On Sun, 4 Jul 2004, Bill Woodcock wrote:
Go back and think about the purpose of an exchange: it's an economic
optimization over transit. It's the value-add that lets someone who buys
transit sell a service that's of greater value yet lesser cost than what
they buy. Now, what's an exchange
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve Gibbard) [Mon 05 Jul 2004, 10:19 CEST]:
[..]
The performance arguments are probably more controversial. The
arguments are that shortening the path between two networks increases
performance, and that removing an extra network in the middle increases
reliability.
On Sat, Jul 03, 2004 at 09:24:17PM +0200, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Sat, 3 Jul 2004, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
[snip]
IXes are not for top carriers
^^^
Like the economy, perhaps this is different in .se. But this is
NAnog to which you are sending the message,
After analyzing the DNS lookups, we found that all of the extra traffic
was generated from customers of a local VoIP provider which uses Sipura
(SPA-2000) phone adapters.
i just cross-posted your msg to an internal sipura beta testers'
list
randy
Get in contact with manufacturing vender for a fix,
and then tell us what they did or what they intend
to do to remedy the problem.
-Henry
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Last night we configured our equipment to reject
recursive DNS lookups
from non-customers. This morning, soon after
Get in contact with manufacturing vender for a fix,
and then tell us what they did or what they intend
to do to remedy the problem.
We have already suggested this to the local VoIP provider.
Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
\Get in contact with manufacturing vender for a fix,
and then tell us what they did or what they intend
to do to remedy the problem.
We have already suggested this to the local VoIP provider.
Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I guess the real question is why was the local VoIP
I guess the real question is why was the local VoIP provider giving the
phones your DNS IP? Should they have been using their own DNS server?
As to why, we don't know. They *will* be using their own DNS servers
soon, however :-)
Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 7/5/04 1:18 AM, Steve Gibbard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The performance arguments are probably more controversial. The arguments
are that shortening the path between two networks increases performance,
and that removing an extra network in the middle increases reliability.
The first
On Mon, Jul 05, 2004 at 10:55:42AM -0700, joe mcguckin wrote:
$5000 for an ethernet switch port? It makes me long for the days of throwing
ethernet cables over the ceiling to informally peer with other networks in a
Throwing ethernet cables over the ceiling does not scale.
/vijay
Hi-
I'm working on a project within a large corporation and asked their network
folks about getting a /19 from one of their /16s. I wanted it to avoid NAT
and any possible overlapping from using RFC1918 addresses. This project
gets connected to the internet at different times throughout the
-Message d'origine-
De : [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] De
la part de Eric Pylko
Envoyé : lundi 5 juillet 2004 22:02
À : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Objet : Announcing a /19 from a /16
Hi-
I'm working on a project within a large corporation and asked
their network
Hi-
I'm working on a project within a large corporation and asked
their network folks about getting a /19 from one of their
/16s. I wanted it to avoid NAT and any possible overlapping
from using RFC1918 addresses. This project gets connected to
the internet at different
The response I got back was that this was impossible since ISPs require an
announcement of the /16 the /19 would come from. I have done work with ISPs
before (and have read the NANOG list for many years) but haven't heard of
such a requirement nor can I find any standards that indicate the
On Mon, 5 Jul 2004, Niels Bakker wrote:
The correct phrasing is indeed one less network and not one less
router. It's rarely one device in my experience.
I'm not sure the number of routers matters much anymore, with more and
more MPLS deployment you can't be sure that the path from A to B
On Jul 5, 2004, at 2:02 PM, vijay gill wrote:
On Mon, Jul 05, 2004 at 10:55:42AM -0700, joe mcguckin wrote:
$5000 for an ethernet switch port? It makes me long for the days of
throwing
ethernet cables over the ceiling to informally peer with other
networks in a
Throwing ethernet cables over the
On Jul 5, 2004, at 5:00 PM, Patrick W Gilmore wrote:
On Jul 5, 2004, at 2:02 PM, vijay gill wrote:
Throwing ethernet cables over the ceiling does not scale.
Sure it does. The question is: How far does it scale? Nothing
scales to infinity, and very, very few things do not scale past the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (vijay gill) writes:
Throwing ethernet cables over the ceiling does not scale.
i think it's important to distinguish between things aol and uunet don't
think are good for aol and uunet and things that aren't good for anybody.
what i found through my PAIX experience is that
Hi Nanogers
If I have a two post relay rack, could you advise on any generic rails that
could be used to 'mid-mount' a 1-4U server on that two port rack? Thank
you.
Regards,
Christopher J. Wolff VP CIO
Broadband Laboratories, Inc.
http://www.bblabs.com
On Jul 5, 2004, at 8:35 PM, Tony Li wrote:
On Jul 5, 2004, at 5:00 PM, Patrick W Gilmore wrote:
On Jul 5, 2004, at 2:02 PM, vijay gill wrote:
Throwing ethernet cables over the ceiling does not scale.
Sure it does. The question is: How far does it scale? Nothing
scales to infinity, and very,
On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 01:43:14AM +, Paul Vixie wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (vijay gill) writes:
Throwing ethernet cables over the ceiling does not scale.
i think it's important to distinguish between things aol and uunet don't
think are good for aol and uunet and things that aren't
Kind of summarizes why we are still heavy on the best effort side of the
equation.
-M
Regards,
--
Martin Hannigan (c) 617-388-2663
VeriSign, Inc. (w) 703-948-7018
http://www.verisign.com/
i've been told that if i ran a tier-1 i would lose my love for the
vni/pni approach, which i think scales quite nicely even when it
involves an ethernet cable through the occasional ceiling. perhaps
i'll eat these words when and if that promotion comes through.
meanwhile,
Hello,
If I have a network segment connected to a BGP peer, is there a way that I
can hang a box of some kind off of that segment that will sniff out and
block malicious/spam email before it hits the customers?
Regards,
Christopher J. Wolff VP CIO
Broadband Laboratories, Inc.
On Mon, 5 Jul 2004, Christopher J. Wolff wrote:
Hello,
If I have a network segment connected to a BGP peer, is there a way that I
can hang a box of some kind off of that segment that will sniff out and
block malicious/spam email before it hits the customers?
Do you mean a host that can
Christopher,
I meant option #1.
-Original Message-
From: Christopher L. Morrow [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 05, 2004 10:36 PM
To: Christopher J. Wolff
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Proxy scanning for spam
On Mon, 5 Jul 2004, Christopher J. Wolff wrote:
Hello,
26 matches
Mail list logo
