On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 8:49 PM, Martin Hannigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Abuse desk is a $0 revenue operation. Is it not obvious what the issue is?
Martin,
So is marketing, yet marketing does have an impact on revenue.
It can be useful to explain the abuse desk as being just another form
of
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 8:34 AM, Rich Kulawiec [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- Automation is far less important than clue. Attempting to compensate
for lack of a sufficient number of sufficiently-intelligent, experienced,
diligent staff with automation is a known-losing strategy, as anyone who
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 10:00 AM, Marshall Eubanks
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 15, 2008, at 9:43 AM, William Herrin wrote:
That is one place that modern antispam efforts fall apart. It's the
same problem that afflicts tech support in general. The problem exists
for the same reason
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 10:55 AM, Marshall Eubanks
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 15, 2008, at 10:31 AM, William Herrin wrote:
how do you propose to motivate qualified folks to keep
working the abuse desk?
That is a good question. (I feel sure that many actually doing the job
would opt
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 2:04 PM, Steve Atkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unfortunately many of the skills required to be a competent abuse desk
worker are quite specific to an abuse desk, and are not typically possessed
by random technical staff.
Steve,
You don't, per chance, mean to
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 4:26 PM, Sargun Dhillon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
from a viewpoint of hardware,
x86 is a fairly decent platform. I can stuff 40 (4x10GigE multiplex with
a switch) 1 GigE ports in it. Though, the way that Linux works, it
cannot handle high packet rates.
Correction:
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 6:54 PM, Sargun Dhillon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wonder how difficult it would be to integrate such a device on to
an x86 board cheaply. Something like NetFPGA (http://netfpga.org/) would
be an interesting place to start. The board has on board SRAM, a bit of
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 5:00 PM, Paul Vixie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Have you made any calculations if geo-cooling makes sense in your region to
fill in the hottest summer months or is drilling just too expensive for the
return?
i'm too close to san francisco bay.
Paul,
Why is that
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 3:44 PM, Joel Snyder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We would like to get an IPv6 tunnel to begin limited testing of IPv6 for
customers. Is there any IPv6-savvy ISP out there who will give/sell
tunnels to other ISPs?
Experimentation with SixXS.NET has proven to be
On Feb 18, 2008 8:00 AM, Drew Weaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We are currently ON NET with 3 major international telecommunication companies
Drew,
On Net is like Tier 1. It has devolved into marketspeak that
doesn't mean very much. In your case it seems to mean that you can
connect with that
On Jan 21, 2008 10:28 PM, Jon Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there really any point in trying to put a $ figure on each route?
Jon,
Emphatically Yes!
Right now we rely on ARIN and the RIRs to artificially suppress the
growth of the prefix count and with it the availability of PI space.
On Jan 22, 2008 1:58 PM, Jon Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Giving absolutely anyone who wants it PI space would make things much
worse...so I wouldn't call that artificial supression. It's more like
keeping the model sustainable.
Jon,
Its kinda like gas in the 70's. There wasn't enough to
On Jan 21, 2008 5:26 PM, Jon Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If using the 7600/3bxl as the cost basis of the upgrade, you might as
well compare it to the 6500/7600/sup2 or sup3b. Either of these would
likely be what people buying the 3bxls are upgrading from, in some cases
just because of DFZ
On Jan 19, 2008 11:43 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 19, 2008, at 12:55 PM, William Herrin wrote:
There was some related work on ARIN PPML last year. The rough numbers
suggested that the attributable economic cost of one IPv4 prefix in
the DFZ (whether PI, PA or TE
On Jan 20, 2008 9:46 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 20, 2008, at 6:06 AM, William Herrin wrote:
On Jan 19, 2008 11:43 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Jan 19, 2008, at 12:55 PM, William Herrin wrote:
There was some related work on ARIN PPML last
On Jan 20, 2008 1:11 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 20, 2008, at 12:22 PM, William Herrin wrote:
I think you mean in tiny fractions of a single cent per router per
year
No, I don't. The lower bound for that particular portion of the cost
analysis is easy
which
justifications make more sense and thus which set of numbers is more
likely to be correct.
Or you can keep swimming in that river in Egypt. Its up to you.
On Jan 20, 2008 5:10 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 20, 2008, at 3:34 PM, William Herrin wrote:
( [entry level
On Jan 20, 2008 9:46 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 20, 2008, at 8:46 PM, William Herrin wrote:
So at this point, the part of my analysis you still dispute is where I
claimed that 75% of the $40k cost of an entry-level DFZ router was
attributable to its ability
On Jan 19, 2008 11:48 AM, Andy Davidson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There's some debate in RIPE land right now that discusses, what
actually is the automatic, free, right to PI ? Every other network
in the world pays the cost when someone single homes but wants their /
24 prefix on everyone
On Jan 18, 2008 4:16 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sooner or later, somebody is going to try to apply Google's
approach to hardware in a network backbone. Imagine a network
backbone with no Cisco or Juniper boxes in it, just lots of
commodity boxes with triple-redundancy everywhere (quintuple
On Jan 18, 2008 10:18 PM, Roland Dobbins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
host.somewhere.net in a firewall rule in a PIX/ASA/etc. as opposed
It's not only a security issue, but a performance issue (both resolver
and server) and one of practicality, as well (multiple A records for a
single FQDN,
On Jan 15, 2008 12:51 PM, Dave Israel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think I understand what you want, and you don't want it. If you
receive a route for, say, 204.91.0.0/16, 204.91.0.0/17, and
204.91.128.0/17, you want to drop the /17s and just care about the /16. But
a change in topology
On Jan 14, 2008 10:30 AM, Drew Weaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I haven't noticed too many instances of this causing huge performance
problems,
but I have noticed some, has anyone noticed any instances in the real world
where this
has actually caused performance gains over symmetrical
On Jan 14, 2008 5:25 PM, Joe Greco [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So users who rarely use their connection are more profitable to the ISP.
The fat man isn't a welcome sight to the owner of the AYCE buffet.
Joe,
The fat man is quite welcome at the buffet, especially if he brings
friends and tips
On Jan 9, 2008 3:04 PM, Deepak Jain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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?
Deepak,
No, it isn't.
The bandwidth cap
On Jan 3, 2008 3:52 AM, Rick Astley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* /32 for ISPs unless they can justify more
* /48 for subscribers unless they can justify more
Take someone like Comcast with ~12 million subscribers.
It would take an IPv6 /24 to get 16.7 million /48's (2^24). With a net
On Jan 3, 2008 11:25 AM, Tim Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Only assuming the nature of your mistake is 'turn it off'.
I can fat-finger a 'port-forward *all* ports to important internal
server', rather than just '80/TCP' pretty much exactly as easily as I can
fat-finger 'permit *all*
On Dec 31, 2007 3:25 AM, Rick Astley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can understand corporations getting more than a /64 for their needs, but
certainly this does not mean residential ISP subscribers, right?
Rick,
The standing recommendations are:
* /32 for ISPs unless they can justify more
* /48
On Nov 22, 2007 1:30 PM, Mark Kent [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://www2.csjfinance.org/UUT.asp
Mark,
I suggest you contact Dat Vu (the individual listed on that page) and ask:
What kinds of common Internet-related commerce and activity are
subject to the UUT? Please provide me with your
On Nov 21, 2007 1:51 AM, Paul Ferguson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
An unfortunate limitation of the SMTP protocol is it initially only
looks at the right-hand side of an address when connecting to a
server to send e-mail, and not the left-hand side. This means
Sure, it's an unfortunate
On Nov 19, 2007 5:59 PM, Deepak Jain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just became aware of an SOP at Network solutions. On a contact change
to a domain, they automatically transfer lock the domain for 60 days.
Is anyone aware of this as a kosher activity and is anyone aware of any
other registrars
On 10/10/07, Stephen Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is anyone using Autocad for network design? What are your thoughts?
Stephen,
I still use Corel Draw 3 for my network diagrams, so its not unheard
of to use something other than Visio.
The main benefit to Visio comes when -someone else-
On 10/8/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wouldn't resources still be an issue. Since the address space is so much
larger wouldn't the 235k v6 routes take up more than 4 times the router
memory?
Keegan,
According to Cisco's product feature pages IPv6 routes take up twice
as
On 10/2/07, Stephen Sprunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you feel ARIN has not solved the PIv6 issue sufficiently well, please
take that argument to PPML. As of today, if you qualify for PIv4 space, you
qualify for PIv6 space automatically -- and you only have to pay the fees
for one of them.
On 9/18/07, Xin Liu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ideally, yes, a protocol should not rely on clock synchronization at
all. However, to ensure freshness of messages, we don't have many
choices, and clock synchronization seems to be the least painful one.
Xin,
Depending on the character of the
On 9/6/07, Rick Kunkel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We've traditionally used mobile phone email addresses for system
notifications, but over the past 6-12 months, it seems to have become
increasingly sketchy.
Rick,
I've had good results with vzw.blackberry.net (Verizon Wireless +
Blackberry) in
On 8/30/07, John Curran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I.E. If at some time unknown around 2010, ISP's stop receiving
new allocations from their RIR, and instead use of many smaller
recycled IPv4 address blocks, we could be looking at a 10x to
20x increase in routes per month for the same customer
On 8/27/07, Deepak Jain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
an MSFC2 can
hold 256,000 entries in its FIB of which 12,000 are reserved for
Multicast. I do not know if the 12,000 can be set to serve the general
purpose.
The MSFC2 therefore can server 244,000 routes without uRPF turned on.
I'm hit
On 8/2/07, Craig D. Rice [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We have already attempted the usual troubleshooting and have eliminated user
problems, computer problems, server problems, cable modem problems, and
Linksys router problems. Traceroutes have been somewhat inconclusive since
Onvoy blocks ICMP
39 matches
Mail list logo
