>
> 3. Website: as above, keep a duplicate copy of your basic HTML pages
> on
> some DoK that you can take with you. Have the user+pswd to your
> registrar so you can repoint your DNS to some new site you now
> setup up
> with the new updated info about your downtime.
>
> -Hank
Hav
> An armed FBI special agent shows up at your facility and tells your ranking
> manager to "shut down the Internet".
a) you give them the crystals and warn that in isolation they can
be unstable so drive slow
or
b) you give them the internet to take away
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRmx
Hi Franck,
On 2/4/11 4:04 AM, Franck Martin wrote:
The biggest complaint that I hear from ISPs, is that their upstream
ISP does not support IPv6 or will not provide them with a native IPv6
circuit.
Is that bull?
I thought the whole backbone is IPv6 now, and it is only the
residential ISPs that
On Thu, Feb 03, 2011 at 08:17:11PM -0300, Fernando Gont wrote:
> > I'm mildly surprised if you think we're going to be done with *this*
> > mess in a few decades.
>
> I fully agree. But planning/expecting to go through this mess *again* is
> insane. -- I hope the lesson has been learned, and we
In article <20110204000954.a64c79a9...@drugs.dv.isc.org>, Mark Andrews
writes
These are just my straw poll of what may be difficult for small
enterprises in a change to IPv6.
It isn't "change to", its "add IPv6".
I expect to see IPv4 used for years inside homes and enterprises
where there is
On Feb 4, 2011, at 7:30 AM, Roland Perry wrote:
>> It isn't "change to", its "add IPv6".
>>
>> I expect to see IPv4 used for years inside homes and enterprises
>> where there is enough IPv4 addresses to meet the internal needs.
>> It's external communication which needs to switch to IPv6. Intern
On 2/3/2011 9:54 PM, Randy Carpenter wrote:
The major national provider is supposed to be swapping out equipment
any day now in order to support IPv6. The regional is claiming that
their upstreams do not have IPv6 support yet. Their upstream
providers certainly do have IPv6, but I do not know i
On 2/3/2011 10:20 PM, Joly MacFie wrote:
What might be a possibility is that YouTube is actually choking under the
demand for Egypt related footage, nearly all of which is hosted on the site.
The overall bandwith utilization from Oklahoma has spiked due to the
snow. I'm sure other ISPs are s
> The Internet is not immune to the law, as you should well know. In fact,
> the Internet seems to be a legal "proving ground" these days, so word to
> the wise.
And, the US National Communication Service (http://www.ncs.gov/index.html)
"technically" has the ability to order all US telecommunica
On 2/4/2011 5:03 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
Given http://weblog.chrisgrundemann.com/index.php/2009/how-much-ipv6-is-there/
it is pretty clear the allocation algorithms have to change, or the resource
is just as finite as the one we ran out yesterday.
That's not what the author says. It says, IPv
On Wed, 02 Feb 2011 06:25:18 +0900
Randy Bush wrote:
> > http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/rir.jpg
> >
> > This is a different graph - it is a probabilistic graph that shows the
> > predicted month when the RIR will be down to its last /8 policy
> > (whatever that policy may be), and the relativ
We have been working diligently for more than 6 months to try and get a
/56 routed to one of our offices in metro Atlanta. The carrier in
question is a Tier 1 as well as being one of the old telecom names. I
have the entire chain of emails documenting the carrier's struggles with
internal pro
In article <5fddad27-71f3-44fe-b195-4e0f27f09...@megacity.org>, Derek J.
Balling writes
If people start supplying CPE that are running IPv6 on the outside and IPv4 NAT
in the inside, then that would just fine, in the sense that
the users (in this case including the self-administrators of these
On Friday, February 04, 2011 09:05:09 am Derek J. Balling wrote:
> I think they'll eventually notice a difference. How will an IPv4-only
> internal host know what to do with an IPv6 record it gets from a DNS
> lookup?
If the CPE is doing DNS proxy (most do) then it can map the record t
On Fri, Feb 04, 2011 at 08:28:53AM -0600, Jack Bates wrote:
>
>
> On 2/4/2011 5:03 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
>
> >Given
> >http://weblog.chrisgrundemann.com/index.php/2009/how-much-ipv6-is-there/
> >it is pretty clear the allocation algorithms have to change, or the
> >resource
> >is just as fini
On 2/4/2011 10:50 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
I suspect that many people will do stupid things in managing their
bits - presuming that there is virtually infinate 'greenfield' and
when they have "pissed in the pool" they can just move on to a new
poo
Robert,
On Feb 3, 2011, at 8:53 PM, Robert Bonomi wrote:
>> As far as I am aware, the USG contract is with ICANN, not ARIN (see
>> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/iana/ianacontract_081406.pdf,
>> section C.2.2.1.3).
>
> Correct. _They_ can can delegate "as they see fit", with no r
On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 18:14:00 EST, david raistrick said:
> Er. That's not news. That's been the state of the art for what, 15+
> years or so now? SIP (because it's peer to peer) and P2P are really the
> only things that actually give a damn about it.
"It's client/server unless it's peer-to-p
Justin Horstman wrote:
<> +1 vote for Gomez, they are the most advanced and most capable in
<> this space. They are also not very cheap...
And Gomez' service contracts include automatic rollover. -1 on Gomez
R
--
R A Lichtensteiger r...@tifosi.com
"Dual [IS-IS] is intended to be more o
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 11:38, wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 18:14:00 EST, david raistrick said:
>
> > Er. That's not news. That's been the state of the art for what, 15+
> > years or so now? SIP (because it's peer to peer) and P2P are really the
> > only things that actually give a damn about
On Thu, 3 Feb 2011, Owen DeLong wrote:
Er. That's not news. That's been the state of the art for
what, 15+ years or so now? SIP (because it's peer to peer) and
P2P are really the only things that actually give a damn about
it.
Largely because we've been living with t
On Feb 4, 2011, at 11:40 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
> On Friday, February 04, 2011 09:05:09 am Derek J. Balling wrote:
>> I think they'll eventually notice a difference. How will an IPv4-only
>> internal host know what to do with an IPv6 record it gets from a DNS
>> lookup?
>
> If the CPE is d
>>
>> Was TCP/IP this bad back in 1983, folks?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -- jra
>
>In different ways, yes, it was.
>
>Owen
>
This is exactly the problem we have. Some people have no perspective on what
the Internet is and it's real power. I've met too many people who claim to be
"in the know" on these t
On 2/4/2011 06:13, Jack Bates wrote:
>
> I waited years and finally turned up a transit to L3 for additional
> bandwidth (had to wait for GE support from the other 2, of which 1 still
> can't give me a GE) and luckily native v6. Within 30 days I should have
> a cogent 10G, and I hear I'll get v6 t
On Thu, 3 Feb 2011, Randy Carpenter wrote:
IPv6 from both of my upstream providers has been "coming soon" for about
a year and a half.
Can we start naming names and locations for both sides of the answer? My
last v6 queries are a few years out of date, so no point in sharing them.
Well, I
On 2/4/2011 07:05, Scott Helms wrote:
>
> TLDR version, marketing often fails to reflect reality :)
>
My experience with trying to get a circuit turned up with Verizon boiled
down to two things:
1) Failure to meet the standards of my existing IPv6 connections in
carrying PI /48 (apparently now
This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet
Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan.
The posting is sent to APOPS, NANOG, AfNOG, AusNOG, SANOG, PacNOG, LacNOG,
CaribNOG and the RIPE Routing Working Group.
Daily listings are sent to bgp-st...@lists.apnic.net
Hi, NANOG.
Something's just struck me: every IPv4 allocation over a certain
threshold has a monetary cost (sometimes in the tens of thousands of
USD) and according to our RIR, the first equivalent IPv6 allocation is
given as a freebie (to encourage migration). (Disclaimer: I'm on the
Dark Con
On Feb 4, 2011, at 6:47 PM, Heinrich Strauss wrote:
> So once the "early" adopters migrate their networks to IPv6, there is no
> business need to maintain the IPv4 allocation and that will be returned to
> the free pool, since Business would see it as an unnecessary cost.
Interesting reasoning
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Feb 4, 2011, at 10:47 AM, Heinrich Strauss wrote:
> So once the "early" adopters migrate their networks to IPv6, there is no
> business need to maintain the IPv4 allocation and that will be returned to
> the free pool, since Business would see it
On Feb 4, 2011, at 1:08 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
> On Feb 4, 2011, at 6:47 PM, Heinrich Strauss wrote:
>> So once the "early" adopters migrate their networks to IPv6, there is no
>> business need to maintain the IPv4 allocation and that will be returned to
>> the free pool, since Business would see
>> IPv6 from both of my upstream providers has been "coming soon" for about a
>> year and a half.
I'm getting ready to try to enable IPv6 natively with Above.net in the Chicago
area. Has anyone had any experience with them?
Thanks,
Ryan Wilkins
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 2:23 PM, Ryan Wilkins wrote:
>>> IPv6 from both of my upstream providers has been "coming soon" for about a
>>> year and a half.
>
> I'm getting ready to try to enable IPv6 natively with Above.net in the
> Chicago area. Has anyone had any experience with them?
>
> Thanks,
On Feb 4, 2011, at 1:11 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
> No, and in fact, I believe all the RIRs will probably do a reasonably brisk
> business in reclamation and reallocation, albeit in ever smaller blocks.
As holder of a small block, this scares and irritates me. It scares me that I
might lose my
On Feb 4, 2011, at 3:39 PM, Daniel Seagraves wrote:
> On Feb 4, 2011, at 1:11 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
>
>> No, and in fact, I believe all the RIRs will probably do a reasonably brisk
>> business in reclamation and reallocation, albeit in ever smaller blocks.
>
> As holder of a small block, thi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Feb 4, 2011, at 1:11 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
>
>> No, and in fact, I believe all the RIRs will probably do a reasonably brisk
>> business in reclamation and reallocation, albeit in ever smaller blocks.
On Feb 4, 2011, at 12:39 PM, Daniel Seag
In message , Roland Perry writes:
> In article <20110204000954.a64c79a9...@drugs.dv.isc.org>, Mark Andrews
> writes
> >> These are just my straw poll of what may be difficult for small
> >> enterprises in a change to IPv6.
> >
> >It isn't "change to", its "add IPv6".
> >
> >I expect to see IPv4
> On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 2:23 PM, Ryan Wilkins
> wrote:
> >>> IPv6 from both of my upstream providers has been "coming soon" for
> >>> about a year and a half.
> >
> > I'm getting ready to try to enable IPv6 natively with Above.net in
> > the Chicago area. Has anyone had any experience with them?
In message <201102041140.42719.lo...@pari.edu>, Lamar Owen writes:
> On Friday, February 04, 2011 09:05:09 am Derek J. Balling wrote:
> > I think they'll eventually notice a difference. How will an IPv4-only inter
> nal host know what to do with an IPv6 record it gets from a DNS lookup?
>
>
On Feb 4, 2011, at 4:32 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> In message <201102041140.42719.lo...@pari.edu>, Lamar Owen writes:
>> On Friday, February 04, 2011 09:05:09 am Derek J. Balling wrote:
>>> I think they'll eventually notice a difference. How will an IPv4-only inter
>> nal host know what to do w
On Feb 4, 2011, at 4:29 PM, Randy Carpenter wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 2:23 PM, Ryan Wilkins
>> wrote:
> IPv6 from both of my upstream providers has been "coming soon" for
> about a year and a half.
>>>
>>> I'm getting ready to try to enable IPv6 natively with Above.net in
>>>
Semi-OT:
"You are now what we need you to be. A beaten, resentful people who
will have to rebuild, who will have to rely on our.. good graces. Who
can be used and.. guided as we wish to guide you. Perfect ground for
us to do our work.. Quietly, quietly."
Sorry.
On Feb 4, 2011, at 3:41 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> On Feb 4, 2011, at 3:39 PM, Daniel Seagraves wrote:
>> On Feb 4, 2011, at 1:11 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
>>
>>> No, and in fact, I believe all the RIRs will probably do a reasonably brisk
>>> business in reclamation and reallocation, albeit
> -Original Message-
> From: R A Lichtensteiger [mailto:rali+na...@tifosi.com]
> Sent: Friday, February 04, 2011 9:50 AM
> To: Justin Horstman
> Cc: nanog
> Subject: Re: External sanity checks
>
> Justin Horstman wrote:
>
> <> +1 vote for Gomez, they are the most advanced and most capabl
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 4:38 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:
>
> On Feb 4, 2011, at 4:29 PM, Randy Carpenter wrote:
>
>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 2:23 PM, Ryan Wilkins
>>> wrote:
>> IPv6 from both of my upstream providers has been "coming soon" for
>> about a year and a half.
I'm gettin
On Feb 4, 2011, at 4:45 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:
> On Feb 4, 2011, at 3:41 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>> On Feb 4, 2011, at 3:39 PM, Daniel Seagraves wrote:
>>> On Feb 4, 2011, at 1:11 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
>>>
No, and in fact, I believe all the RIRs will probably do a reasonably
br
Not sure if it has been said already but wasn't one of the key point for
the creation of the internet to create and infrastructure that would
survive in the case of all out war and massive destruction. (strategic
nuclear strikes)
Does it not bode ill for "national security" if any party could take
In message , david rai
strick writes:
>
> On Thu, 3 Feb 2011, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> > Er. That's not news. That's been the state of the art for
> > what, 15+ years or so now? SIP (because it's peer to peer) and
> > P2P are really the only things that actually give a damn a
In article ,
Brian Johnson writes
Some people have no perspective on what the Internet is and it's real
power. I've met too many people who claim to be "in the know" on these
topics that don't understand that NAT was designed for address
preservation.
Especially as most (I guess) users of
BGP Update Report
Interval: 27-Jan-11 -to- 03-Feb-11 (7 days)
Observation Point: BGP Peering with AS131072
TOP 20 Unstable Origin AS
Rank ASNUpds % Upds/PfxAS-Name
1 - AS178520007 1.2% 11.5 -- AS-PAETEC-NET - PaeTec
Communications, Inc.
2 - AS32528
This report has been generated at Fri Feb 4 21:11:48 2011 AEST.
The report analyses the BGP Routing Table of AS2.0 router
and generates a report on aggregation potential within the table.
Check http://www.cidr-report.org for a current version of this report.
Recent Table History
Date
Everyone doesn't suddenly get "owned" because there isn't a external
firewall. Modern OS's default to secure.
We clearly live and work in different worlds. Not to mention that "we"
are not the average consumers anymore. We were, in the days before NAT
(and SPI).
--
david raistrick
the protocols ability to "route around" failures is an attribute of packet
based protocols. it has little to do with legal compliance of an order to
cease and desist forwarding packets. end of the day, i guess it boils
down to the question of -civil disobedience-
if the law is unjust, do you
On Fri, 4 Feb 2011, Roland Perry wrote:
But NAT does have the useful (I think) side effect that I don't have to
renumber my network when I change upstream providers - whether that's once
But (what I keep being told) you should never have to renumber! Get PI
space and insert magic here!
si
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Hayden Katzenellenbogen
wrote:
> Not sure if it has been said already but wasn't one of the key point for
> the creation of the internet to create and infrastructure that would
> survive in the case of all out war and massive destruction. (strategic
> nuclear strike
On Feb 4, 2011, at 3:51 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> I'm a little confused. Sounds like the things you are talking about all fall
> into the "if you are using your block" category, so he shouldn't worry.
>
> ARIN should not reclaim a block that is in use. Unless I am confused?
> (Happens
david raistrick wrote:
>> Everyone doesn't suddenly get "owned" because there isn't a external
>> firewall. Modern OS's default to secure.
>
> We clearly live and work in different worlds. Not to mention that
> "we" are not the average consumers anymore. We were, in the days
> before NAT (a
In message , Jared Mauch
writes:
>
> On Feb 4, 2011, at 4:32 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> >=20
> > In message <201102041140.42719.lo...@pari.edu>, Lamar Owen writes:
> >> On Friday, February 04, 2011 09:05:09 am Derek J. Balling wrote:
> >>> I think they'll eventually notice a difference. How wi
In message , Roland Perry writes:
> But NAT does have the useful (I think) side effect that I don't have to
> renumber my network when I change upstream providers - whether that's
> once every five years like I just did with my ADSL, or once every time
> the new ADSL hiccups[1] now that I have
On 2/4/11 2:34 PM, R A Lichtensteiger wrote:
> david raistrick wrote:
>
>>> Everyone doesn't suddenly get "owned" because there isn't a external
>>> firewall. Modern OS's default to secure.
>>
>> We clearly live and work in different worlds. Not to mention that
>> "we" are not the average cons
In message <4d4c0d25.70...@brightok.net>, Jack Bates writes:
>
>
> On 2/4/2011 5:03 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
>
> > Given http://weblog.chrisgrundemann.com/index.php/2009/how-much-ipv6-is-the
> re/
> > it is pretty clear the allocation algorithms have to change, or the resourc
> e
> > is just as f
On Fri, 2011-02-04 at 14:27 -0800, Matthew Petach wrote:
> As has been noted previously, it's all about your frame of
> reference. If the US is removed from the Internet, it does not
> mean the Internet stops working; from the perspective of the
> rest of the world, the Internet is still there.
M
On 2/4/2011 5:11 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
No, a /48 is equivalent to a single IP.
You loose a little bit with small ISPs as their minimum is a /32
and supports up to 64000 customers. The bigger ISPs don't get to
waste addresses space. And if a small ISP is getting space from
a big ISP it also n
> Not sure if it has been said already but wasn't one of the key point for
> the creation of the internet to create and infrastructure that would
> survive in the case of all out war and massive destruction.
no. fable
> ARIN might decide that since we're ineligible for an allocation under
> the current rules, we're no longer eligible to maintain the space we
> have, and take it away from us.
ARIN don't know that
> As the remaining space gets smaller, I expect that the number needed
> to justify keeping my addr
On Feb 4, 2011, at 8:50 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 04, 2011 at 08:28:53AM -0600, Jack Bates wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2/4/2011 5:03 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
>>
>>> Given
>>> http://weblog.chrisgrundemann.com/index.php/2009/how-much-ipv6-is-there/
>>> it is pretty clear the
On 05/02/2011, at 8:57 AM, Matthew Petach wrote:
As has been noted previously, it's all about your frame of
reference. If the US is removed from the Internet, it does not
mean the Internet stops working; from the perspective of the
rest of the world, the Internet is still there.
I suspect you'l
On Feb 4, 2011, at 10:04 AM, david raistrick wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Feb 2011, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>> Er. That's not news. That's been the state of the art for
>> what, 15+ years or so now? SIP (because it's peer to peer) and
>> P2P are really the only things that actually give a
I'll start..
Hurricane Electric Happily and readily provided me IPv6 Transit on request.
Layer42 Happily and readily provided me IPv6 Transit on
request.
Owen
Disclaimer: While I work at HE, I'm speaking for my house, AS1734 in this case.
On Feb 4, 2011, at 10:15 A
On Feb 4, 2011, at 10:47 AM, Heinrich Strauss wrote:
> Hi, NANOG.
>
> Something's just struck me: every IPv4 allocation over a certain threshold
> has a monetary cost (sometimes in the tens of thousands of USD) and according
> to our RIR, the first equivalent IPv6 allocation is given as a free
In message <4d4c8af8.1030...@brightok.net>, Jack Bates writes:
> On 2/4/2011 5:11 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> > No, a /48 is equivalent to a single IP.
> >
> > You loose a little bit with small ISPs as their minimum is a /32
> > and supports up to 64000 customers. The bigger ISPs don't get to
> > w
On 2/4/2011 6:45 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
I used to work for CSIRO. Their /16's which were got back in the
late 80's will now be /48's.
That's why I didn't try doing any adjustments of X is the new /32. The
whole paradigm changes. Many ISPs devote large amounts of space to
single corporate
how do the routes they offer compare?
On Feb 4, 2011 2:38 PM, "chip" wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 2:23 PM, Ryan Wilkins wrote:
IPv6 from both of my upstream providers has been "coming soon" for
about a year and a half.
>>
>> I'm getting ready to try to enable IPv6 natively with Above.net
On 2/4/2011 6:27 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Hell, even without CPE doing it, many residential ISPs (regardless of NAT)
block inbound traffic to consumers.
>
Really? And they have subscribers? Surprising.
Mark Andrews wrote:
I run machines all the time that don't have firewall to protect
them
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 4:28 PM, Daniel Seagraves
wrote:
> On Feb 4, 2011, at 3:51 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> How many addresses do I have to be using for it to count as in use? How high
> will that number go in the next few months/years?
The most important thing to ensure "usage" is recogn
On 2/4/2011 7:17 PM, Anthony Pardini wrote:
how do the routes they offer compare?
Speaking generically, everyone's routes suck. It's also not a fully fair
comparison of reachability. You can see my network from HE and Level3,
but if see me through Level3 without the use of a tunnel, it is pro
On Feb 4, 2011, at 2:28 PM, Daniel Seagraves wrote:
>
> On Feb 4, 2011, at 3:51 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>
>> I'm a little confused. Sounds like the things you are talking about all
>> fall into the "if you are using your block" category, so he shouldn't worry.
>>
>> ARIN should not rec
On Feb 4, 2011, at 5:26 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
> On 2/4/2011 6:27 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> Hell, even without CPE doing it, many residential ISPs (regardless of NAT)
>>> block inbound traffic to consumers.
>>> >
>> Really? And they have subscribers? Surprising.
>>
>
> Mark Andrews wrote:
>>
- Original Message -
> From: "Valdis Kletnieks"
> Subject: Re: quietly
> On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 18:14:00 EST, david raistrick said:
>
> > Er. That's not news. That's been the state of the art for what, 15+
> > years or so now? SIP (because it's peer to peer) and P2P are really
> > the
>
Original Message -
> From: "Brian Johnson"
> This is exactly the problem we have. Some people have no perspective
> on what the Internet is and it's real power. I've met too many people
> who claim to be "in the know" on these topics that don't understand
> that NAT was designed for addr
On Fri, Feb 04, 2011 at 02:27:32PM -0800, Matthew Petach said:
>The Internet itself will continue to function, no matter what silliness the
>US political system attempts to engage in; from the perspective of those
>in the US, it may appear that "the Internet" is unable to survive such an
>a
- Original Message -
> From: bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com
> if the law is unjust, do you comply because it is the law, or do you
> protest, at the risk of punishment/death? hardly a wire-protocol question -
> no?
Correct: a decision each person must make for themselves...
which is why
- Original Message -
> From: "Ken Chase"
> However, shutting the internet down (you know, when they press the
> magic button that makes my telebit trailblazer no longer able to do
> UUCP) would instantly create a market for services more robust/localized/
> culturally-customized than thos
- Original Message -
> From: "Jimmy Hess"
> On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 4:28 PM, Daniel Seagraves
> wrote:
> > On Feb 4, 2011, at 3:51 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>
> > How many addresses do I have to be using for it to count as in use?
> > How high will that number go in the next few mont
On Feb 4, 2011, at 6:23 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> Original Message -
>> From: "Brian Johnson"
>
>> This is exactly the problem we have. Some people have no perspective
>> on what the Internet is and it's real power. I've met too many people
>> who claim to be "in the know" on these top
On 2/4/2011 8:25 PM, Ken Chase wrote:
However, shutting the internet down (you know, when they press the
magic button that makes my telebit trailblazer no longer able to do
UUCP) would instantly create a market for services more robust/localized/
culturally-customized than those that suddenly go
On 2/4/2011 8:05 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
True... If you review the NANOG archives you'll find that at least in the case
of the port 25 absurdity, I have noticed and have railed against it.
Yeah, I threw it in as an afterthought. ISP firewalls do exist and not
just small isolated incidents. I
>
> Yeah, I threw it in as an afterthought. ISP firewalls do exist and not
> just small isolated incidents. I wish more money had gone into making
> them much more adaptive, then you could enjoy your tcp/25 and possibly
> not have a problem unless your traffic patterns drew concerns and
> caused
>
On Fri, Feb 04, 2011 at 09:34:09PM -0500, Jay Ashworth said:
>Where *is* your Trailblazer? Is it hooked up? Have you tested it
>lately?
>
>Do you have Taylor UUCP installed? Configured? Have peers?
No, but i have old drives full of uucp maps around. I'd start with those. And
I'd use
> Dang nabbit. Stupid advancing technology. (During an internet outtage
I
> wonder
> if new orders for POTS phone service would be quashed in the interest
> of
> 'public safety'... :)
>
> /kc
> --
UUCP works just fine over TCP/IP and works with Exim and Postfix (I have
used both with UUCP over T
On 2/3/2011 7:43 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
An armed FBI special agent shows up at your facility and tells your ranking
manager to "shut down the Internet".
Let's look at this from a different perspective. What level of
impairment would the feds face if they ordered wide spread
net shut downs. D
On 2/4/2011 11:13 AM, Charles N Wyble wrote:
How much phone service would still work, if the feds hit all the major
IX points and terminate
connectivity? I seem to recall much discussion about the all IP back
bone of the various large
carriers (Qwest/ATT). I guess calls in the same CO and may
On 2/4/2011 9:25 PM, George Bonser wrote:
Maybe because it is just easier to do a transparent redirect to the ISPs
mail server and look for patterns there.
Analyzing flows generally isn't any more difficult than analyzing mail
log patterns. It doesn't have the queue and check mechanism of a
t
On Feb 4, 2011, at 6:53 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
> On 2/4/2011 8:05 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
>> True... If you review the NANOG archives you'll find that at least in the
>> case
>> of the port 25 absurdity, I have noticed and have railed against it.
>>
>
> Yeah, I threw it in as an afterthought
On Feb 4, 2011, at 7:25 PM, George Bonser wrote:
>>
>> Yeah, I threw it in as an afterthought. ISP firewalls do exist and not
>> just small isolated incidents. I wish more money had gone into making
>> them much more adaptive, then you could enjoy your tcp/25 and possibly
>> not have a problem u
95 matches
Mail list logo
