On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 12:31:33PM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 11:55 AM, Paul Ferguson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
It should be simple -- not require a freeking full-blown standard.
Its a standard. And it allows automated parsing of these complaints.
On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 01:44:00PM +0100, Phil Regnauld wrote:
[snip]
Also missed Middle East Network Operators Group (MENOG):
http://www.menog.net/
Better still would be some links to aggregate lists:
- http://www.nanog.org/orgs.html
- http://www.bugest.net/nogs.html
-
On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 03:04:37PM -0500, Deepak Jain wrote:
[snip]
However, my question is simply.. for ISPs promising broadband service.
Isn't it simpler to just announce a bandwidth quota/cap that your good
users won't hit and your bad ones will?
Simple bandwidth is not the issue. This
On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 05:45:36AM -0800, Joshman at joshman dot com wrote:
Hello all,
As a general rule, is it best practice to assign x.x.x.0 and
x.x.x.255 as host addresses on /23 and larger?
Yes. Efficient address utilization is a Good Thing.
I realize that technically they are
On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 09:50:13AM -0500, Jon Lewis wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008, Joe Provo wrote:
Yes. Efficient address utilization is a Good Thing.
I realize that technically they are valid addresses, but does anyone
assign a node or server which is a member of a /22 with a x.x.x.0
On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 01:18:01PM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 22-okt-2007, at 18:12, Sean Donelan wrote:
Network operators probably aren't operating from altruistic
principles, but for most network operators when the pain isn't
spread equally across the the customer base it
On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 03:13:42AM +, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
According to
http://torrentfreak.com/comcast-throttles-bittorrent-traffic-seeding-impossible/
Comcast's blocking affects connections to non-Comcast users. This
means that they're trying to manage their upstream
On Sun, Oct 21, 2007 at 10:45:49PM -0400, Geo. wrote:
[snip]
Second, the more people on your network running fileshare network software
and sharing, the less backbone bandwidth your users are going to use when
downloading from a fileshare network because those on your network are
going to
On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 08:08:47AM +0800, Adrian Chadd wrote:
[snip]
So which ISPs have contributed towards more intelligent p2p content
routing and distribution; stuff which'd play better with their networks?
Or are you all busy being purely reactive?
A quick google search found the one I
On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 12:55:08PM +1300, Simon Lyall wrote:
On Sun, 21 Oct 2007, Sean Donelan wrote:
Its not just the greedy commercial ISPs, its also universities,
non-profits, government, co-op, etc networks. It doesn't seem to matter
if the network has 100Mbps user connections or
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 12:11:17PM +0100, Stephen Wilcox wrote:
[snip]
i guess it could be 'character assassination' or 'political' which
are both against the AUP
[mild tangent: How can the blanket label of political be
off-topic given the serious time and energy spent with both
informed and
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 05:43:03PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have a client that wants us to advertise an IP block assigned by another
ISP. I know that the best practice is to have them request an AS number
from ARIN and peer with us, etc. However, I cannot find any information
On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 10:00:41PM +, Paul Vixie wrote:
[snip]
the second plain text assertion which caught my eye was:
Why is this happening? There are a few possibilities. First, Cogent
may simply want revenue from the networks it has de-peered, in the
form of
On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 09:03:35AM +0100, Andy Davidson wrote:
On 19 Sep 2007, at 06:22, chk 543 wrote:
Is there a standard prefix length most providers filter on, or is
there a way to find out what each provider filters on? We have been
assigned a /22 and are wondering if we will have
On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 10:28:52AM -0400, NetSecGuy wrote:
:~ whois 97.81.31.19
Unknown AS number or IP network. Please upgrade this program.
Is this a function of whois hardcoded to no do lookups for this
[snip]
You are running some old version of whois - thanks for providing
no OS or
On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 01:46:18PM -0700, Rick Kunkel wrote:
[snip]
Is SMTP to a mobile phone a fundamentally flawed way to do this?
Yes - think of the dependency chain involved. Years ago, hacking
hylafax (or similar DTMF sources) to dial directly to pagers was
a commonplace solution.
On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 11:02:28AM -0700, Adam Clark wrote:
[snip]
We have some migrations to do from one space to another and having
the ability to do some /24 advertisements during that period would
be greatly helpful.
Always assume you have no visibility everywhere and that your
On Thu, Aug 16, 2007 at 10:55:59PM +0200, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
[snip]
We've been pitching the idea to bittorrent tracker authors to include a
BGP feed and prioritize peers that are in the same ASN as the user
himself, but they're having performance problems already so they're not so
On Fri, Aug 10, 2007 at 01:17:37PM -1000, Randy Bush wrote:
Lynda wrote:
I just hate politics, hurt feelings, and other stuff, so I'm asking here
first. There's a nice NANOG 40 link on the front of the Wiki, but that's
over. I'm thinking it ought not to disappear, but rather move off to a
On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 06:47:30PM +0200, Daniele Arena wrote:
[snip]
Traffic matrices (at least up to now and AFAIK) have only been built
by traffic measurements by IXPs whose switches all support sFlow. Not
all switches do, so not many IXPs have that feature.
Several IXPs have traffic
On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 03:08:06PM +, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
[snip]
This is sort of the point of the NRIC document/book... 'we need to
find/make/use a directory system for the internet' then much talk of how
dns was supposed to be that but for a number of reasons it's not,
google/insert
On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 03:42:27PM -0500, Jack Bates wrote:
[snip]
You work so hard to defend people that exploit children? Interesting. We
are talking LEA here and not the latest in piracy law suits. The #1 request
from a LEA in my experience concerns child exploitation.
Highly likely for
On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 11:16:03AM -0400, Jon Lewis wrote:
On Mon, 30 Apr 2007, Jason Lewis wrote:
I'm seeing this announced at CIXP
Collector: CIXP
Prefix: 128.0.0.0/2
Last update time: 2007-04-27 07:36:30Z
Peer: 192.65.185.140
Origin: 29222
My question is, why am I not seeing
On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 01:39:54PM -0500, Pete Crocker wrote:
[snip]
First, they've got a BGP full mesh of all their routers. They're
considering moving towards route reflectors. There's 2 core routers
per-POP. And anywhere between 5 and 15 edge/aggregation routers in a
POP. The current
On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 10:59:50AM -0700, Danny McPherson wrote:
[snip]
o If you're going to use redistribution - or not - ensure that all
external advertisement policies require explicit match of advertise
communities and default is to deny
This should be just good security policy. I think
On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 07:05:25AM -0800, Matthew Black wrote:
[snip]
This presupposes that corporations have a more significant claim
to domain names than individuals.
Wrong; that kind of policy does -and did when enforced back in
the InterNIC days when the generic TLDs were meaningful- no
On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 02:08:21PM +0100, Arnold Nipper wrote:
[snip]
Which vendor is already shipping ASN32 capable bgp code?
When I last posed this question to folks in December, Vendor
C had it live in 3.4 IOX now and had no timing details for
'vanilla' IOS, but committed to it getting
On Thu, Dec 28, 2006 at 02:06:30PM -0500, Daniel Golding wrote:
[snip]
Time for a colocation reality check.
[snip]
Until supply catches up to demand, only price and power will matter
to most folks, along with an acceptable level of facility redundancy
(Tier III for most).
One 'reality
According to Chungwa, Sea-Me-We3 and APCN2 are affected.
Satellite connectivity is already being mentioned for
supplanting surviving regional connectivity.
--
RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE
On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 09:38:10AM -0800, matthew zeier wrote:
Are there any practical issues with announcing the same route behind
different ASNs?
[snip]
In addition to all the sound advice already provided, I would add that
if you decide to do something unusual, make sure the documentation
On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 01:07:56PM -0400, Alex Rubenstein wrote:
[snip]
What I've never understood is, that, how a gov't issue ID (for the
purposes of allowing entry) is of any use whatsoever.
No matter how easy to forge, *requiring* them raises the risk/reward
bar. Penalties for forging Q
On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 10:25:55AM -0700, William B. Norton wrote:
[snip]
PROPOSAL:
I would like to propose a system whereby there is better:
A) Accountability. The program committee members each have to find and
assemble 90 minutes of talks for the program at least once a year.
They are
On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 02:45:58PM -0400, Daniel Golding wrote:
Joe makes a good point. Everyone is shouting no one owns IP
addresses, but that is proof by assertion.
...as is asserting that marketplace economics work for any and
all things. I lean toward low-regulation myself - why would
On Fri, Sep 08, 2006 at 05:57:10PM +0300, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
On Fri, 8 Sep 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Strike me as curious, but this seems as if Connexion by Boeing is handing
off a /24 from ASN to ASN as a certain plane moves over certain geographic
areas. Or is there some
On Sat, Apr 01, 2006 at 05:25:40AM -0500, Sean Donelan wrote:
[snip]
But I think Mr. Stephenson's point was a network bottleneck is not always
based on the access link speed some ISPs put in their advertising. Just go
to any ISP user forum and you will see long threads complaining they can
On Sat, Feb 25, 2006 at 08:41:01AM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
robt wrote:
[snip]
Limit recursion to trusted netblocks and customers. Do not permit
your name servers to provide recursion for the world. If you do,
you will contribute to one of these attacks.
recursion is a
On Thu, Feb 23, 2006 at 04:27:52AM +0200, Gadi Evron wrote:
[snip]
Hi Chris, thanks for your reply. I was just told by the admin team to
keep DNS operational issues off-list.
I deo not believe this. You didn't notice the Monday plenary session
at NANOG 36 meeting was all DNS?
On Wed, Feb 15, 2006 at 06:51:16PM -0800, John A. Kilpatrick wrote:
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006, Edward B. DREGER wrote:
Stop. Examine. Think. Then respond.
Something about history repeating applies. those who weren't around
then should re-visit tli's ISPAC proposal from 96 and the associated
On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 02:15:45PM -0500, Nick Feamster wrote:
[snip]
This is a losing proposition. The data in the IRR, CA, or any mechanism
that is updated out-of-band from the protocol itself will inherently be
out-of-sync.
Provisioning systems are out of synch with the protocol, but
On Fri, Apr 01, 2005 at 11:45:16AM -0800, Bill Woodcock wrote:
...the reformed NANOG list moderation committee seems to suffer
foolishness somewhat more gladly than the old regime. Could we have a
little more backbone in the moderation, please? I don't want to be
reading about crackers
If you run any bogon filtering, can you please check your
border ACLs and BGP prefix filters to ensure that you're
no longer preventing access to 58.0.0.0/8 or 59.0.0.0/8 ?
[snip]
It is useful to point out that APNIC indicates the minalloc
in 59/8 is /20 and 58/8 is /21. I see several
[Note reply-to]
On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 02:45:40PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 12:56:50 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Sorry, I misread that. But I still fail to see how 587 changes that.
[snip]
Yes. Authenticated SMTP makes tracking down
On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 10:19:45PM +0200, Gadi Evron wrote:
Scott Weeks wrote:
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005, Gadi Evron wrote:
: want to see at this headache of a position, or we do it openly on the
Yes, publically. Please.
Publically - on NANOG itself, please.
Please no. Speaking as
On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 09:37:57AM -0800, Blaine Christian wrote:
Specifically, they have the ability to tickle a legacy cisco bug
with AS path length. This bug was supposedly mitigated in code
and I believe my previous company is still filtering AS path
length (UUNET) of 100 or
On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 03:47:08PM -0500, Jared Mauch wrote:
[snip]
I think that's a matter that seems to be already decided.
People want multihoming, redudnancy and such and are willing
to put the burden on the global routing table as a result.
The matter was not strictly (not even
On Mon, Jan 03, 2005 at 07:35:20PM -0500, Tom Vest wrote:
Hey, did anyone notice when UU peering policy explicitly incorporated
a requirement for number of transit customers served, measured by
unique AS?
It was between 18 and 28 August 2004. I believe it was on Friday
the 27th but my
Looking at the current agenda, there's a Special Community
Meeting Sunday evening after the tutorials, but with no
details posted. Should we expected any so that attendees
flying in can determine if they should skip dinner to make it?
Cheers,
Joe
--
RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk /
Folllowups elsewhere - this isn't nanog fodder kids.
On Sat, Dec 25, 2004 at 08:56:42PM -0800, David A. Ulevitch wrote:
There is nobody behind the wheel at The World and they continue
to send out this odd anti-spam spam.
Wrong and wrong; there are definitely clues at the helm, and it
sure
On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 04:33:08AM -0500, James Ashton wrote:
I am in need of a list of community strings that REACH.COM accepts.
Does anyone have a list of these?
Reach does, I'm sure. Contacting them would be the smart thing.
For the last several months I have been trying to get traffic
On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 01:08:39PM -0500, Patrick W Gilmore wrote:
On Dec 13, 2004, at 6:39 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[my attribution clipped -jzp]
- this month, another knee was at 150k [Dec 4th] and similarly
garbled results came out. Again, no response.
...in this one year we've seen
[This was started last month. been a little busy. unsuprisingly I
only had to *add* an incident and it still works.]
On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 02:47:30PM -0800, Randy Bush wrote:
[snip]
Yes it means what you think.
No, I don't see anyone giving a rat's patootie about aggregation.
I was starting
On Fri, Nov 26, 2004 at 01:02:27AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
Possibly, whoever are the vendors of software that recommends this
practice (and authors of security handbooks) should be show the error
of their ways?
Never heard of a
On Sat, Nov 13, 2004 at 03:31:26AM +, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
[snip]
Of these listed 4 are cable companies, is there something in the cable
modem networking that requires deaggregated routes beyond their borders?
No, for the general statement about 'cable modem networking'.
Is the
On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 01:29:44PM -0400, Daniel Golding wrote:
[snip]
Another choice is to filter port 25. Filtering port 25 has its own
costs - some users are offended/bothered by this, since they can't
use their own corporate mail servers, in some cases.
[snip]
SUBMIT, SASL, etc. This
On Sat, Sep 11, 2004 at 11:44:10AM -0600, Todd Mitchell - lists wrote:
The weekend is quiet and I know that many of the people on this list
[snip]
'Quiet' isn't a bad thing. In an operations context it is a GOOD
thing. Please don't mistake volume for value.
Followup to /dev/null.
--
[copius snips]
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 11:16:40AM -0400, Patrick W Gilmore wrote:
On Aug 27, 2004, at 8:58 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
On 27 Aug 2004, at 08:13, Rick Lowery wrote:
I know?they would not be?good Internet citizen, but?if they needed to
do this for a temp basis does anyone see an
On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 10:09:43AM -0600, Drumm, Dan wrote:
I thought I'd ask NANOG this, since somebody may be from a large cable
operator and may know. I am a Comcast customer and don't want to call
this in through tech support, as I've tried that before without any
success.
NANOG is not
On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 04:56:46PM -0400, John Curran wrote:
[snip]
Do you take on customers at rock-bottom prices which barely cover
your out-of-pocket expenses, your payroll, and interest payments,
or do you let them go to your competition because no revenue is
better than revenue which
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,
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 01:15:14AM -0400, Alex Rubenstein wrote:
Should a customer be allowed to force a carrier to allow them to announce
non-portable IP space as they see fit to any other carriers of their
choosing when they are no longer buying service from the original carrier
[that the
On Sun, Apr 11, 2004 at 03:36:44AM +, Paul Vixie wrote:
[snip]
in another thread tonight i see subjects like lazy network
operators and at first glance, those are the people you're
describing (who don't really care.)
however, that's simple-minded. because of the way tcp/ip
works...
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 09:24:44PM -0500, Sean Donelan wrote:
On Mon, 8 Mar 2004, E.B. Dreger wrote:
SD They saw no _net_ savings.
SD
SD In the real world, it costs more to deploy and maintain
SD SAV/uRPF.
[snip]
In the real word, there are different networks with different
tools and
On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 04:36:03PM +0100, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
On 24.02 23:20, Randy Bush wrote:
BGP routing table entry for 168.0.0.0/6, version 7688303
...
3277 13062 20485 20485 20485 8437 3303
194.85.4.249 from 194.85.4.249 (194.85.4.249)
Origin IGP, localpref
On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 03:50:21PM -0500, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
Jaideep Chandrashekar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[snip]
11608 2914 1239 12064 22773 12064 11836
1221 4637 1239 12064 22773 12064 11836
[snip]
In many (most?) these loops are intentional, and a result of playing
prepending
On Tue, Nov 25, 2003 at 08:13:49AM +0100, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003, Michael Whisenant wrote:
Well looks like that have more BOGON problems. They are sending
128.161.0.0/3. These guys love claiming default gateway traffic?
168.0.0.0/6 194.85.4.249
On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 02:01:39PM -0400, Matt Larson wrote:
[snip]
We are interested in feedback on the best way within the SMTP protocol
to definitively reject mail at these servers. One alternate option we
[snip]
Wrong protocol. There should be *NO* SMTP transactions for
non-extistant
Funny, I didn't think this was 'aol-mail-policy-list'.
This isn't new, crazy, nor out of step with generally accepted
practices. They [and many others] have been doing it for a
while. A dynamic block is generally listed as such in a service
provider's reverse DNS and also often in a
On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 06:35:47PM -0400, McBurnett, Jim wrote:
-RBOCs (note, not ILECs) cannot move inter-lata traffic without being
-approved by PUC in each state for interstate long distance. (I believe
-this is part of 1984 MFJ).
-CLECs have no restrictions on that. Neither do non-CLEC
On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 10:17:16AM +0100, Pendergrass, Greg wrote:
[snip]
I haven't done a long-term look at RCP and netbios traffic on the
web so I have no way to determine how much is blaster generated,
does anyone have baseline information on the amount of RCP and
netbios packets were
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 08:35:14PM +0200, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Mon, 4 Aug 2003, Mike Donahue wrote:
My company owns a class C, and we're switching ISPs. The new
provider is telling us that they can start announcing, without us
having to tell the old provider to stop announcing.
On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 04:58:44PM -0500, Deepak Jain wrote:
[snip]
*IS* there a common sense number or an equation (better) anyone has
worked out to figure whether building a backbone (national/international)
to peering points (i.e. extending an existing, operational service
network) to
I find the interesting that there were immediate assumptions by
all the followup posters that the hypothectical mesh wbn suggested
would be run by an exchange point operator. Perhaps no public
statements were sent by anyone in using similar trans-atlantic
services (that are not run by the
On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 12:14:51PM -0500, James Smith wrote:
One would think that operators not updating filters to permit
properly allocated space IS an operational issue.
To quote a friend public shaming will only go so far. At some
point, you have to communicate to your customers and to
On Mon, 25 Nov 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can anyone think of a reason why this sort of traffic should be routed at
all? Does anyone actually drop hosts on to addresses ending in x.x.x.0?
Generally not for end-stations since end-users tend to have broken
software with lousy assumptions,
On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 03:33:51PM -0800, Steve Rude wrote:
I am trying to collect information about using RFC 1918 space on an ISP
backbone. I have read the RFC several times, and I don't see where it
says that you cannot use 10/8 space to number your backbone links (/30s).
As
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 10:45:15AM -0800, Harsha Narayan wrote:
[snip]
But it appears that there are many cases where customers prefer
to take a prefix from the ISP rather than an RIR even if it is a
/19 or a /20 - for example from the /11 of a big ISP, there are 50
/19s and /20s which
drafts and to be ready to adopt new
well-known-communities.
Joe, thinking this belongs in a FAQ somewhere...
--
Joe ProvoVoice 508.486.7471
Director, Internet Planning Design Fax508.229.2375
Network Deployment Management, RCN
implementation that has probelems with it, that
would be a bug, and I would consider it one for anyhting past 1994
vintage code.
Cheers,
Joe
--
Joe ProvoVoice 508.486.7471
Director, Internet Planning Design Fax508.229.2375
Network
of
us tell them they're filtered because they are causing incremental damage
to our networks. Get over it kids; stable and deterministic behavior is
required for IP to work optimally.
Stability uber alles,
Joe
--
Joe ProvoVoice 508.486.7471
Director
,
Joe
--
Joe ProvoVoice 508.486.7471
Director, Internet Planning Design Fax508.229.2375
Network Deployment Management, RCN [EMAIL PROTECTED]
their own AS.
Cheers,
Joe
--
Joe ProvoVoice 508.486.7471
Director, Internet Planning Design Fax508.229.2375
Network Deployment Management, RCN [EMAIL PROTECTED]
81 matches
Mail list logo
