On Sun, 24 Sep 2006, Alexander Harrowell wrote:
Christopher L. Morrow: I think you have a point, Sean, but can you try
not to engage with this? ISSUE is definitely off topic.
I don't think I've ever asked if something was off-topic on nanog...
(and 'chris' is fine, no one but my mom calls
On Thu, 21 Sep 2006, Gadi Evron wrote:
Are you telling me tech support overflow at this immense scale does not
affect the ISP and its network staff as well?
define 'immense scale' ... no calls here... so 'immense scale' in this
case is 'nothing'.
No, one thing you might say is that increased
On Thu, 14 Sep 2006, william(at)elan.net wrote:
I need to implement a sort-of failover-loadbalancing where systems
would receive gateway address from at least two routers (including
snip
Any suggestion as to what IGP protocol is best for this scenario?
ipv6 and RA ? oh wait, no widescale
On Thu, 7 Sep 2006, S. Ryan wrote:
Christopher L. Morrow wroteth on 9/6/2006 5:11 PM:
something truly wrong? So escalating every problem that seems even half
baked isn't an option?
You're probably right. However, if someone called my place of
employment (a small local ISP
On Thu, 7 Sep 2006 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 7 Sep 2006, Joshua Brewer wrote:
What about when we're seeing this on port 25?
Sand worms.
In all seriousness, your guess is as good as mine, at that point. If
memory serves, the platforms we saw this on most, with web browsers, were
On Wed, 6 Sep 2006, Rodney Dunn wrote:
Get a sniffer trace. Packets on the wire prove what's going on.
provided the packets get back to him, it seems his problem is traffic
getting back to him :( so probably no packets will be on the wire (none in
question atleast)...
On Wed, 6 Sep 2006, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Because Comcast's tools are broken and when other mail admins or even
their own customers call them on it, they're not even competent enough
to understand the complaint and refuse to escalate?
I hate to say this, and get involved in the melee,
On Mon, 21 Aug 2006, Joseph Jackson wrote:
That whois stuff is meaningless. When are people going to get it that
it really isn't a hack.
color me embarassed for sans/isc-handler-on-duty that they didn't point
out that these are not in anyway linked to 'amazon the company' so not
relevant
On Fri, 18 Aug 2006, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
Looks like some others may have noticed...
207.142.131.0/24 *[BGP/170] 00:26:46, localpref 100
AS path: 701 3356 30217 I
so.. is the problem that wikipedia's ip address is in a block of PA space
of Cogent's and they feel
On Fri, 18 Aug 2006, Geoffrey Pan wrote:
This space has been assigned to the same location, facility for years.
same location/facility doesn't mean that that place/people/thing still has
authority to route the PA block... Like say the decided to stop having
Cogent as a provider? or stopped
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006, Gadi Evron wrote:
It sure would be interesting to see what traffic unallocated space gets
beyond some dark matter that floats into honey nets of sorts here and
there.
if you route 127.0.0.0/8 to a host you sometimes get interesting syslog
messages :) (sent to 127.0.0.1
On Sun, 13 Aug 2006, Michael Nicks wrote:
attack, and mitigate/stop the traffic. I think it certainly is possible
to accomplish this on a per-router level, but being able to have the
devices communicate and share information between one another is a
completely separate thing. (New protocol
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006, David Lesher wrote:
It's also a great time to plant some file that POOF the authorities
will decrypt show it's kiddie porn. {Or just hide same in your
browser cache.} Do YOU know what every frigging file on your
machine is?
and here I was thinking: Quick! buy stock in
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006, Joseph S D Yao wrote:
Do modern laptops have disk drives that are that hard to remove?
one screw and 'pop' out comes all dell laptop harddrives... or boot from
cd, usb-copy all data, slide back into case and move on to next.
you have 2 hours between baggage arrival and
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006, Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr. wrote:
Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006, Joseph S D Yao wrote:
Do modern laptops have disk drives that are that hard to remove?
one screw and 'pop' out comes all dell laptop harddrives... or boot from
cd, usb-copy all
On Thu, 10 Aug 2006, Bug Dave wrote:
could someone please shed some light on what happened to http://
weblog.disgu.st ?
aside from:
1) traceroutes end in 'reflected.net'
2) traceroutes complete
3) tcp/80 isn't replying
what other light did you want to know about? Asked it's owner yet? or
On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, Allan Poindexter wrote:
moanings of the hand wringers. In the meantime my patience with email
lost silently due to blacklists, etc. is growing thin.
don't let some third party you have no relation to determine the 'fate' of
your email/messages? with all blacklists you
on that... but that's a little dicey at times as well :(
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Christopher L. Morrow
On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, Allan Poindexter wrote:
moanings of the hand wringers. In the meantime my patience with email
lost silently due
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, Jeffrey Sharpe wrote:
Does anyone know if Ultradns uses anycast? Or how to get someone at
UltraDNS or PIR to take ownership of a issue and resolve it?
anycast for which parts of their services? If you google the nanog
archives you'll certainly see a bunch of questions
On Mon, 24 Jul 2006, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
Come on Sean, this very few disruptions stuff is below your usual
standards. The least you can do to help us pass the time in this damn heat
is to recount a few good stories about routers you could scramble eggs on.
:)
there is a funny
On Mon, 24 Jul 2006, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
Christopher L. Morrow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2006, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
Come on Sean, this very few disruptions stuff is below your usual
standards. The least you can do to help us pass the time in this damn heat
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
That said, no one has yet said why it is necessary, or even
desirable, to have a completely homogenous view of the world.
I'd use one example reason of why: Customer Service issues
So If grandma Jane goes to fobar.com (which gets
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006, Mark Jeftovic wrote:
Larry Smith wrote:
In
school if you spell the word tree as tre - hopefully your teacher corrects
this.
Yes, hopefully a correction is made in a safe manner. As opposed to the
teacher smothering your face with a pornographic magazine or shoving
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
just as your
teacher would by allowing you to mis-spell words instead of
learning the
correct way
I think that's going a bit far.
By that token, we should lobby Microsoft to take spel chickers out of
MS Word.
we should absolutely
Do you not prefix-list customers? That'd have solved this, eh?
The problem is: the route is coming from our upstreams / peers.
that means they also did not filter it out... :(
oh bummer ;( that's not us sending that is it? :) Honestly, prefix
filtering should apply in both
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006, WONG, Yuen-Fung wrote:
Sometimes earlier this year someone announced this 128/1 and caused
heavy loading to our routers to rebuild the CEF. Would anyone filter
out this route (and other similar routes such as 0/1, 128/1, 0/2, 64/2,
up to /4, for example) as bogus
On Mon, 10 Jul 2006, Gerry Boudreaux wrote:
It is not VeriSign this time.
For those who have not yet seen this:
http://www.opendns.com/
They will 'correct' your spelling mistakes for you.
hurrah :( cause obviously everything in the world using dns is a browser?
:( As a note, some
On Fri, 7 Jul 2006, Richard Danielli wrote:
Is anyone aware of routing problems within MCI/WC/UUNET?
link shows packets going out, but nothing coming back
ping off list please, unless someone already asked you to do same...
perhaps we're not accepting your routes so we'd not send things
On Thu, 6 Jul 2006, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 19:43:48 + (GMT), Christopher L. Morrow
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jun 2006, David W. Hankins wrote:
So, here's my why not just:
Why not just use Kerberos?
apparently kerberos scares people
On Thu, 6 Jul 2006, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 04:52:52PM -0400, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 19:43:48 + (GMT), Christopher L. Morrow
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
apparently kerberos scares people... I'm not sure I 'get' that, but :( A
corp
On Mon, 3 Jul 2006, Jeremy Kister wrote:
With three days left and no mention of it from the folks that matter,
I'm referring NANOG readers to:
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/frnotices/2006/NOI_DNS_Transition_0506.htm
note the notes already sent in:
On Tue, 4 Jul 2006, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
On 7/4/06, Christopher L. Morrow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
note the notes already sent in:
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/dnstransition.html
note the multiple copies of email-only carbon-copy submissions? :( Not
that I
On Tue, 4 Jul 2006, Fergie wrote:
Interesting timing, indeed, considering the UK is beginning
(again?) to examine alternatives -- and Nominet playing a role
there, too:
http://technology.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,1812343,00.html
So, with ICANN 'now' starting to forge alliances and
On Sun, 2 Jul 2006, David Temkin wrote:
So, you guys have been pretty clear on what he shouldn't do.
What should he do as an alternative to using DNS for a proximity based
solution?
was it proximity or just loadbalancing he was trying to accomplish? I
didn't hear/see which was the purpose
On Thu, 29 Jun 2006, David W. Hankins wrote:
On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 06:07:33PM -0700, Allen Parker wrote:
Why not, on a regular basis, use ssh-keyscan and diff or something
similar, to scan your range of hosts that DO have ssh on them (maybe
--snip-200-words-or-less---
_wow_.
That's a
On Mon, 26 Jun 2006, John Smith wrote:
Replying to what most of the offline replies that i received said:
We wish to load balance the traffic for a block/range of IP addresses
that we learn via BGP4 from our two upstream providers. The problem is
that my favorite vendor does not let
On Mon, 26 Jun 2006, Daniel Roesen wrote:
On Mon, Jun 26, 2006 at 02:06:03AM +, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
There is a flag on one vendor I believe to force it to send 'all paths',
How so? BGP as protocol doesn't allow that, unless you use e.g. route
Hrm, so I could be speaking out
On Thu, 15 Jun 2006, Will Hargrave wrote:
Joe Abley wrote:
I think you're mistaken about the server being off-line, since I can see
it just fine from many places. The RIPE NCC dnsmon tool can also see it
from its various probes:
I did (and do) check on multiple ASs that I run and asked a
On Thu, 15 Jun 2006, william(at)elan.net wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jun 2006, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jun 2006, Will Hargrave wrote:
Joe Abley wrote:
I think you're mistaken about the server being off-line, since I can see
it just fine from many places. The RIPE NCC dnsmon
On Wed, 14 Jun 2006, Church, Chuck wrote:
Since this technique requires a IPinIP or GRE tunnel, wouldn't blocking
these two protocols to/from the hosts be sufficient? Assuming of course
the customer's host isn't using that normally.
sure, but those are probably just convenience things,
On Wed, 14 Jun 2006, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/2006/02/new-host-cloaking-technique-used-by.html
* Monitor your local network for interfaces transmitting ARP
responses they shouldn't be.
how about just mac security on switch ports? limit the number
probably a naive assumption though
:( Perhaps this is clue #12 that that is a 'less than good' option? :)
On 6/14/06, Christopher L. Morrow
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jun 2006, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/2006/02/new-host-cloaking-technique
On Wed, 14 Jun 2006, Adam Rothschild wrote:
On 2006-06-14-00:23:15, Christopher L. Morrow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
I assume that dedicated hosting folks don't just drop machines
behind a switch on one big flat subnet? That's probably a naive
assumption though
I've long been
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
clear understanding as to what is involved in terms of moving the IPs,
and how fast it can potentially be done.
I don't believe there is any way to get the IPs
moved in any kind of reasonable time frame for
an application that needs this
On Sun, 11 Jun 2006, Randy Bush wrote:
I'm fairly sure that what I would like to do is to arrange what is
effectively dual-homing, but with two geographically distinct homes:
uh, that kinda inverts what we normally mean by 'multi-homing'.
that's usually two upstream providers for a single
On Sun, 11 Jun 2006, Andrew Warfield wrote:
I think there is some cisco magic you could do with 'dial backup'... you
may even be able to rig this up with an ibgp session (even if that goes
out over the external provider) to swing the routes.
NOTE: this could make your site oscillate
On Wed, 7 Jun 2006, Bruno Quoitin wrote:
Matthew Petach wrote:
Q: Randy Bush. Common problem we all face. I'm at 42
peering points; my neighbors are X. I have route views
dumps, I have my BGP dumps. I have my netflow data.
Want a whatifatron that shows what happens to my
traffic
On Thu, 8 Jun 2006, Gadi Evron wrote:
snip
I am happy folks like at RIPE and the IETF are looking at solutions, but
sBGP isn't a new idea, and well, how LONG have we been waiting for DNS-SEC
now?
which are completely orthogonal... and have seperate (very seperate)
use cases, users,
On Thu, 8 Jun 2006, David Meyer wrote:
On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 01:39:41PM -0400, Alex Rubenstein wrote:
Tell you what -- I'd love to see this for every meeting, in some sore of
official capacity.
Seconded. I found the this especially useful as I was
unable to attend this
On Thu, 8 Jun 2006, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Jun 8, 2006, at 2:02 PM, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jun 2006, David Meyer wrote:
On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 01:39:41PM -0400, Alex Rubenstein wrote:
Tell you what -- I'd love to see this for every meeting, in some
sore
On Mon, 17 Apr 2006, David W. Hankins wrote:
In a www.washingtonpost.com article:
http://tinyurl.com/s2jpz
It is said:
President Bush is expected to approve soon a national pandemic
influenza response plan that identifies more than 300 specific
tasks for
On Sat, 25 Mar 2006, Gadi Evron wrote:
Brandon Butterworth wrote:
There are two exploit code samples I saw. There are two remote exploits
for one of them so far that are public that I know of.
Please provide reference URLs or the code, if not then stop spreading FUD.
No.
Talk to
On Wed, 15 Mar 2006, Simon Waters wrote:
This behavior is unfortunately not unique.
Alas what others peoples servers do, shouldn't be an issue for you. Your
problem is they can be coerced into a DoS attack, not that the data is stale.
actually, dos-attack-aside, the interesting thing is
On Mon, 13 Mar 2006, Jo Rhett wrote:
I went through 4 levels of management, and was informed that they no longer
had an abuse team -- that this was disbanded in a recent reorganization.
In short, it would appear that Wiltel is now selling pink contracts.
what? no more dave rossbach?
pong I'll try to find you a sales-ish-person.
On Wed, 8 Mar 2006, Drew Weaver wrote:
I realize this is most likely off topic and is likely to get me
flamed but I am in desperate need of the contact information for someone
in sales or management at MCI/UUNET. We have been paying a
On Mon, 6 Mar 2006, Owen DeLong wrote:
Singapore seems to force all of their ISPs to send all HTTP requests
through a proxy that has a set of rules defining sites you are not allowed
to visit.
or comply in the other manner which is to null route the top 100 sites...
but yes.
On Tue, 7 Mar 2006, Neil J. McRae wrote:
Switzerland has made similar requests and ISPs in .CH have
deployed acl to block the sites and remove them from DNS.
So long as there no criminal penalties associated with the half-assed
solutions I suppose it doesn't really matter. Gov'ts will see
On Tue, 7 Mar 2006, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Mar 06, Rodney Joffe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It appears that Italy has ordered Italian ISPs to block access to a
number of Internet Gambling sites. It would be interesting to see how
the Italian ISPs are handling this, what with dynamic DNS
(oh how I'm going to regret jumping into this conversation at point 'here'
not at the beginning :( )
On Sun, 5 Mar 2006, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 5-mrt-2006, at 5:48, Roland Dobbins wrote:
This fundamental misconception of the requirements of large
enterprise customers should be an
On Wed, 1 Mar 2006, Jack Bates wrote:
Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
snip
agreed, punting this problem to the helpdesk makes the helpdesk manager
grab his gun(s) and find the security wonk that put a hurtin' on his
numbers :) Also, it costs lots of money, which isn't generally a good
On Wed, 1 Mar 2006, JP Velders wrote:
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 18:50:29 + (GMT)
From: Christopher L. Morrow [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: Quarantine your infected users spreading malware
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006, Jim Segrave wrote:
www.quarantainenet.nl
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006, Jim Segrave wrote:
www.quarantainenet.nl
It puts them in a protected environment where they can get cleaned up
on-line without serious risk of re-infection. They can pop their
e-mail, reply via webmail, but they can't connect to anywhere except a
list of update sites.
us!' is not
helpful, without some example of 'how' :(
- billn
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006, Jim Segrave wrote:
www.quarantainenet.nl
It puts them in a protected environment where they can get cleaned up
on-line without serious risk of re
On Sun, 26 Feb 2006, Joe Abley wrote:
As a temporary mitigation tool today, when the volume of legitimate,
large-packet EDNS0 traffic is near-zero, blocking big 53/udp packets
might *sound* reasonable. However, we all know how permanent
how are you certain that the udp/53 1500 byte packet is
On Sat, 25 Feb 2006, Neil J. McRae wrote:
An argument could be made for individual VLANs to keep things
like b- cast storms isolated. But I think the additional
complexity will cause more problems than it will solve.
Vlans will not stop all typres of broadcast storm.
So, perhaps I
On Wed, 22 Feb 2006, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
http://www.irbs.net/internet/nanog/0312/0009.html
message 2 on that page is interesting: (and apropos to previous threads)
http://www.irbs.net/internet/nanog/0312/0008.html
On Mon, 20 Feb 2006, Rob Thomas wrote:
Hey, Bill.
] wht is the mean-time-to-infection for a stock windows XP system
] when plugged intot he net?... 2-5minutes? you can't get patches
] down that fast.
The same case can be made for Linux and Unix-based web servers with
On Fri, 17 Feb 2006, Warren Kumari wrote:
On Feb 17, 2006, at 1:25 PM, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
I might be crazy, but couldn't you just prepend the route enough to
effectively poison it at ingress to 'backup-isp' ? so they kept
chosing
the remote path and never really accept
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006, Rich Sena wrote:
All other flame away...
http://puck.nether.net/netops/nocs.cgi?ispname=Verizon
or did this not work? or were you looking for the fUUNET NOC?
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006, Jeroen Massar wrote:
I Ar Es,
At least they have received the 2610:30::/32 allocation from ARIN.
Lets see if they how taxing they find IPv6 ;)
so.. this is surprising why? the us-gov mandate for ipv6 uptake will mean
lots of us-gov folks will be spinning up
On Thu, 9 Feb 2006, Jon Lewis wrote:
On Wed, 8 Feb 2006, A Satisfied Mind wrote:
Does anyone know if ATT (the old one, AS7018) has customer trigged
blackhole routing? I looked in the copy of the BGP policy I have
from 04/2005, and see nothing about it, and cannot find the updated
On Tue, 7 Feb 2006, Bill Nash wrote:
Erm, that seems kind of low. Flow volume for two 6509s in what I consider
a small to medium size hosting site, with about 6+ gigs of differentiated
egress generates more than 8 to 9 *thousand* flows per second, and that's
after discard incomplete tcp
On Mon, 6 Feb 2006, Randy Bush wrote:
I'm interested in responses to this ... MPLS is still a four letter word
.. :)
http://www.potaroo.net/ispcol/2006-02/converged.html
here's me hiding this article from 'management' who are again chasing the
'converged' network :( In some cases it
On Tue, 7 Feb 2006, Nick Feamster wrote:
As an aside, another question occurred to me about delaying unusual
announcements. Boeing Connexion offers another example of unorthodox
prefix announcements. Wouldn't the tactic of delaying unusual
announcements would cause problems for this
On Sat, 4 Feb 2006, Henry Linneweh wrote:
The only reference I see to this, is this non profit
research org
www.pch.net/inoc-dba/
and a Nanog reference page to the same thing
http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0505/upadhaya.html
that would be it... I'm sure that, aside from the presentation and
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wouldn't a well-operated network of IRRs used by 95% of
network operators be able to meet all three of your
requirements?
We have such a database (used by Verio and others), but the Panix
incident
happened anyway due to bit rot.
On Fri, 3 Feb 2006, Josh Karlin wrote:
Our primary concern is with keeping BGP stable until its replacement
(e.g. sBGP) is ready for deployment.
veering off course for a tick: I wonder how well sbgp/sobgp will behave
in a world of 1million routes in the DFZ? 5 million? 10? 20?...
Someone
On Fri, 3 Feb 2006, Per Heldal wrote:
On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 22:39:59 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On the other hand, he *does* have a valid point. Why *do* we keep seeing
queries for the same networks?
Because no-one has the balls to punish them in a way that really hurt
their bottom
On Fri, 3 Feb 2006, Ivan Groenewald wrote:
Earlier, Valdis scribbled:
There's also the deeper question: Why do we let the situation persist?
Why do we tolerate the continued problems from unreachable companies?
(And yes, this *is* an operational issue - what did that 4 hours on the
On Fri, 3 Feb 2006, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
And then of course there is that whole using the IP network to contact
someone about an IP network issue thing that doesn't seem terribly well
thought out... Admittedly I haven't looked at the INOC-DBA stuff in a
while, there could have been
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006, Robert E.Seastrom wrote:
Glen Kent [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
For example, an ISP can learn two different equal cost routes to a
foo.com server via two different autonomous domains. It can thus split
different flows (based on src-dest IP, src-dest Port, TOS, etc)
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006, Joe Abley wrote:
On 24-Jan-2006, at 12:07, Robert E.Seastrom wrote:
He said via two different autonomous domains, which I took to mean
two upstreams... and my understanding is that (on ciscos anyway)
you're talking per-packet, not per-flow load balancing.
If you
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006, Jeffrey I. Schiller wrote:
Let me attempt to bring this back to the policy question.
Does someone have the *right* to put one of your IP addresses as an NS
record for their domain even if you do not agree?
Probably this is a multifaceted question :( So.. If I
On Thu, 12 Jan 2006, Martin Hannigan wrote:
If we accept the clue problem as the solution, I think we
accept the fact that we condone the vendor not having secure
solutions. That may be fine for our new colleague the 'security
vendors should always, or be beatten about the head/shoulders
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006, Fergie wrote:
RFC2827/BCP38?
not exactly... though most likely 2827 would have helped. Our abuse folks
called it 'fantasy mail' ... Spammer signs up for 'fast' link with
someone, uses a farm of juno dial (or netzero or... you get the point)
accounts to make a large
On Mon, 9 Jan 2006, Simon Waters wrote:
On Saturday 07 Jan 2006 02:54, you wrote:
While it's tempting to make fun of Qwest here, variations on this theme -
I do agree the management issue with DNS are far harder, and here longer TTL
are a double edged sword. But it is hard to design a
On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 05:30:12PM +, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jan 2006, Simon Waters wrote:
On Saturday 07 Jan 2006 02:54, you wrote:
While it's tempting to make fun of Qwest here, variations on this theme
On Mon, 9 Jan 2006, Randy Bush wrote:
It seems like maybe that is all too common. Are the 'best practices'
documented for Authoritative DNS somewhere central?
2182
yes, yes.. people who care (a lot) have read this I'm sure... I was aiming
a little lower :) like folks that have enterprise
On Fri, 6 Jan 2006, eric wrote:
Enough talk about viruses and unpatched hosts! grin Maybe if we try hard
enough, we can create a Y2K syndrome for the removal of 3ffe:: from global
routing?
guess terado services will get a facelift then too? (since they
require/use the 3ffe range for comms)
On Fri, 6 Jan 2006, Wil Schultz wrote:
Well, that would explain it, make me feel better that they took
themselves out as well:
-bash-2.05b$ dig qwest.com
; DiG 9.3.1 qwest.com
;; global options: printcmd
;; connection timed out; no servers could be reached
not anycasted then eh?
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005, william(at)elan.net wrote:
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005, Robert Boyle wrote:
At 12:56 PM 12/22/2005, you wrote:
P.S. 204/8 was not the only problem, there were problems with 128/8 and
133/8 as well so my apologies to people who may have noticed problems
overnight.
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005, Daniel Golding wrote:
On 12/22/05 1:35 PM, Christopher L. Morrow [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
'most serious problem in months' ... this has happened in smaller chunks
during the past 'months' ? yikes... is that noted on your site so users of
the 'service' will know
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Min Qiu wrote:
Hi Chris,
hey :)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Christopher L. Morrow
Sent: Thu 12/15/2005 10:29 PM
To: John Kristoff
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: The Qos PipeDream [Was: RE: Two Tiered Internet]
snip
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005, John Kristoff wrote:
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 19:15:49 -0500 (EST)
Sean Donelan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ATT, Global Crossing, Level3, MCI, Savvis, Sprint, etc have sold
QOS services for years. Level3 says 20% of the traffic over its
What do they mean by QoS? Is it
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005, John Kristoff wrote:
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 03:29:29 + (GMT)
Christopher L. Morrow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In my experience that is easier said than done. However, you remind
me of what I think is what most who say they want QoS are really
after. DoS
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
Hello Dave;
This won't open for me.
Do you have a pdf of these slides ?
On Dec 15, 2005, at 10:39 PM, David Meyer wrote:
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 07:34:56PM -0800, David Meyer wrote:
On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 03:29:29AM +, Christopher L
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Randy Bush wrote:
ah-ha! and here I thought they wanted buzzword compliance :) From what
sales/customers say it seems like they have a perception that 'qos will
let me use MORE of my too-small pipe' (or not spend as fast on more pipe)
more than anything else.
and
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Randy Bush wrote:
ah-ha! and here I thought they wanted buzzword compliance :) From what
sales/customers say it seems like they have a perception that 'qos will
let me use MORE of my too-small pipe' (or not spend as fast on more pipe)
more than anything else.
and i
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
http://www.secsup.org/files/dmm-queuing.pdf
oh firstgrad spelling where ahve you gone?
also at: http://www.secsup.org/files/dmm-queueing.pdf
incase you type not paste.
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
Oh and FYI it is still going on, though the route just changed 4 mins ago:
[BGP/170] 00:04:21, localpref 200
AS path: 7473 17557 17557 17557 17557 5400 15169 I
Singtel - Pakistan Telecom - British
1 - 100 of 705 matches
Mail list logo
