RE: No topic -- Photo in its context might be interesting...

[Kenneth M. Chipps Ph.D.]

Which providers would this be?

"And there are literally 3 in the entire world that don't completely suck."

-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Warren Bailey
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2014 7:39 PM
To: sur...@mauigateway.com; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: No topic -- Photo in its context might be interesting...

3mbps on a ship at 5:1 tdma oversubscribed is about 16k a month on c band
and probably about 12k a month on ku if you find someone with good water
coverage (ge23 is a good example of a killer oceanic spacecraft). The auto
stabilized antenna (at least 1.8m but preferably larger up to 3.6)is going
to start at 40k and end at 200 for the giant ones. Then.. You have to find a
provider that doesn't suck. And there are literally 3 in the entire world
that don't completely suck.

I won't get started on pricing for planes.. ;)


Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device



 Original message 
From: Scott Weeks 
Date: 07/09/2014 5:05 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: No topic -- Photo in its context might be interesting...


--- larryshel...@cox.net wrote:
http://media.englishrussia.com/022013/icebcomm/icebreakercommunicationsystem
s001-37.jpg

In an article titled "Do they have Internet on the Icebreaker?"
---

I get: 403 Forbidden  nginx/1.0.15


--
http://englishrussia.com/wp-content/plugins/ttftitles/cache/3682a941fcfa4ee6
9e6f5e5e9729de4e.png


not much there.


--
http://englishrussia.com/2014/07/07/do-they-have-internet-connection-on-the-
arctic-icebreaker/
--

works


These prices are low if it's INMARSAT.  We pay ~$7/minute.  If they have
their own Ku-band (hopefully not as 12-18Ghz has a lot of rain fade) that
seems high.  C-band (4-8Ghz) on ships is much better.  Not a lot of perks
for being bored out at sea for long periods of time.

scott

Re: No topic -- Photo in its context might be interesting...

[joel jaeggli]

On 7/9/14 7:24 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 8:53 PM, Scott Weeks  wrote:
>> Just to be fast, the article said 1.5Mbps
>> Also, I completely missed that there was a page 2.  It looks like they use
>> Iridium.  Here is some pricing.  Just the first thing I found:
>>
>> http://www.sattransusa.com/irprpl.html
>>
>> Plan  Monthly AmountMonthly Allowance  Cost per 1000 Bytes
>> Plan SBD 0  $27.000 Bytes  $1.15
>> Plan SBD 12 $35.10   10,000 Bytes  $1.05
>> Plan LBS 8* $28.788,000 Bytes  $1.78
> Hi Scott,
>
> If it's Iridium they aren't doing 1.5mbps. Iridium has Short Burst
> Data (SBD), a messaging service capable of sending and receiving a 2kB
> message a couple times a minute and they have RUDICS, a 1200bps or
> 2400bps (not kbps or mbps) synchronous serial service. They also have
> a product which gangs enough RUDICS channels together to get a 56k
> modem speed. Higher speed claims are "with compression."
Russian Satellite Communications Company operates geostationary
satellites as part of intelsat and eutelsat. Molniya insorfar as I'm
aware still exists and is a constellation of high elliptical orbit
communications satellites  with a 12 hour orbit, it's specifically
useful over the poles.

in one of the photos on the orignal live journal is an inmarsat terminal
onbaord the vessel.

http://nikitskij.livejournal.com/

the ship is the icebreaker yamal which at 23000 tons is a pretty big
platform to mount hardware on.
>
>




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Listing or google map of peering exchange

[Rob Seastrom]

"Dennis Burgess"  writes:

> Looking for a good listing of US/Canada peering exchange, similar to
> Torx in Toronto..Google map listing would be nice J 

"Similar to Torx in Toronto", assuming you're OK with 4 points instead
of 6, would be Robertson/Scrulox.  Get 'em at Canadian Tire.

-r

Re: No topic -- Photo in its context might be interesting...

[William Herrin]

On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 8:53 PM, Scott Weeks  wrote:
> Just to be fast, the article said 1.5Mbps
> Also, I completely missed that there was a page 2.  It looks like they use
> Iridium.  Here is some pricing.  Just the first thing I found:
>
> http://www.sattransusa.com/irprpl.html
>
> Plan  Monthly AmountMonthly Allowance  Cost per 1000 Bytes
> Plan SBD 0  $27.000 Bytes  $1.15
> Plan SBD 12 $35.10   10,000 Bytes  $1.05
> Plan LBS 8* $28.788,000 Bytes  $1.78

Hi Scott,

If it's Iridium they aren't doing 1.5mbps. Iridium has Short Burst
Data (SBD), a messaging service capable of sending and receiving a 2kB
message a couple times a minute and they have RUDICS, a 1200bps or
2400bps (not kbps or mbps) synchronous serial service. They also have
a product which gangs enough RUDICS channels together to get a 56k
modem speed. Higher speed claims are "with compression."

SBD is not used for Internet access, though it can be used for email.
It's messaging, not packet data.

What Iridium does have is coverage. Everywhere. Including both poles.
They use a couple constellations of Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellites
with honest to god packet routing across the satellites to the ground
stations. You don't need a stabilized high-gain antenna to talk to the
satellites (they're only 500 miles up) and you don't have to be in the
same footprint as a ground station.

Basically, they're flying cell phone towers circa the mid-90's with
microwave relays between them.

This is very different from something like, let's say, Inmarsat.
Inmarsat's satellites sit out at geostationary orbit, 23,000 miles
away. More, they're a "bent-pipe" configuration. Your signal goes up
on one radio frequency, is analog-shifted and comes back down at
another radio frequency to the ground station that shares the
footprint. On the other hand, since they're simple analog amps they've
been able to recognize the kind of gains from tech that improved
9600bps phone lines to 7mbps DSL lines, and because they're not
routing between satellites, each bird they fly has its own complete
bandwidth.

But I suspect an arctic icebreaker isn't using Inmarsat, with or
without a stabilized three-meter antenna. Geostationary satellites
have to fly around the equator. They wouldn't be stationary relative
to the surface if they didn't. So, they kinda have trouble seeing the
poles.

There's also the odd fish like Globalstar. They have LEO satellites
that are bent-pipes. This gives them limited coverage, and it's kinda
weird -- your signal actually hits multiple satellites and ground
stations and has to be deduped. Still, where it works it seems to
work.

Regards,
Bill Herrin

-- 
William D. Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems  Web: 
Can I solve your unusual networking challenges?

Re: No topic -- Photo in its context might be interesting...

[Warren Bailey]

Sure, Bro.


Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device



 Original message 
From: Scott Weeks 
Date: 07/09/2014 5:55 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: No topic -- Photo in its context might be interesting...



--- wbai...@satelliteintelligencegroup.com wrote:
From: Warren Bailey 

3mbps on a ship at 5:1 tdma oversubscribed is about 16k a month on c band
---

There're 43200 minutes in a month.  Just to be fast, the article said 1.5Mbps
link, so I used 1/2 of your $16K.  Divide the $8K by 43200 and I get 18 cents
per minute.

Also, I completely missed that there was a page 2.  It looks like they use
Iridium.  Here is some pricing.  Just the first thing I found:

http://www.sattransusa.com/irprpl.html


Plan  Monthly AmountMonthly Allowance  Cost per 1000 Bytes
Plan SBD 0  $27.000 Bytes  $1.15
Plan SBD 12 $35.10   10,000 Bytes  $1.05
Plan LBS 8* $28.788,000 Bytes  $1.78

scott

Re: No topic -- Photo in its context might be interesting...

[Scott Weeks]

--- wbai...@satelliteintelligencegroup.com wrote:
From: Warren Bailey 

3mbps on a ship at 5:1 tdma oversubscribed is about 16k a month on c band 
---

There're 43200 minutes in a month.  Just to be fast, the article said 1.5Mbps
link, so I used 1/2 of your $16K.  Divide the $8K by 43200 and I get 18 cents 
per minute.

Also, I completely missed that there was a page 2.  It looks like they use 
Iridium.  Here is some pricing.  Just the first thing I found:

http://www.sattransusa.com/irprpl.html


Plan  Monthly AmountMonthly Allowance  Cost per 1000 Bytes  
Plan SBD 0  $27.000 Bytes  $1.15
Plan SBD 12 $35.10   10,000 Bytes  $1.05 
Plan LBS 8* $28.788,000 Bytes  $1.78

scott

Re: No topic -- Photo in its context might be interesting...

[Warren Bailey]

3mbps on a ship at 5:1 tdma oversubscribed is about 16k a month on c band and 
probably about 12k a month on ku if you find someone with good water coverage 
(ge23 is a good example of a killer oceanic spacecraft). The auto stabilized 
antenna (at least 1.8m but preferably larger up to 3.6)is going to start at 40k 
and end at 200 for the giant ones. Then.. You have to find a provider that 
doesn't suck. And there are literally 3 in the entire world that don't 
completely suck.

I won't get started on pricing for planes.. ;)


Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device



 Original message 
From: Scott Weeks 
Date: 07/09/2014 5:05 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: No topic -- Photo in its context might be interesting...


--- larryshel...@cox.net wrote:
http://media.englishrussia.com/022013/icebcomm/icebreakercommunicationsystems001-37.jpg

In an article titled "Do they have Internet on the Icebreaker?"
---

I get: 403 Forbidden  nginx/1.0.15


--
http://englishrussia.com/wp-content/plugins/ttftitles/cache/3682a941fcfa4ee69e6f5e5e9729de4e.png


not much there.


--
http://englishrussia.com/2014/07/07/do-they-have-internet-connection-on-the-arctic-icebreaker/
--

works


These prices are low if it's INMARSAT.  We pay ~$7/minute.  If
they have their own Ku-band (hopefully not as 12-18Ghz has a
lot of rain fade) that seems high.  C-band (4-8Ghz) on ships
is much better.  Not a lot of perks for being bored out at sea
for long periods of time.

scott

Re: No topic -- Photo in its context might be interesting...

[Scott Weeks]

--- larryshel...@cox.net wrote:
http://media.englishrussia.com/022013/icebcomm/icebreakercommunicationsystems001-37.jpg

In an article titled "Do they have Internet on the Icebreaker?"
---

I get: 403 Forbidden  nginx/1.0.15


--
http://englishrussia.com/wp-content/plugins/ttftitles/cache/3682a941fcfa4ee69e6f5e5e9729de4e.png


not much there.


--
http://englishrussia.com/2014/07/07/do-they-have-internet-connection-on-the-arctic-icebreaker/
--

works


These prices are low if it's INMARSAT.  We pay ~$7/minute.  If 
they have their own Ku-band (hopefully not as 12-18Ghz has a 
lot of rain fade) that seems high.  C-band (4-8Ghz) on ships 
is much better.  Not a lot of perks for being bored out at sea
for long periods of time.

scott

Re: Listing or google map of peering exchange

[William F. Maton Sotomayor]

On Wed, 9 Jul 2014, Paul Stewart wrote:


I?ve actually been working on a site like that for a while (with Google
Maps) - just never got around to putting it online.   Honestly I wasn?t
sure if there was an interest in it :)


chop-chop! :)



Paul


On 2014-07-09, 2:18 PM, "Dennis Burgess"  wrote:


Looking for a good listing of US/Canada peering exchange, similar to
Torx in Toronto..Google map listing would be nice J



Dennis Burgess, Mikrotik Certified Trainer Author of "Learn RouterOS-
Second Edition  "

Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik & WISP Support Services

Office: 314-735-0270   Website:
http://www.linktechs.net   - Skype: linktechs


-- Create Wireless Coverage's with www.towercoverage.com
  - 900Mhz - LTE - 3G - 3.65 - TV
Whitespace









wfms

Re: Listing or google map of peering exchange

[Paul Stewart]

I’ve actually been working on a site like that for a while (with Google
Maps) - just never got around to putting it online.   Honestly I wasn’t
sure if there was an interest in it :)

Paul


On 2014-07-09, 2:18 PM, "Dennis Burgess"  wrote:

>Looking for a good listing of US/Canada peering exchange, similar to
>Torx in Toronto..Google map listing would be nice J
>
> 
>
>Dennis Burgess, Mikrotik Certified Trainer Author of "Learn RouterOS-
>Second Edition  "
>
> Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik & WISP Support Services
>
> Office: 314-735-0270   Website:
>http://www.linktechs.net   - Skype: linktechs
>
>
> -- Create Wireless Coverage's with www.towercoverage.com
>  - 900Mhz - LTE - 3G - 3.65 - TV
>Whitespace  
>
> 
>

Re: Listing or google map of peering exchange

[Bill Woodcock]

On Jul 9, 2014, at 1:15 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore  wrote:

> On Jul 09, 2014, at 16:03 , Bill Woodcock  wrote:
>> it’s all automated with rulesets and a whole lot of exceptions (knowing that 
>> AS 701, 702, 703 are the same organization, etc.).
> 
> Is that a good idea?
> 
> For instance, if I were stupid enough to peer with as3856 and not with as42 
> (because not peering with either of those is idiotic :), would I get the same 
> data as peering with both?
> 
> It is absolutely true that if I peer with as702, I do _not_ get the same 
> prefixes as peering with as701. Just because one is a downstream of the other 
> does not mean they are separate (from BGP's PoV).

There are a lot of these things that seem self-evident to a human in specific 
cases, but when you write a rule to implement the 
apparently-self-evident-specific-case, it winds up creating something 
unanticipated elsewhere.  The more you try to have common code that gets 
applied uniformly across multiple tools, the more you wind up with unexpected 
results.  So, there are times when people want to know that AS42 and AS3856 are 
both PCH, and there are times when they want to know that they’re different 
ASes with different routing policies.

I’ll report back when I know whether or how we’re over-uniquing that number.  
In all likelihood, we’re applying a ruleset that’s used in multiple tools, and 
someone thought it made sense to aggregate more in a different tool.  But 
that’s just speculation, and I’ll know more when our staff who maintain that 
have finished looking through that section of code and get back to me.

-Bill






signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: Listing or google map of peering exchange

[Patrick W. Gilmore]

On Jul 09, 2014, at 16:03 , Bill Woodcock  wrote:
> On Jul 9, 2014, at 12:46 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore  wrote:

>> Taking just Seattle IX (since I have a personal interest there :), it says 
>> "177" under “participants"
> 
> Interesting.  We pull automatically from the standard URL, 
> https://www.seattleix.net/participants/table but have to try to uniq it to 
> not double-count organizations that are peering under multiple ASNs, who are 
> peering on multiple subnets, etc.  Because we’re doing that 400 times per 
> day, it’s all automated with rulesets and a whole lot of exceptions (knowing 
> that AS 701, 702, 703 are the same organization, etc.).
> 
> The SIX is reporting 194 unique ASNs and 195 unique organization names.  
> Presumably we have some rules that are detecting that AS42 and AS3856, for 
> instance, are the same organization and consolidating those.  I’ll have our 
> IXPdir maintenance staff take a look at where the differences lie, and 
> whether any of those rules need to be updated.

Is that a good idea?

For instance, if I were stupid enough to peer with as3856 and not with as42 
(because not peering with either of those is idiotic :), would I get the same 
data as peering with both?

It is absolutely true that if I peer with as702, I do _not_ get the same 
prefixes as peering with as701. Just because one is a downstream of the other 
does not mean they are separate (from BGP's PoV).

-- 
TTFN,
patrick



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: Listing or google map of peering exchange

[Bill Woodcock]

On Jul 9, 2014, at 12:46 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore  wrote:
> Then again, PeeringDB never claimed to be anything but user-submitted data. 
> Just the opposite.

Exactly, not a criticism; PeeringDB’s focus is on peers, not on IXPs.  The IXP 
Directory’s focus is on IXPs, not peers.  Different needs, different data 
collected, etc.

> Taking just Seattle IX (since I have a personal interest there :), it says 
> "177" under “participants"

Interesting.  We pull automatically from the standard URL, 
https://www.seattleix.net/participants/table but have to try to uniq it to not 
double-count organizations that are peering under multiple ASNs, who are 
peering on multiple subnets, etc.  Because we’re doing that 400 times per day, 
it’s all automated with rulesets and a whole lot of exceptions (knowing that AS 
701, 702, 703 are the same organization, etc.).

The SIX is reporting 194 unique ASNs and 195 unique organization names.  
Presumably we have some rules that are detecting that AS42 and AS3856, for 
instance, are the same organization and consolidating those.  I’ll have our 
IXPdir maintenance staff take a look at where the differences lie, and whether 
any of those rules need to be updated.

-Bill






signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: Listing or google map of peering exchange

[Patrick W. Gilmore]

On Jul 09, 2014, at 15:36 , Bill Woodcock  wrote:
> On Jul 9, 2014, at 11:35 AM, Zaid A. Kahn  wrote:
> 
>> PeeringDB www.peeringdb.com is the defacto source of truth.
> 
> That’s user-submitted data.  The PCH directory is twenty years old, and is 
> independently verified by our staff.  So what’s there isn’t always 
> up-to-date, but we do differentiate between rumor and something that’s been 
> verified by someone going and laying eyes on it.

It is ever-so-slightly better than user-submitted data. Specifically, if an IX 
or a colo tells us "this person says they are a [Customer|Member|whatever] and 
they are not", we will remove that row from the DB.

Then again, PeeringDB never claimed to be anything but user-submitted data. 
Just the opposite.


> On Jul 9, 2014, at 11:34 AM, William F. Maton Sotomayor  
> wrote:
>> https://prefix.pch.net/applications/ixpdir/
> 
> Or, more specifically, 
> 
> https://prefix.pch.net/applications/ixpdir/index.php?new=1&show_active_only=1&sort=Region&order=desc
> 
> …gets you exactly what you’re looking for.

Taking just Seattle IX (since I have a personal interest there :), it says 
"177" under "participants", but  
disagrees.

To be clear, PCH does a better job than most (all?) others. And a ridiculously 
difficult job it is. Finding how each IXP presents its user / traffic / 
whatever data an trying to collate it is nearly impossible.

But thank you for trying!

-- 
TTFN,
patrick



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: Listing or google map of peering exchange

[Bill Woodcock]

On Jul 9, 2014, at 11:35 AM, Zaid A. Kahn  wrote:

> PeeringDB www.peeringdb.com is the defacto source of truth.

That’s user-submitted data.  The PCH directory is twenty years old, and is 
independently verified by our staff.  So what’s there isn’t always up-to-date, 
but we do differentiate between rumor and something that’s been verified by 
someone going and laying eyes on it.

On Jul 9, 2014, at 11:34 AM, William F. Maton Sotomayor  
wrote:
> https://prefix.pch.net/applications/ixpdir/

Or, more specifically, 

https://prefix.pch.net/applications/ixpdir/index.php?new=1&show_active_only=1&sort=Region&order=desc

…gets you exactly what you’re looking for.

-Bill






signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: Listing or google map of peering exchange

[Zaid A. Kahn]

PeeringDB www.peeringdb.com is the defacto source of truth.

Zaid

On Jul 9, 2014, at 11:18 AM, Dennis Burgess  wrote:

> Looking for a good listing of US/Canada peering exchange, similar to
> Torx in Toronto..Google map listing would be nice J 
> 
> 
> 
> Dennis Burgess, Mikrotik Certified Trainer Author of "Learn RouterOS-
> Second Edition  "
> 
> Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik & WISP Support Services
> 
> Office: 314-735-0270   Website:
> http://www.linktechs.net   - Skype: linktechs
> 
> 
> -- Create Wireless Coverage's with www.towercoverage.com
>   - 900Mhz - LTE - 3G - 3.65 - TV
> Whitespace  
> 
> 
> 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: Listing or google map of peering exchange

[William F. Maton Sotomayor]

On Wed, 9 Jul 2014, Dennis Burgess wrote:


Looking for a good listing of US/Canada peering exchange, similar to
Torx in Toronto..Google map listing would be nice J


Telegeography may have this

or:

https://prefix.pch.net/applications/ixpdir/





Dennis Burgess, Mikrotik Certified Trainer Author of "Learn RouterOS-
Second Edition  "

Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik & WISP Support Services

Office: 314-735-0270   Website:
http://www.linktechs.net   - Skype: linktechs


-- Create Wireless Coverage's with www.towercoverage.com
  - 900Mhz - LTE - 3G - 3.65 - TV
Whitespace






wfms

Re: Listing or google map of peering exchange

[Constantine A. Murenin]

On 9 July 2014 11:18, Dennis Burgess  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.

Listing or google map of peering exchange

[Dennis Burgess]

Looking for a good listing of US/Canada peering exchange, similar to
Torx in Toronto..Google map listing would be nice J 

 

Dennis Burgess, Mikrotik Certified Trainer Author of "Learn RouterOS-
Second Edition  "

 Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik & WISP Support Services

 Office: 314-735-0270   Website:
http://www.linktechs.net   - Skype: linktechs


 -- Create Wireless Coverage's with www.towercoverage.com
  - 900Mhz - LTE - 3G - 3.65 - TV
Whitespace  

 

Re: hotmail email issues today?

[Jared Mauch]

On Jul 9, 2014, at 11:04 AM, Christopher Morrow  wrote:

> it's not clear (to me at least) that hotmail has deployed any DMARC
> config at all, actually:
> 
> $ dig txt _dmarc.hotmail.com +short
> $ dig txt _dmarc.outlook.com +short
> 
> no results... but:
> $ dig txt _dmarc.gmail.com +short
> "v=DMARC1\; p=none\; rua=mailto:mailauth-repo...@google.com";
> 

I suspect they started checking DMARC in the past 24 hours.

This impacts those who have "hotmail for their own domain" in addition to 
hotmail.com addresses.

- Jared

Re: hotmail email issues today?

[Jim Popovitch]

On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 11:04 AM, Christopher Morrow
 wrote:
> it's not clear (to me at least) that hotmail has deployed any DMARC

Don't let that stop others from offering leftfield advice. :-)

According to MailOP, Yahoo had acceptability issues as well this AM.

-Jim P.

Re: hotmail email issues today?

[Christopher Morrow]

it's not clear (to me at least) that hotmail has deployed any DMARC
config at all, actually:

$ dig txt _dmarc.hotmail.com +short
$ dig txt _dmarc.outlook.com +short

no results... but:
$ dig txt _dmarc.gmail.com +short
"v=DMARC1\; p=none\; rua=mailto:mailauth-repo...@google.com";

On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 10:40 AM, Randy Bush  wrote:
>> If you find users being dropped from mailing lists, it's probably a
>> DMARC issue. Contact your mailing list vendor for appropriate patches.
>
> or let them drop and hopr they move to a standards-compliant email home.
> they're not called yahoos for nothing.
>
> randy

Re: hotmail email issues today?

[Randy Bush]

> If you find users being dropped from mailing lists, it's probably a
> DMARC issue. Contact your mailing list vendor for appropriate patches.

or let them drop and hopr they move to a standards-compliant email home.
they're not called yahoos for nothing.

randy

Re: hotmail email issues today?

[Jared Mauch]

I'm adjusting mailman now to do this hoping that's it.  It's on the 
privacy->sender tab.

If you got unsubscribed from cisco-nsp or juniper-nsp this morning this is 
likely why.

(ugh, 56 lists to adjust)..

- Jared

On Jul 9, 2014, at 10:32 AM, Matthew Black  wrote:

> If you find users being dropped from mailing lists, it's probably a DMARC 
> issue. Contact your mailing list vendor for appropriate patches.
> 
> https://wordtothewise.com/2014/04/brief-dmarc-primer/
> A brief DMARC primer
> 
> http://dmarc.org/overview.html
> DMARC Overview
> 
> http://www.socketlabs.com/blog/yahoo-com-changes-dmarc-policy/
> Yahoo.com Changes DMARC Policy
> 
> http://yahoomail.tumblr.com/post/82426900353/yahoo-dmarc-policy-change-what-should-senders-do
> Yahoo DMARC Policy Change - What Should Senders Do?
> 
> http://yahoo.tumblr.com/post/82426971544/an-update-on-our-dmarc-policy-to-protect-our-users
> An Update on our DMARC Policy to Protect Our Users
> 
> http://www.lsoft.com/news/2014/listserv160-2014a-us.asp
> LISTSERV(r) Inventor Develops Seamless Solution to DMARC Hassles
> 
> 
> matthew black
> california state university, long beach
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Jared Mauch
> Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2014 7:09 AM
> To: NANOG list
> Subject: hotmail email issues today?
> 
> Anyone know what happened?  I've started to see a large number of bounces 
> from them (this caused a large number of people with their e-mail hosted 
> there to be removed from mailing lists I host).
> 
> Offlist replies/pointers to what I'm doing wrong are welcome.
> 
> - Jared

hotmail email issues today?

[Jared Mauch]

Anyone know what happened?  I've started to see a large number of bounces from 
them (this caused a large number of people with their e-mail hosted there to be 
removed from mailing lists I host).

Offlist replies/pointers to what I'm doing wrong are welcome.

- Jared

Re: No topic -- Photo in its context might be interesting...

[Steven Miano]

Rest of the article for those interested/lazy:

http://englishrussia.com/2014/07/07/do-they-have-internet-connection-on-the-arctic-icebreaker/

Seems like most ships I've seen...satellite communication is nothing
new/crazy.


On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 8:31 PM, Larry Sheldon  wrote:

> http://media.englishrussia.com/022013/icebcomm/
> icebreakercommunicationsystems001-37.jpg
>
> In an article titled "Do they have Internet on the Icebreaker?"
>
> http://englishrussia.com/wp-content/plugins/ttftitles/cache/
> 3682a941fcfa4ee69e6f5e5e9729de4e.png
> --
> Requiescas in pace o email   Two identifying characteristics
> of System Administrators:
> Ex turpi causa non oritur actio  Infallibility, and the ability to
> learn from their mistakes.
>   (Adapted from Stephen Pinker)
>



-- 
 Miano, Steven M.
http://stevenmiano.com