Who fucking cares. Fuck the world. Fuck Susan. Fuck Nanog. Have a nice day.
-- Matthew
- Original Message -
From: "Richard Welty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2004 11:51 PM
Subject: Re: People being removed from the list and such
for discussion th
Although I have not yet been censored, I have been warned more than once.
I think, generally, Susan tries to do a good job, and, has a tough task
trying to balance SNR, AUP, and, the general tendencies of this crowd of
engineers.
However, while I don't know the names of all the recent "victims", th
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 19:31:37 -0700 (PDT) Bill Woodcock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oh, god, I hate myself for doing this, but:
> Two wrongs doesn't make a right.
> We can't solve the problem of off-topic postings by adding gratuitous
> administrative off-topic postings.
although one is incline
AT&T normally rejects bogons such as RFC1918, urpf-detected forgeries
from customers,
traffic pointed at internal network routers, etc. However, AT&T's
network does support MPLS,
so if InsightBB is part of the Comcast cloud, it may be that this
_looks_ like the public internet
but is really an MP
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004, Malayter, Christopher wrote:
> When people are removed/censored, be it temporary or
> permanent, could we have a notice posted to the membership as to the person,
> reason, and duration? Also, could we add an appeals process?
Oh, god, I hate myself for doin
pfui! unless someone has gone so far off the deep end as to
be seriously impeding any other discussion on the list (google
for "plonk":-), people should not be censored, period. we all
can filter mail as we wish, just as we can bgp announcements.
i submit that this discussion itself should be s
uh oh - i think that may have been chris's last email
8-)
-marc.
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004, Malayter, Christopher wrote:
It has come to my attention that recently several people have been censored
from posting to the nanog@ list.
I find it a bit unusual that from such an open discussion list that
members
It has come to my attention that recently several people have been censored
from posting to the nanog@ list.
I find it a bit unusual that from such an open discussion list that
membership would be censored without notice and reason to the rest of the
membership.
I wouldn't normally be the one to
At 05:02 PM 10/18/2004, Crist Clark wrote:
Jim Popovitch wrote:
From Comcast Cable, at my home in Atlanta, I can ping 10.10.1.1
which is pong'ed from a private client network hanging somewhere off of
Insight Broadband's network in the North Central part of the US. Why on
god's green earth do n
> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Oct 18 16:01:42 2004
> Subject: Re: ICMP weirdness
> From: Jim Popovitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Stephen J. Wilcox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 17:01:39 -0400
>
>
> On Mon, 2004-10-18 at 15:54, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
> > w
Comcast uses parts of 10/8 for cable modem addressing, and these are
pingable from within the comcast network. Could this be some other
internal equipment address as well?
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 17:01:39 -0400, Jim Popovitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2004-10-18 at 15:54, Stephen J. Wi
Jim Popovitch wrote:
From Comcast Cable, at my home in Atlanta, I can ping 10.10.1.1
which is pong'ed from a private client network hanging somewhere off of
Insight Broadband's network in the North Central part of the US. Why on
god's green earth do network operators allow such nonsense as thi
On Mon, 2004-10-18 at 15:54, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
> why not that seems ok to me.. ?
>
> assuming you accept the 1918 assignment to your cable then its not unreasonable
> that you can get to other end users on that network
Across other non-private IP space? I am not all that familiar w/
RFC
>From Comcast Cable, at my home in Atlanta, I can ping 10.10.1.1
which is pong'ed from a private client network hanging somewhere off of
Insight Broadband's network in the North Central part of the US. Why on
god's green earth do network operators allow such nonsense as this?
-Jim P.
Tracer
Monday, October 18, 2004, 10:35:51 AM, you wrote:
JS> A few years ago, it seemed freeipdb and NorthStar were the way to go.
JS> freeipdb.org is DOA, and NorthStar's last development note is over a year
JS> ago with CVS unreachable. Are these two projects dead? If do, what are
JS> people using
A few years ago, it seemed freeipdb and NorthStar were the way to go.
freeipdb.org is DOA, and NorthStar's last development note is over a year
ago with CVS unreachable. Are these two projects dead? If do, what are
people using now.
Thanks,
Jason
--
Jason Slagle - CCNP - CCDP
/"\ . . . . . .
Title: RE: Level 3 US east coast "issues"
> Sent: Monday, October 18, 2004 9:32 AM PDT
>
> Level3 states that they have isolated the problem down to equipment in
> their Washington DC Point of Presence. They believe that they have
> resolved the problem and things should be normalizing in
>
It seems to be more than just the east coast, I am seeing blackholes coming
from the West as well...
Sirius
-Original Message-
From: Grant A. Kirkwood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2004 12:15 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Level 3 US east coast "issues"
Level
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004, Grant A. Kirkwood wrote:
> Level 3 experiencing widespread "unspecified routing issues" on the US east
> coast. Master ticket 1086844. Anyone have more specific information?
More, but not specific. We shut off our BGP session to them as lots of
sites were unreachable throug
Level 3 experiencing widespread "unspecified routing issues" on the US east
coast. Master ticket 1086844. Anyone have more specific information?
--
Grant A. Kirkwood - grant(at)tnarg.org
Fingerprint = D337 48C4 4D00 232D 3444 1D5D 27F6 055A BF0C 4AED
For those interested in unlicensed spectrum coordination for
deploying wireless networks, here is the web site I mentioned after Tim
Pozar’s speech (Good Engineering
Practices as it Applies to Unlicensed Wireless Networks):
http://www.wbanc.com
(Mailing Lists)
SF-BANC (San
Franci
21 matches
Mail list logo
