I can ping routeviews.org but can't connect via http. Just looking for
comfirmation it isn't just me.
jas
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Our BGP Session to them has been up and down several times over the last
few days, but is currently up.
/Ryan
Randy Bush wrote:
it seems to be broken in a number of ways. i reported a few hours ago.
randy
- --
Ryan M. Harden, BS, KC9IHX
I too have received nothing but blank stares from 7018 MIS on this.
Surprising considering the NANOG presentation on how to do community
based bitbuckets was co-authored by someone from ATT (yeah, I know,
mega company and all).
Please post back to list if you get anywhere.
On 11/7/07, [EMAIL
I don't understand why stand alone (naked) DSL is so hard to get in
non-Qwest territory. Qwest will provision one no questions asked or needed.
Alex Pilosov wroteth on 11/7/2007 11:15 PM:
On Wed, 7 Nov 2007, David Ulevitch wrote:
We had a great experience doing this with Sonic.net at PAIX
On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 06:54:27AM -0800, Randy Bush wrote:
it seems to be broken in a number of ways. i reported a few hours ago.
We're having problems with switch room power. We're working on
it. Sorry about the inconvenience.
Dave
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 09:09:56AM -0600, Ryan Harden wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Our BGP Session to them has been up and down several times over the last
few days, but is currently up.
Yeah, the problem was power in the UO switch room power
it seems to be broken in a number of ways. i reported a few hours ago.
randy
Just wondering if anyone else is seeing huge random
floods of traffic from:
inetnum: 202.96.51.128 - 202.96.51.255
netname: MICROSOFT-CO
descr:Microsft (China) Co.Ltd
country: CN
admin-c: CH455-AP
tech-c: SY21-AP
mnt-by: MAINT-CNCGROUP-BJ
changed:
Yeah.. I would nmap it, see whats there and check for web sites etc.
Also check revdns/fwddns for the address space and see if they match and
have microsoft registered domains.
--
Leigh
Church, Charles wrote:
Looks fishy. Why would a company the size of Microsoft register a
single /25? I
Adding a bit to this, folks who give their experiences with the
transits might want to mention whether they are predominantly an
eyeball or content network. For example, our experience with Cogent
is the reverse of the original poster's, but we are 90%ish eyeballs.
I suspect that might be
On 11/8/07, Dave Pooser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Looks fishy. Why would a company the size of Microsoft register a
single /25? I doubt MS really owns that block.
especially since I think MS knows how to spell its own name:
descr:Microsft (China) Co.Ltd
they provider (CNC
I'm down in the Oregon Hall switch room and what I see is
that it appears one of the power transfer switches we had
failed and shorted out between two UPSs. Most things
are back up, with the notable exception of
archive.routeviews.org (which is fscking at
I am seeing what I can find out about this block.
Thanks,
Christian
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Pooser
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 9:59 AM
To: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: Abusive traffic from Microsoft China?
Looks
What are you seeing? port 80 traffic? port 25?
thousands of random connections sounds like web indexing to me.
-Dan
On Thu, 8 Nov 2007, David Hubbard wrote:
Just wondering if anyone else is seeing huge random
floods of traffic from:
inetnum: 202.96.51.128 - 202.96.51.255
netname:
We're back now. Please let us know ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) if you
notice anything strange.
Thanks, and sorry again for the inconvenience.
Dave
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
From my experience, a fast P4 linux box with 2 good NICs can NAT
45Mbps easily. I am NAT/PATing 4,000 desktops with extensive
access control lists and no speed issues. This isn't over a 45Mb
T3--this is over 100 Mb Ethernet.
--Patrick Darden
--ARMC, Internetworking Manager
A
A second CPU or core will help tremendously. We used to use single-CPU
boxes for this and we noticed that traffic sometimes stalls when the machine
has to do some task other than NATting, such as expiring idle flows. Having
a second CPU or core will help keep latency much more uniform.
Darden, Patrick S. wrote:
From my experience, a fast P4 linux box with 2 good NICs can NAT
45Mbps easily. I am NAT/PATing 4,000 desktops with extensive access
control lists and no speed issues. This isn't over a 45Mb T3--this
is over 100 Mb Ethernet.
NAT processing requirement thresholds
I do the networking in my house, and hang out with guys that do networking in
small offices that have a few T1s. Now I am talking to people about a DS3
connection for 500 laptops*, and I am bing told a p4 linux box with 2 nics
doing NAT will not be able to handle the load. I am not really
From my experience, a fast P4 linux box with 2 good NICs can NAT 45Mbps
easily. I am NAT/PATing 4,000 desktops with extensive access control lists
and no speed issues. This isn't over a 45Mb T3--this is over 100 Mb Ethernet.
--Patrick Darden
--ARMC, Internetworking Manager
-Original
I do the networking in my house, and hang out with guys that do networking in
small offices that have a few T1s. Now I am talking to people about a DS3
connection for 500 laptops*, and I am bing told a p4 linux box with 2 nics
doing NAT will not be able to handle the load. I am not
Greetings,
Could a earthlink e-mail admin please contact me off list, or someone
that could get me in contact with one.
Thanks,
Bill Sehmel
--
Bill Sehmel -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- 1-206-438-5900 x4302
Systems Administrator, HopOne Internet Corp. SEA2 NOC
Bandwidth full range
On 11/8/07, Carl Karsten [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do the networking in my house, and hang out with guys that do networking in
small offices that have a few T1s. Now I am talking to people about a DS3
connection for 500 laptops*, and I am bing told a p4 linux box with 2 nics
doing NAT
23 matches
Mail list logo
