Re: Cogent outage?
I'm seeing packet loss between my Atlanta Cogent connection and some servers we have in both Dallas and London. According to Cogent's status page they're having an outage in the NYC area. -Proto http://status.cogentco.com/ On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Matthew Huff wrote: > About 10 minutes ago we stopped being able to pass traffic through cogent. I > de-peered us from Cogent, and everything appears > better. When I call cogent, all I get is a busy signal (must be a major > outage). Anyone else seeing anything? > > > Matthew Huff | 1 Manhattanville Rd > Director of Operations | Purchase, NY 10577 > OTA Management LLC | Phone: 914-460-4039 > aim: matthewbhuff| Fax: 914-460-4139 > >
Re: IPv6 Linux Server Support
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 3:22 PM, Paul Stewart wrote: > Hi there. > > > > Has anyone compiled a list of pros/cons on various flavors of Linux specific > to IPv6? I realize that's a really broad question.. > > > > Specific example would be that we're primarily a CentOS shop - during some > testing today found out that connection tracking is broken in 5.6 version > (after all kinds of Google hits). I understand 6.0 (recently released) > fixes this issue. I have not seen this issue in Debian for example to date. > I've tested two Linux distributions in an IPv6 environment, Ubuntu 10.04 Server and CentOS 6. Granted I've only been testing services for a few months now but I've found that both can deliver adequate service delivery via IPv6. I did run into the connection tracking issue with CentOS 5 and you are correct, it is fixed in 6 (its also integrated into the ufw program so setting-up host-based rulesets are very easy in an IPv6 world). In my case, its mainly testing both platforms but I haven't discovered any significant issues with either, and this is running basic services (DNS, HTTP, SMTP, a few little python JSON servers) over a 6in4 tunnel on each platform. -Proto
Re: IPv4 Address Exhaustion Effects on the Earth
On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Jared Mauch wrote: > > On Apr 4, 2011, at 4:30 PM, Jim Gettys wrote: > >> Note that the paper "Characterizing Residential Broadband Networks" by >> Dischinger, et. al. indicates that a large fraction (in their 2 year old >> sample, 30% or so) of broadband head ends are running without RED, and >> should be doing so if at all possible; alternatives are years out by the >> time they are tested and deployed, and operators running without it in >> congested systems are inflicting pain on their customers. > > Something I've observed is if you are sending data 'upstream' on the cable > modem setup i have (16 down/ 2 up) and you saturate the upstream, the > buffering destroys any downstream capability at the same time. I'm not even > sure where to start diagnosing to explaining this to the carrier involved, as > this isn't the desired behavior of a "business class" service. > > - Jared > Isn't this just a case or prioritizing outbound ACKs? http://www.benzedrine.cx/ackpri.html -Proto
Re: download speed very fast.
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 9:11 AM, Deric Kwok wrote: > Hi all > > Do you know about sppedboost? > > Why it can suddenly burst to higher transfer rate from first 10M > > Can you share what equipment behinds to make it work? > > eg: cisco, juniper? > > Thank you so much > > I don't know about hardware, but as I understand it from some colleagues Speedboost uses a HFSC-based queuing mechanism on the backside. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchical_Fair_Service_Curve -Proto
