Hello;
e-VLBI streams can easily sustain packet losses. IMHO these streams
should be sent
UDP with application layer congestion control, minimal FEC if necessary
and "worse than best effort"
QOS (because VLBI has little money but an almost infinite ability to
generate bits). These TCP based too
On Wed, Jun 04, 2003 at 11:41:22PM -0400, Deepak Jain wrote:
> causes far more severe problems. Since RED causes packet drops, high speed
> streams that get RED'd are in an immense world of pain. Further, since a
In some experience I've had RED did not cause drops. In fact, I have
some data show
This question appears to be as to whether the @home setup presented at nanog28
is a good idea rather than the usual 1918 on public links.
This is not uncommon for cable modem users etc
And yes, things will break like voip, vpns.. but I guess its up to the service
provider as to whether nat-on
MN> Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 08:02:33 +0200
MN> From: Mans Nilsson
MN> So, we need to come up with technolgies that can sustain
MN> multi-gbit (preferably) TCP streams over 50-100 mS RTT
MN> links. And, we've got the OC192 backbones to do it, if TCP
MN> were up to it..
10 Gbps * 100 ms * 2 = 2 Gbi
Subject: RE: Fast TCP? Date: Wed, Jun 04, 2003 at 11:41:22PM -0400 Quoting Deepak Jain
([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
> I am not sure why sending a single large/high speed stream today (>1Gb/s) is
> such an improvement over sending multiple today-streams of data, but I guess
> that is the difference betw
Subject: NAT for an ISP Date: Wed, Jun 04, 2003 at 12:51:51PM -0700 Quoting
Christopher J. Wolff ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
> Hello,
>
> I would like to know if any service providers have built their access
> networks out using private IP space. It certainly would benefit the
> global IP pool but i
Hi, NANOGers.
Did someone say...bot? /me twitches :)
] I am not sure why sending a single large/high speed stream today (>1Gb/s) is
] such an improvement over sending multiple today-streams of data, but I guess
] that is the difference between a get-it-done-right and a get-it-done-now
] mental
At 11:41 PM 04-06-03 -0400, Deepak Jain wrote:
I am not sure why sending a single large/high speed stream today (>1Gb/s) is
such an improvement over sending multiple today-streams of data, but I guess
that is the difference between a get-it-done-right and a get-it-done-now
mentality.
The bot-owner
Glad this came up as I have been reading this paper -
Does Figure 1 in
http://netlab.caltech.edu/pub/papers/fast-030401.pdf
seem reasonable ? Will 100 RED TCP flows really only fill 90% of a 155
Mbps pipe but 87% of a 2.4 Gbps connection
and 75% of a 4.8 Gbps connection ? This seems strangely n
Does anybody know any more about Fast TCP:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=581&ncid=581&e=6&u=/nm/20030604/tc_nm/technology_internet_dc_3
Is it real?
It it open source?
Are there any implementations available?
Mike.
+- H U R R I C A N E - E L E C T R I C
On Wed, Jun 04, 2003 at 07:07:28PM -0400, Andy Dills quacked:
> >
> > I've got a friend who puts all of his internal servers,
> > routers, and _customers_ on RFC1918 space and pipes them out
> > thrugh a PNAT. Fairly small ISP - maybe 15 megabits of bandwidth -
> > operating at the state local
On Wed, Jun 04, 2003 at 06:48:01PM -0400, Dan Armstrong wrote:
> More stuff to manage if we push it out to the CPE.
Push it out even further.
John
We used to do NAT for DSL customers as well. We started with two T1's to
Verizon, Cisco 3620 for DSL only and had problems here and there (couldn't
stop packets between customers in the same bridge group, such as netbios
broadcasts but could ACL tcp/udp connections between them easily.) We
switc
DA> Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2003 18:48:01 -0400
DA> From: Dan Armstrong
DA> I know this is mean to say, but most customers are STUPID and
DA> keeping it centralized reduces our support load. Give them
I'd almost go so far as to say most providers are stupid. "It
hasn't bitten yet, so it must be oka
On Wed, 4 Jun 2003, Dan Armstrong wrote:
>
> More stuff to manage if we push it out to the CPE.
>
> I know this is mean to say, but most customers are STUPID and keeping it
> centralized reduces our support load. Give them enough rope, they hang
> themselves. We used to do lots more on the CPE,
RKJ> Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 17:56:15 -0300
RKJ> From: Rubens Kuhl Jr.
RKJ> ISPs that provide RFC1918 space should also provide
RKJ> recursive DNS services that would stop all RFC1918 in-addrs
RKJ> before hitting root-servers and guidance to their users so
RKJ> they do the same on their servers if
On Wed, 4 Jun 2003, David G. Andersen wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 04, 2003 at 12:51:51PM -0700, Christopher J. Wolff quacked:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > I would like to know if any service providers have built their access
> > networks out using private IP space. It certainly would benefit the
> > global
More stuff to manage if we push it out to the CPE.
I know this is mean to say, but most customers are STUPID and keeping it
centralized reduces our support load. Give them enough rope, they hang
themselves. We used to do lots more on the CPE, but between bad power
supplies, lost passwords, soft
On Wed, 4 Jun 2003, Dan Armstrong wrote:
>
> 90% of our customers all use private address space. We only give out
> real address space to customers that have servers that need to be
> visible. We run NAT on several customer facing routers.
>
> Cool stuff we can do is setup PPTP VPNs on the sa
Is anyone seeing any weirdness with routes dropping to/from Sprintlink
customers in NYC?
Regards,
Christopher J. Wolff, VP CIO
Broadband Laboratories, Inc.
http://www.bblabs.com
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
One would think so, wouldn't they? It seems, however, not to be the
case.
- --
William S. Duncanson[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The driving force behind the NC is the belief that the companies who
brought us things like Unix, relatio
ISPs that provide RFC1918 space should also provide recursive DNS services
that would stop all RFC1918 in-addrs before hitting root-servers and
guidance to their users so they do the same on their servers if they don't
forward requests to the ISP recursive resolver.
Rubens
- Original Messa
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
My first hop beyond my border for my home connection is a 10-net
address. Provider is RoadRunner. So, yes, ISP's are using RFC1918
space for access networks, which probably also has some bearing on
the recent thread regarding the frequency of atte
Christopher J. Wolff schrieb:
Hello,
I would like to know if any service providers have built their access
networks out using private IP space. It certainly would benefit the
global IP pool but it may adversely affect users with special
applications. At any rate, it sounds like good fodder for
I would appreciate pointers to good RFC 1918 rants.
Thanks.
-
James R. Cutler, EDS
800 Tower Drive, Troy, MI 48098
1 248 265 7514
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: Muir, Ronald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 2003-06-04, Wednesday 4:00 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Christophe
On Wed, Jun 04, 2003 at 12:51:51PM -0700, Christopher J. Wolff quacked:
>
> Hello,
>
> I would like to know if any service providers have built their access
> networks out using private IP space. It certainly would benefit the
> global IP pool but it may adversely affect users with special
> ap
90% of our customers all use private address space. We only give out
real address space to customers that have servers that need to be
visible. We run NAT on several customer facing routers.
Cool stuff we can do is setup PPTP VPNs on the same router to give
people "access from home" to their
Anyone recommend a quality ISP in Telehouse broadway, New York?
We're looking for a direct gig ethernet handoff, with a 50M commit, to
an ISP with local in building IP equipment (we don't want to pay local
loop charges, nor be subject to MAN fiber cuts).
There do not seem to be that many teir 1
It is about time for the semi annual RFC1918 rants. ;-(
> -Original Message-
> From: Christopher J. Wolff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 3:52 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Suspected SPAM: NAT for an ISP
>
>
>
> Hello,
>
> I would like to know if an
Hello,
I would like to know if any service providers have built their access
networks out using private IP space. It certainly would benefit the
global IP pool but it may adversely affect users with special
applications. At any rate, it sounds like good fodder for a debate.
Regards,
Christophe
Dear Mr. Fei,
I surmise that hop 6 is the actual interface by seeing
gw-att.qwest.net <-- the fact that both qwest and att
appear in the same DNS lookup to me implies that qwest
intends that link to be the border. hop 5 is the
ingress link to ATT's border router, and hop 7 is the
next qwest rout
Teng,
You can also use whois to determin who owns the /30 between the hop in
question. If ISPx comes up as the holder of the netblock in the
registration then that traceroute result is comming from ISPx. Hopefully
this helps!
- Robert
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [m
Dear Mr. Maynard,
Thank you very much!
Sincerely
Teng
On Wed, 4 Jun 2003, Robert D. Maynard wrote:
> Teng,
>
> See here for unnumbered interface information:
> http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/701/20.html
>
>
>
> -Robert Maynard
> Vice President of Network Operations
> Alliance Information Sy
Dear Mr. Barak,
Right, in your example, AS7018 and AS209 are both backbone ISPs and I
guess they are peering at NY. So if the addresses at both ends of
the "real" inter-domain link were assigned with qwest's address, hop 6
would be the inter-domain link. But if the addresses were assigned with
Dear Mr. Wayrynen,
Thank you very much for your reply. What do you mean by "unnumbered
interfaces"? Also could you please confirm my question that if the
customer's address block was not obtained from the provider, it is also a
convention that the provider will provider the /30 address for t
Dear Mr. Fort,
Thank you very much for your help! But there are cases the ISPs are
providing connectivity, albeit the address block of the customer was not
obtained from the provider. For example, my university use Cable and
Wireless as the commercial provider but our address was not assigned b
[link for this:
http://md.hudora.de/blog/guids/53/53/5261415523775104.html]
Dear (swinog | siug | nanog),
I recently asked for input on using proxies and DNS for blocking Web
content.
After some great input from listsmembers and the work of dedicated
reviewers I have put an preprint online:
37 matches
Mail list logo
