* Jared Mauch:
The issue of zone signing is going to be interesting as some
nation-states (ccTLD) have been known to speak-up about their issues
with the signing of the zone.
Which ones?
In most cases, ccTLDs don't represent nation states, and vice versa.
--
Florian Weimer
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 10:00:52PM -0800, Richard Bennett wrote:
I haven't found a good source who knows what's going on outside his own
network.
Mr. Bennett,
You know when I first read your post, I assumed you were just ignorant
and confused about the topic of peering on the Internet. Then I
Thank you for your insights.
Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 10:00:52PM -0800, Richard Bennett wrote:
I haven't found a good source who knows what's going on outside his own
network.
Mr. Bennett,
You know when I first read your post, I assumed you were just
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 07:54:08PM -0800,
Joe Abley jab...@hopcount.ca wrote
a message of 13 lines which said:
Are you suggesting that I should be able to block the assignment of
particular ASNs by simply including them in an AS_PATH attribute on
a route I originate, and making sure that
At 08:57 25/11/2009 +0100, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
shouting. This is all water under the bridge of course and we are
moving on;
I do not say everything is ideal now. However the RIRs are actively
working to publish a complete set of stats files which also includes
unallocated resources. This
Perhaps the RIRs could get together and agree on a common whois syntax so
that when I check one RIR with one syntax - it would work on others as
well? This issue has been around for over 7 years and I can't understand
why the RIRs can't find common ground for the sake of the end users?
* Hank Nussbacher:
Perhaps the RIRs could get together and agree on a common whois syntax
so that when I check one RIR with one syntax - it would work on others
as well? This issue has been around for over 7 years and I can't
understand why the RIRs can't find common ground for the sake of
Richard Bennett wrote:
Speculation about how the money flows is a worthwhile activity.
Sure, no problem.
--
Richard Bennett
Research Fellow
Information Technology and Innovation Foundation
Washington, DC
In summary, Mr Bennett is an unregistered lobbyist, employed by other
registered
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 06:36:13PM +0900, Randy Bush wrote:
Perhaps the RIRs could get together and agree on a common whois syntax so
that when I check one RIR with one syntax - it would work on others as
well? This issue has been around for over 7 years and I can't understand
why the
Now you've descended from Steenbergen's hair-splitting between on-net
routes (the mechanism) vs. on-net access (the actual product) into
Simpson's straight-up lying. ITIF is not opposed to network neutrality
in principle, having released a paper on A Third Way on Network
Neutrality,
Interesting scenario ... but would be far more interesting to us if you share
the /24?
Truman
On 25/11/2009, at 3:07 PM, Russell Myba wrote:
I'm confused. Who are you billing and for what services?
Let's say our direct customer is CustomerA. They seem to buy rackspace from
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 10:22:36PM -0500, Russell Myba wrote:
Looks like of our customers has decided to turn their /24 into a nice little
space spewing machine. Doesn't seem like just one compromised host.
1. This is possibly/probably better on spam-l.
2. This is a very common operational
Hi Richard,
I am late to this dicussion. So I don't have a full understanding of the
context or history of this debate.
It is clear to many of us that Telcos lost the content wars and this is their
way of trying to get a slice of the content providers (Google, Microsoft, etc.)
add revenues.
RB-
Where can we find data on your group's funding sources?
If we're to continue this discussion, we need to establish bias and
motive, which you've not covered on your own accord.
Drive Slow,
Paul Wall
On 11/25/09, Richard Bennett rich...@bennett.com wrote:
Now you've descended from
Would you care to elaborate on how the investigation of someones
funding sources is operationally relevant to the rest of the list?
Aaron Cossey
aaron.cos...@gmail.com
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 1:25 PM, Paul Wall pauldotw...@gmail.com wrote:
RB-
Where can we find data on your group's funding
Would you care to elaborate on how the investigation of someones
funding sources is operationally relevant to the rest of the list?
please no
we have a greedy troll. stop feeding it. procmail is your friend.
randy
Russell,
My personal inclination would be to look for what legit entities are
provisioning them with critical resources and what margins they appear
to be paying.
For DNS resources, the domains, to identify registry preference,
probably a simple volume correlation, and the registrars, which
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 10:22:36PM -0500, Russell Myba wrote:
Looks like of our customers has decided to turn their /24 into a nice little
space spewing machine. Doesn't seem like just one compromised host.
1. This is possibly/probably better on
I didn't bring this discussion over here, hippie.
Randy Bush wrote:
Would you care to elaborate on how the investigation of someones
funding sources is operationally relevant to the rest of the list?
please no
we have a greedy troll. stop feeding it. procmail is your friend.
randy
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 2:17 AM, Paul Ferguson fergdawgs...@gmail.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 10:55 PM, Michael Peddemors
mich...@linuxmagic.com wrote:
Depends on the activity, but this re-iterates the importance of
maintaining correct
On Nov 25, 2009, at 1:33 AM, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
At 08:57 25/11/2009 +0100, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
shouting. This is all water under the bridge of course and we are
moving on;
I do not say everything is ideal now. However the RIRs are actively
working to publish a complete set of
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 03:32:02 PST, Richard Bennett said:
ITIF is not opposed to network neutrality
in principle, having released a paper on A Third Way on Network
Neutrality, http://www.itif.org/index.php?id=63.
All of four paragraphs, which don't in fact address what
On Nov 25, 2009, at 10:13 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 03:32:02 PST, Richard Bennett said:
ITIF is not opposed to network neutrality
in principle, having released a paper on A Third Way on Network
Neutrality,
Bill Blackford wrote:
I do not believe that Juniper keys their optics. My experience with this is
limited though. I am able to get third-party optics to work just fine in EX
switches.
bblackf...@wsc-asw-02-1 show chassis hardware
Hardware inventory:
Item Version Part number
Oh wait, those billions got pocketed - if the massive fiber
buildout had happened, we'd have so much bandwidth that
neutrality wouldn't be an issue...
Maybe this is how the fiber got used :))
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RFoG
On 2009-11-25-09:42:29, Marshall Eubanks t...@americafree.tv wrote:
There is a new carrier neutral exchange space opening up December 1st
at 165 Halsey in Newark, NJ. This space will be operated by Tishman
Hotel Realty LP :
Could you elaborate on what constitutes correct swip information?
Sure, you just opened the door to my opinions on this :)
-- WRONG --
OrgName:FortressITX
OrgID: FORTR-5
Address:100 Delawanna Ave
City: Clifton
StateProv: NJ
PostalCode:
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 09:25:27 -0800
Michael Peddemors mich...@linuxmagic.com wrote:
Could you elaborate on what constitutes correct swip information?
Sure, you just opened the door to my opinions on this :)
hmmm - odd that the 2 you chose to show as wrong, both feature highly
in my
We've been looking at the iGlass's cable system monitoring solution for
monitoring our cable system; It integrates with billing to give the ability, at
a csr level, to allow them to directly lookup the status of a customer's cable
modem (for example, online, offline, negotiationg, flapping),
I have seen this behavior caused by a mismatch of SFPs, SX on one side
and LX on the other.
/p
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 9:04 AM, Michael Ruiz mr...@telwestservices.com wrote:
I don't think there is any reason to have hard-set speed and duplex,
particularly between two Cisco's. Why not just set
I have seen this behavior caused by a mismatch of SFPs, SX on one side
and LX on the other.
We found the problem. After going through 5 MMF GBICS we found one that
worked.
-Original Message-
From: Peter Sandström [mailto:pe...@stardoll.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2009 12:39 PM
I do not say everything is ideal now. However the RIRs are actively
working to publish a complete set of stats files which also includes
unallocated resources.
I would've thought IANA would be responsible for unallocated
resources.
history shows that rirs would rather fight the iana and
Click through to the PDF, it's a 16 page paper.
RB
[1]valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 03:32:02 PST, Richard Bennett said:
ITIF is not opposed to network neutrality
in principle, having released a paper on A Third Way on Network
Neutrality,
Paul's article What DNS Is Not published in December's Issue of Communications
of the ACM.
Also ICANN publishes memorandum about Harms and Concerns Posed by
NXDOMAIN Substitution:
http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/nxdomain-substitution-harms-24nov09-en.pdf
What needs to be done to have
Whether or not Mr Bennett has any idea what he is talking about- and I have
started to develop an opinion on that subject myself- I really would rather
not see Nanog become a forum for partisan political discussion. There are
_lots_ of places for that, which as a political junkie I read
On 25/11/09 14:58 -0600, Jorge Amodio wrote:
Paul's article What DNS Is Not published in December's Issue of Communications
of the ACM.
Also ICANN publishes memorandum about Harms and Concerns Posed by
NXDOMAIN Substitution:
On November 25, 2009, Jorge Amodio wrote:
What needs to be done to have ISPs and other service providers stop
tampering with DNS ?
Cheers
Jorge
And what is needed to have a consistant 'whois' reporting format :)
Keeping adding to the list?
--
--
Catch the Magic of Linux...
Hi,
On Nov 25, 2009, at 1:22 PM, Dan White wrote:
Contact ICANN/IANA and plead with them to stop assigning any more resources
to said ISP.
ICANN/IANA doesn't assign resources to ISPs.
Regards,
-drc
(pardon me if this message is not formatted correctly, T-bird doesn't
like this list)
I agree that this is not the proper venue for discussion of the politics
of Internet regulation; the post I wrote for GigaOm has comments
enabled, and many people with an anti-capitalist bone to pick have
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 02:29:33PM -0800, Richard Bennett wrote:
(pardon me if this message is not formatted correctly, T-bird doesn't
like this list)
I agree that this is not the proper venue for discussion of the
politics of Internet regulation; the post I wrote for GigaOm has
comments
What needs to be done to have ISPs and other service providers stop
tampering with DNS ?
Some options:
Contact your local, state and federal legislators and convince them it's in
the public interest for them to draft legislation to outlaw this practice -
and hope among all hope that the
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 02:29:33PM -0800, Richard Bennett wrote:
* One claim I made in my blog post is that traffic increases on the
Internet aren't measured by MINTS very well. MINTS uses data from
Meet-me switches, but IX's and colos are pulling x-connects like mad so
more and more
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 10:55 PM, Michael Peddemors
mich...@linuxmagic.com wrote:
Could you elaborate on what constitutes correct swip information?
Sure, you just opened the door to my opinions on this :)
Dysfunctional rwhois servers sounds more like general brokenness than
malice. The
In message 202705b0911251526n75194c46m30cdfcb4809b6...@mail.gmail.com, Jorge
Amodio writes:
What needs to be done to have ISPs and other service providers stop
tampering with DNS ?
Some options:
Contact your local, state and federal legislators and convince them it's in
the public
On 25/11/09 14:17 -0800, David Conrad wrote:
Hi,
On Nov 25, 2009, at 1:22 PM, Dan White wrote:
Contact ICANN/IANA and plead with them to stop assigning any more resources
to said ISP.
ICANN/IANA doesn't assign resources to ISPs.
Indirectly they're responsible for assignment of IP address,
I am out of the office until 30.11.2009.
Na Vas e-mail odpovim co nejdrive. V pripade urgentnich problemu prosim
kontaktujte helpdesk.
I will answer your e-mail as soon as possible. Your e-mail will not be
forwarded. Please contact helpdesk for urgent issues.
Dekuji za pochopení
Lumir Srch
Jorge Amodio jmamo...@gmail.com writes:
What needs to be done to have ISPs and other service providers stop
tampering with DNS ?
we have to fix DNS so that provider-in-the-middle attacks no longer work.
(this is why in spite of its technical excellence i am not a DNSCURVE fan,
and also why in
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 02:17:37PM -0800, David Conrad wrote:
Hi,
On Nov 25, 2009, at 1:22 PM, Dan White wrote:
Contact ICANN/IANA and plead with them to stop assigning any more resources
to said ISP.
ICANN/IANA doesn't assign resources to ISPs.
Regards,
-drc
any more
Hi All,
I just want to know about the deployment of Multicast LDP or P2MP RSVP and
LDP is available from any vendor or they are still in draft status? Also it
will be great if some one can give me an idea of Multicast VPN deployment in
service providers; are they deployed with draft Rosen GRE
On 26 Nov 2009, at 06:27, devang patel wrote:
Hi All,
I just want to know about the deployment of Multicast LDP or P2MP
RSVP and
LDP is available from any vendor or they are still in draft status?
Hi Devang,
To the best of my knowledge, the only current P2MP LSP implementation
Rob,
Can you share some documentation with me on how to configure as well as any
kind of configuration example will be great help.
Thanks,
Devang
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 12:46 AM, Rob Shakir r...@eng.gxn.net wrote:
On 26 Nov 2009, at 06:27, devang patel wrote:
Hi All,
I just want to
51 matches
Mail list logo
