On 2014-03-13 23:13, joel jaeggli wrote:
exabgp from ripe labs can inject flowspec routes.
You mean from Exa Networks[1], not RIPE:
https://github.com/Exa-Networks/exabgp
Tom
[1] http://www.exa.net.uk/
On Wednesday, March 19, 2014 09:06:47 PM Patrick W. Gilmore
wrote:
The angle on my right shoulder wants to congratulate a
tier one (whatever the F that means) provider for
finally admitting, in writing, in public, from a lawyer,
what the rest of us have known for decades.
Every time the
Mark Tinka wrote the following on 3/20/2014 7:39 AM:
On Wednesday, March 19, 2014 09:06:47 PM Patrick W. Gilmore
wrote:
The angle on my right shoulder wants to congratulate a
tier one (whatever the F that means) provider for
finally admitting, in writing, in public, from a lawyer,
what the
On Mar 20, 2014, at 08:39 , Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu wrote:
On Wednesday, March 19, 2014 09:06:47 PM Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
The angle on my right shoulder wants to congratulate a
tier one (whatever the F that means) provider for
finally admitting, in writing, in public, from a
On 03/19/2014 06:33 PM, Rob Seastrom wrote:
It's not the conductor that you're derating; it's the breaker. Per NEC
Table 310.16, ampacity of #12 copper THHN/THWN2 (which is almost
certainly what you're pulling) with 3 conductors in a conduit is 30
amps. Refer to Table 310.15(B)(2)(a) for
Lamar Owen lo...@pari.edu writes:
Actually, there is no NEC 384.16 any more, at least in the 2011 code.
Guilty. I reflexively reached for my 2008 copy since that's the code
of record here where I live. Glad we're not on 2011, wish we were
still on 2005; a lot of stupidity has crept in since
On Thursday, March 20, 2014 04:16:26 PM Blake Hudson wrote:
I don't see this as a technical problem, but one of
business and ethics. ISP X advertises/sells customers
up to 8Mbps (as an example), but when it comes to
delivering that product, they've only guaranteed 512Kbps
(if any) because
On Thursday, March 20, 2014 04:18:59 PM Patrick W. Gilmore
wrote:
The market can only work around things if there is a
functioning market. Monopolies are not a functioning
market.
When did we ever have a functioning market, even in
markets that are considered liberalized :-)?
It is what it
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 4:00 PM, Rob Seastrom r...@seastrom.com wrote:
Lamar Owen lo...@pari.edu writes:
Actually, there is no NEC 384.16 any more, at least in the 2011 code.
Guilty. I reflexively reached for my 2008 copy since that's the code
of record here where I live. Glad we're not
Mark Tinka wrote the following on 3/20/2014 11:05 AM:
On Thursday, March 20, 2014 04:18:59 PM Patrick W. Gilmore
wrote:
The market can only work around things if there is a
functioning market. Monopolies are not a functioning
market.
When did we ever have a functioning market, even in
markets
I don't know where everyones traffic goes but level3 and us, nothing.
We've dropped all but 1 line which will be gone in 60 days.I don't care
what their excuse is, they have been horrible this last 14 months and I'd
rather get bw from cogent who isn't great but doesn't blame everyone else
for
Is it too late to demand code be in open Github repos with changes
tracked at no cost?
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 12:12 PM, Gary Buhrmaster
gary.buhrmas...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 3:05 PM, Lamar Owen lo...@pari.edu wrote:
.
Tracking code changes fuels an entire industry, and
On 03/20/2014 12:27 PM, Gary Buhrmaster wrote:
Think of the children! I hear the 2017 edition of NFPA 70 (aka NEC)
may require one to turn off the power to the entire household in order
to plug in a coffee maker to minimize potential arc flash hazard
(just kidding). Gary
ROTFL.
No,
On 3/20/14, 12:34 PM, Blake Hudson wrote:
The solution seems to be competition or regulation.
I'd prefer competition to regulation.
--
Bryan Fields
727-409-1194 - Voice
727-214-2508 - Fax
http://bryanfields.net
This email is the reason I spend money with digital ocean. :)
You should too.
On 3/20/14, 9:34 AM, Bryan Socha br...@digitalocean.com wrote:
I don't know where everyones traffic goes but level3 and us, nothing.
We've dropped all but 1 line which will be gone in 60 days.I don't
care
what
+1
Is this what happens when a vendor gets too big?
-Petter
-Original Message-
From: Bryan Socha [mailto:br...@digitalocean.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2014 9:35 AM
To: mark.ti...@seacom.mu
Cc: nanog list
Subject: Re: Level 3 blames Internet slowdowns on ISPs' refusal to upgrade
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 5:38 PM, Warren Bailey
wbai...@satelliteintelligencegroup.com wrote:
This email is the reason I spend money with digital ocean. :)
You should too.
uhh, no. It's the 21st century. I prefer to spend my money with those
that, at a bare minimum, provide IPv6.
-Jim P.
Just brought online Details at:
http://www.routeviews.org/nwax.html
We would welcome a few more NWAX peers
at this point.
Thanks to NWAX and IOVATION,
--
John Kemp
RouteViews Engineer
NOC: n...@routeviews.org
MAIL: h...@routeviews.org
WWW: http://www.routeviews.org
Meh.. Some providers need to/should comply with the majority of the
requirements. I¹d support ipv6 if I could and it wasn¹t a big deal, but my
traffic originates from (usually) the ipv4 sphere. So unless all of these
carriers start magically migrating to v6, I don¹t know that a lot of
³hosting²
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Are carriers prepared to tunnel IPv4 traffic?
Carriers offering v6 is a novel idea, but the edge networks,
enterprises, etc. are moving very fast.
- - ferg
On 3/20/2014 2:58 PM, Warren Bailey wrote:
Meh.. Some providers need to/should comply
Sounds like a lot of 6 to 4 links to me.. ;)
On 3/20/14, 3:04 PM, Paul Ferguson fergdawgs...@mykolab.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Are carriers prepared to tunnel IPv4 traffic?
Carriers offering v6 is a novel idea, but the edge networks,
enterprises, etc. are
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 9:16 AM, Blake Hudson bl...@ispn.net wrote:
I don't see this as a technical problem, but one of business and ethics.
ISP X advertises/sells customers up to 8Mbps (as an example), but when it
comes to delivering that product, they've only guaranteed 512Kbps (if any)
On 3/18/14 3:54 PM, George Herbert wrote:
This sort of thing is usually an adapter, a little cylinder with a L6-20R
on one end and a L6-30P on the other, since the loads are safe. Either
that, or a short jumper cable wired the same way.
The loads aren't safe. You will have a 30-amp circuit
On 3/20/2014 7:32 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
Then there is this whole matter of end-to-end connectivity. Just
because your WAN device links up at 8 Megabits, does not mean you have
been guaranteed 8 Mbits end-to-end.
Have run into this one more times that I care to count. We're running
very
On Mar 20, 2014, at 4:52 PM, Jay Hennigan j...@west.net wrote:
On 3/18/14 3:54 PM, George Herbert wrote:
This sort of thing is usually an adapter, a little cylinder with a L6-20R
on one end and a L6-30P on the other, since the loads are safe. Either
that, or a short jumper cable wired the
On 3/20/2014 at 4:17 PM Bryan Fields wrote:
|On 3/20/14, 12:34 PM, Blake Hudson wrote:
| The solution seems to be competition or regulation.
|I'd prefer competition to regulation.
=
If real and true competition exists, yes.
And of course that only last until someone else decides to buy the
competition, I mean invest in other companies.
On Mar 20, 2014 7:58 PM, Mike. the.li...@mgm51.com wrote:
On 3/20/2014 at 4:17 PM Bryan Fields wrote:
|On 3/20/14, 12:34 PM, Blake Hudson wrote:
| The solution seems to be
The only way we will ever see real and true competition is if we prohibit Layer
2+ providers from playing in the Layer 1 space.
At some point, we will need to recognize that for the population densities in
the vast majority of the united States (including most urban areas), Layer 1 is
On 3/20/2014 9:51 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
The only way we will ever see real and true competition is if we
prohibit Layer 2+ providers from playing in the Layer 1 space.
As long as you have artificial impediments and restrictions, you will
have what you have today.
--
Requiescas in pace o
Unless I am reading the tea leaves wrong competition will require
regulation.
Original message
From: Mike. the.li...@mgm51.com
Date: 03/20/2014 21:56 (GMT-05:00)
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Level 3 blames Internet slowdowns on
Technica
On 3/20/2014 at 4:17
On Friday, March 21, 2014 04:51:07 AM Owen DeLong wrote:
At some point, we will need to recognize that for the
population densities in the vast majority of the united
States (including most urban areas), Layer 1 is
effectively a natural monopoly and you will rarely get
more than one provider
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 4:17 PM, Bryan Fields br...@bryanfields.net wrote:
On 3/20/14, 12:34 PM, Blake Hudson wrote:
The solution seems to be competition or regulation.
I'd prefer competition to regulation.
When regulation is done well, competition is the result. Consider the
following
On 3/20/2014 10:47 PM, David Miller wrote:
Unless I am reading the tea leaves wrong competition will require
regulation.
regulation prevents competition. That is why people want regulation.
Look at this thread at the people who do not want to be competed-with at
L1, for example.
--
33 matches
Mail list logo
