.net network, and their NOC@ won't even respond

, Constantine. On 2013-W48-7 01:11 -0800, Constantine A. Murenin wrote: Anyhow, is this better? I now saw a 2% traffic loss this night at a random test time, and the 151ms avg rtt on this 114ms rtt route. Cns# date ; mtr --report{,-wide,-cycles=600} --interval 0.5 --order SRL BGAWV -4

Re: Europe-to-US congestion and packet loss on he.net network, and their NOC@ won't even respond

On 2013-W48-6 23:19 -0800, Matthew Petach wrote: On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 11:30 PM, Constantine A. Murenin muren...@gmail.com wrote: Dear NANOG@, ... From hetzner.de through he.net: Cns# date ; mtr --report{,-wide,-cycles=600} --interval 0.1 --order SRL BGAWV -4 c

Europe-to-US congestion and packet loss on he.net network, and their NOC@ won't even respond

Dear NANOG@, I'm not exactly sure how else I can get he.net's attention, because I've been experiencing congestion issues between my dedi and Indiana for a couple of months now, all due to he.net's poor transit, as it turns out. The issue was complicated by the fact that the routes are

Re: ATT UVERSE Native IPv6, a HOWTO

On 28 November 2013 13:07, Leo Vegoda leo.veg...@icann.org wrote: Andrew D Kirch wrote: Was I the only one who thought that everything about this was great apart from this comment: In reality additional poking leads me to believe ATT gives you a rather generous /60 Is a /60 what is

Re: ATT UVERSE Native IPv6, a HOWTO

On 28 November 2013 14:56, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote: In message capkknb6nhr-bcvktwtjf+rfovhyjv0+xycpm6d4cndvzn3f...@mail.gmail.com , Constantine A. Murenin writes: On 28 November 2013 13:07, Leo Vegoda leo.veg...@icann.org wrote: Andrew D Kirch wrote: Was I the only one who

Re: ATT UVERSE Native IPv6, a HOWTO

On 22 November 2013 22:22, Andrew D Kirch trel...@trelane.net wrote: Status Available Global IPv6 Address 2602:306:cddd:::1/64 Link-local IPv6 Address fe80::923e:abff::7e40 Router Advertisement Prefix 2602:306:cddd:::/64 IPV6 Delegated LAN Prefix

Re: Cogent 100M DIA in Denver

On 14 October 2013 12:57, Tri Tran trit...@cox.net wrote: They're lit in the bulding and have a much faster installation interval. How reliable are they? Tri Tran It's worth pointing out that many IPv6 networks are unavailable from Cogent; so, effectively, in 2013, you still can't get IPv6

Re: Cogent 100M DIA in Denver

their web-site doesn't work from many IPv6-connected hosts, because there's no route for their network: li163-XXX:~# telnet cogentco.com http Trying 2001:550:1::cc01... ^C li163-XXX:~# C. On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 01:41:48PM -0700, Constantine A. Murenin wrote: On 14 October 2013 12:57, Tri Tran trit

Re: comcast ipv6 PTR

On 9 October 2013 09:58, Andrew Sullivan asulli...@dyn.com wrote: On Wed, Oct 09, 2013 at 11:35:16AM -0500, Blair Trosper wrote: Does anyone know why (or can someone from Comcast explain why) there is no PTR on their residential/business IPv6 addresses? Probably because of the considerations

gmail.com 550-5.7.1 refusing mtr(8) output; other excessive bounces

) Received: (from @localhost) by XX (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) id r8MIaJ9o021840; Sun, 22 Sep 2013 11:36:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: XX: set sender to XX@bugmail using -f Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2013 11:36:19 -0700 From: Constantine A. Murenin

Re: One of our own in the Guardian.

On 14 July 2013 10:11, Jeff Kell jeff-k...@utc.edu wrote: On 7/13/2013 10:15 PM, Jima wrote: On 2013-07-13 14:44, Bill Woodcock wrote: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/09/xmission-isp-customers-privacy-nsa I can happily state that XMission is my home ISP, with UTOPIA (city-involved

Re: Cat-5 cables near 200 Paul, SF

MicroCenter Santa Clara / Silicon Valley is no more, due to the rent extortion in the Bay Area. If you care for my rant on the subject: http://tu.cnst.su/post/39584711234/why-microcenter-silicon-valley-is-no-more C. On 31 May 2013 11:16, Warren Bailey wbai...@satelliteintelligencegroup.com

Re: whoami.akamai.net [was: Google Public DNS Problems?]

On 2 May 2013 11:12, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.net wrote: On May 02, 2013, at 12:12 , Joe Abley jab...@hopcount.ca wrote: On 2013-05-02, at 12:10, Joe Abley jab...@hopcount.ca wrote: On 2013-05-02, at 11:59, Charles Gucker cguc...@onesc.net wrote: That's not entirely true.You can

Re: whoami.akamai.net [was: Google Public DNS Problems?]

On 2 May 2013 15:41, Cameron Daniel cdan...@nurve.com.au wrote: On 2013-05-03 4:57 am, Christopher Morrow wrote: anyway... nit-picking-aside, cool that there's a way to figure this sort of thing out :) google has a similar method, which I can't find today :( darn webcrawler!!! dig -t txt

Re: 30% packet loss between cox.net and hetzner.de, possibly at tinet.net

On 2013-W14-5 21:27 -0700, Constantine A. Murenin wrote: On 2013-W14-6 05:04 +0300, Denys Fedoryshchenko wrote: On 2013-04-06 04:32, Constantine A. Murenin wrote: Hello, There has been at least a 25% packet loss between hetzner.de and cox.net in the last couple of hours. Tried

Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN

On 6 April 2013 18:24, cb.list6 cb.li...@gmail.com wrote: Interesting. http://www22.verizon.com/support/residential/internet/highspeedinternet/networking/troubleshooting/portforwarding/123897.htm blockquote What is CGN - and How to opt-out The number and types of devices using the

30% packet loss between cox.net and hetzner.de, possibly at tinet.net

Hello, There has been at least a 25% packet loss between hetzner.de and cox.net in the last couple of hours. Tried contacting hetzner.de, but they said it's not on their network. This has already happened a couple of days ago, too (strangely, on April 1), but then was good for the rest of

Re: 30% packet loss between cox.net and hetzner.de, possibly at tinet.net

On 2013-W14-6 05:04 +0300, Denys Fedoryshchenko wrote: On 2013-04-06 04:32, Constantine A. Murenin wrote: Hello, There has been at least a 25% packet loss between hetzner.de and cox.net in the last couple of hours. Tried contacting hetzner.de, but they said it's not on their network

Re: New Product Launch from 2600hz

On 1 April 2013 17:06, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: Goes in the same category as this bit of news: IETF Announces IPv4 flag day for 1/1/2014. Today, IETF and IESG jointly announced that IPv4 would no longer be supported on the global internet after 1/1/2014. Those wishing to continue

Re: Cloudflare is down

On 3 March 2013 23:31, Saku Ytti s...@ytti.fi wrote: On (2013-03-03 12:46 -0800), Constantine A. Murenin wrote: Definitely smart to be delegating your DNS to the web-accelerator company and a single point of failure, especially if you are not just running a web-site, but have some other

Re: Cloudflare is down

On 3 March 2013 12:02, Nick Hilliard n...@foobar.org wrote: On 03/03/2013 10:46, Arthur Wist wrote: Apparently due to a routing issue... back up again: http://blog.cloudflare.com/todays-outage-post-mortem-82515 tl;dr: outage caused by flowspec filter tickling vendor bug. Definitely smart to

cannot access some popular websites from Linode, geolocation is wrong, ARIN is to blame?

Dear NANOG@, I've had a Linode in Fremont, CA (within 173.230.144.0/20 and 2600:3c01::/32) for over a year, and, in addition to some development, I sometimes use it as an ssh-based personal SOCKS-proxy when travelling and having to use any kind of public WiFi. Since doing so, I have noticed that

Re: cannot access some popular websites from Linode, geolocation is wrong, ARIN is to blame?

On 2 March 2013 15:45, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: Now, back to ARIN: is Linode doing it right? Is vr.org doing it wrong? Are they both doing it correct, or are they both wrong? ARIN Policies do require Linode to SWIP their customer allocations, so the fact that they are not doing

Re: 10 Mbit/s problem in your network

On 27 February 2013 11:47, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: On Feb 27, 2013, at 7:39 AM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote: - Original Message - From: Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net Sad as we all know the main cost for 1g to a site is in the optics (well actually the fiber

Re: 10 Mbit/s problem in your network

On 26 February 2013 20:03, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote: Original Message - From: Owen DeLong o...@delong.com [ quoting me ] Ironically, I suspect that it's for the same reason that East Germany has right up to the minute telephony services these days, while West German is

Re: 10 Mbit/s problem in your network

. -Original Message- From: Mike Lyon [mailto:mike.l...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, 09 February, 2013 23:23 To: Constantine A. Murenin Cc: North American Network Operators' Group Subject: Re: 10 Mbit/s problem in your network why do the sub-contracted internet support companies design

Re: Suggestions for managed DNS provider?

On 14 February 2013 11:58, David Hubbard dhubb...@dino.hostasaurus.com wrote: Hi all, anyone have suggestions for very stable/reliable managed DNS? Neustar/UltraDNS is an obvious option to look at, just curious about alternatives. Cost effective would be nice, but stable under attack is

Re: 10 Mbit/s problem in your network

On 10 February 2013 11:02, joel jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote: On 2/9/13 7:55 PM, Constantine A. Murenin wrote: Dear NANOG@, In light of the recent discussion titled, The 100 Gbit/s problem in your network, I'd like to point out that smaller operators and end-sites are currently very busy

Re: 10 Mbit/s problem in your network

On 9 February 2013 22:59, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote: On Sat, 9 Feb 2013, Constantine A. Murenin wrote: When you are staying at a 3* hotel, should you have no expectations that you'll be getting at least a 3Mbps pipe and at least an under 100ms average latency, and won't

Re: Looking for success stories in Qwest/Centurylink land

On 28 January 2013 10:35, Warren Bailey wbai...@satelliteintelligencegroup.com wrote: Spoken like a true ATT customer..;) I've had an ATT FTTU in my bedroom closet, which was an Alcatel HONT-C (4 POTS (unused), 1 Ethernet; 155.52 Mbps upstream and 622.08 Mbps downstream; shared with at most 32

Re: Looking for success stories in Qwest/Centurylink land

On 28 January 2013 13:57, david peahi davidpe...@gmail.com wrote: The above anecdote is typical in my experience with the telcos, and underscores the need for a national broadband buildout in the USA, funded and run by the Federal Government, based upon the Australian National Broadband

Re: Slashdot: UK ISP PlusNet Testing Carrier-Grade NAT Instead of IPv6

On 18 January 2013 14:00, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote: On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 4:46 PM, Jean-Francois Mezei jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca wrote: Should NAT become prevalent and prevent innovation because of its limitations, this means that innovation will happen only with IPv6 which

Re: Slashdot: UK ISP PlusNet Testing Carrier-Grade NAT Instead of IPv6

On 16 January 2013 08:12, fredrik danerklint fredan-na...@fredan.se wrote: From the article: Faced with the shortage of IPv4 addresses and the failure of IPv6 to take off, British ISP PlusNet is testing carrier-grade network address translation CG-NAT, where potentially all the ISP's

Re: Slashdot: UK ISP PlusNet Testing Carrier-Grade NAT Instead of IPv6

On 17 January 2013 17:17, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: On Jan 17, 2013, at 4:30 PM, Jeff Kell jeff-k...@utc.edu wrote: On 1/17/2013 6:50 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: Vonage will, in most cases fail through CGN as will Skype, Xbox-360, and many of the other IM clients. Not sure about

Re: Join my network on LinkedIn

On 8 January 2013 12:29, Mark Foster blak...@blakjak.net wrote: I'm amazed that the NANOG mailing list doesn't simply reject email from non-subscribed addresses. I didn't realise that this was so difficult, considering it's an out-of-box Mailman feature to be able to arrange exactly that. I

Re: Why do some providers require IPv6 /64 PA space to have public whois?

: Constantine A. Murenin [mailto:muren...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2012 12:46 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Why do some providers require IPv6 /64 PA space to have public whois? Hello, I personally don't understand this policy. I've signed up with hetzner.de, and I'm trying

Re: Why do some providers require IPv6 /64 PA space to have public whois?

On 8 December 2012 23:10, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: Frankly, the more I think about this, the less it's clear why someone like hetzner.de would actually want you to be using their native IPv6 support, instead of the one provided by HE.net through their free tunnelbroker.net service.

Re: Why do some providers require IPv6 /64 PA space to have public whois?

On 10 December 2012 16:07, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote: You don't SWIP each residential customer with IPv4. You often SWIP blocks of residential customers down to the pop level. You often SWIP each commercial customer with IPv4. To require a SWIP entry for each residential customer is

  1   2   >