He is mistaken... HE Tunnels are an example of 6in4 and it is not deprecated,
but, some original mechanisms for 6in4 to which he may be referring were
deprecated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6in4
Owen
On Mar 3, 2011, at 11:17 PM, Karl Auer wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-03-03 at 20:27 -0500, TJ wrote:
> > 6to4 is handy as a toy or for experimenting, but it relies on a loose
> > network of generous volunteers who, while generous, are neither
> > generous nor numerous enough to support production traffic.
>
> Any ISP that is delivering IPv6 to their clients would be insane
> to not run a 6to4 rel
On Thu, 2011-03-03 at 20:27 -0500, TJ wrote:
> 6in4 == deprecated automatic tunneling mechanism ... HE is an example of
> manually configured Protocol41 encaps.
Deprecated? Do you have a reference...?
Thanks, K.
--
~~~
Karl Aue
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 10:13 PM, Mark Keymer wrote:
> On this same subject. My techs have been complaining lately about our new
> VPS's we are making going to google.vm. Is there anything I can do on my end
> to get this corrected?
>
http://www.google.com/support/websearch/bin/answer.py?hl=en&an
Then like Robert Suggest he should implement step 2
and it would solve his problem asap
Joshua
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 2:18 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian
wrote:
> The headers this guy sent me offlist = what you suggest just wouldn't
> work, sorry.
>
> He most likely had a rootkit on his server that
On this same subject. My techs have been complaining lately about our
new VPS's we are making going to google.vm. Is there anything I can do
on my end to get this corrected?
Sincerely,
Mark Keymer
Raymond Macharia wrote:
Noticed the same thing to the .com.hk
Raymond Macharia
On Thu, Mar
Noticed the same thing to the .com.hk
Raymond Macharia
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 8:04 PM, Wayne Lee wrote:
> >> also some EU customers are getting redirected to .au domain
>
> Mine got redirected to google.be for a while.
>
>
HE uses 6in4. 6in4 is basically the same protocol as 6to4, but, with defined
end-points for point-to-point tunneling packets from multipoint to multipoint.
6to4, conversely, uses anycast to identify the tunnel exit point towards the
IPv6 network or to identify the tunnel entry point towards the IP
On Mar 3, 2011, at 1:54 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 3:41 PM, Hammer wrote:
>> I need a cheat sheet.
>>
>> nat64
>> 6to4nat
>> 6in4nat
>> etc...
>
> 6to4 and 6in4 are not NAT. They're tunnels (VPNs) that allow two IPv6
> nodes to talk to each other via an IPv4 backbone.
>
There's no assurance that the content provider will use the ISP's 6to4
relay. In fact, there's a good chance it won't use the ISP's 6to4 relay for
return traffic.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Mark Andrews [mailto:ma...@isc.org]
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 7:17 PM
To: William Herrin
http://voip-info.orgGreat general reference
http://voiceops.org Great List (ok I helped start it so I might be a
little biased)
http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip Cisco VOIP specific
list
-Scott
-Original Message-
From: Eric Brunner-Williams [mailto
The headers this guy sent me offlist = what you suggest just wouldn't
work, sorry.
He most likely had a rootkit on his server that was emitting direct to MX spam.
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 2:38 AM, Joshua Klubi wrote:
> Get A.S.S.P and integrate it with your postfix box, implement SPF and run
> dk
In a message written on Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 08:27:18PM -0500, TJ wrote:
> And 6to4 doesn't allow IPv6 to talk to IPv4, contrary to what the name seems
> to imply :).
>
> Some poorly chosen names for our tunneling, yes?
I think 6automaticallyover4 was determined to be too long. :P
--
Leo
6in4 == deprecated automatic tunneling mechanism ... HE is an example of
manually configured Protocol41 encaps.
And 6to4 doesn't allow IPv6 to talk to IPv4, contrary to what the name seems
to imply :).
Some poorly chosen names for our tunneling, yes?
Thanks, TJ's Droid2
On Mar 3, 2011 6:27 PM, "
In message , Will
iam Herrin writes:
> On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 5:01 PM, Hammer wrote:
> > A little better. So what's the difference between 6to4 and 6in4?
> Isn't 6in4 what HE uses?
>
> I haven't used 6in4 so I couldn't tell you.
>
> 6to4 is a stateless tunnelling protocol. You have a dual-stack
Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On a more serious note, I can on my Ubuntu machine just "apt-get install
> wide-dhcpv6-client" and I get dhcpv6, it'll properly put stuff in
> resolv.conf for dns-over-ipv6 transport, even though the connection
> manager knows nothing about it, at least dual stack w
>
> Ok, apparently there is NAT64 and there is NAT64. I don't believe the
> poster was talking about a v6 load balancer VIP with v4 servers. I
> think the OP is talking about the NAT64 portion of NAT64/DNS64 where
> native v6 source and destination IPs are NATed to v4 destination and
> source IPs
> Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2011 14:12:16 -0600
> From: Richard A Steenbergen
> Subject: Re: AT&T via Tata and Level3
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
>
> On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 11:15:51AM -0500, Morgan Miskell wrote:
> > I've noticed that we have thousands of routes for AT&T via Tata that we
> > don't have from A
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 5:01 PM, Hammer wrote:
> A little better. So what's the difference between 6to4 and 6in4? Isn't 6in4
> what HE uses?
I haven't used 6in4 so I couldn't tell you.
6to4 is a stateless tunnelling protocol. You have a dual-stacked
router. It has an IPv4 address, 1.2.3.4. Theref
Can anyone provide me with an alternative contact to someone at Hotmail?
I've tried their support form over at
https://support.msn.com/eform.aspx?productKey=edfsmsbl&ct=eformts&st=1&wfxredirect=1which
doesn't seem to ever generate even an auto-reply anymore. Feel free to
contact me off-list.
On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 04:08:36PM -0500, Scott Helms wrote:
>> No, there's no particulary good technological reason why VOIP-over-cable
>> system shouldn't be able to hand off calls to an arbitrary SIP device.
>>
>> The reason is purely business - it will destroy their own voice service
>> user
> From: Elliot Finley
> Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 12:31 PM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Real World NAT64 deployments
>
> So as not to re-invent the wheel - if you are currently doing NAT64 in
> production and are willing to share:
>
> What software/hardware are you using?
>
> Why?
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Elliot Finley
> Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 12:31 PM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Real World NAT64 deployments
>
> So as not to re-invent the wheel - if you are currently doing NAT64 in
> production and are willing to share:
>
> What software/hardwar
6in4 is IPv6 encapsulated in IPv4 = protocol 41, typically used in manual
tunnelling configuration and also in tunnel brokers and some other type of
tunnels.
6to4 is an automatic transition mechanism that uses 6in4 to automatically
create IPv6 tunnels using a special IPv6 prefix 2002::/16, appendi
On 03/01/2011 04:32 AM, William Pitcock wrote:
That is the same market Vonage is now targeting in the US, basically.
National calling in the US is basically bundled with most calling plans
now. I'm not convinced that many people use Vonage in the US - my
experience with it was that it was not
A little better. So what's the difference between 6to4 and 6in4? Isn't 6in4
what HE uses?
-Hammer-
"I was a normal American nerd."
-Jack Herer
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 3:54 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 3:41 PM, Hammer wrote:
> > I need a cheat sheet.
> >
> > nat64
>
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 3:41 PM, Hammer wrote:
> I need a cheat sheet.
>
> nat64
> 6to4nat
> 6in4nat
> etc...
6to4 and 6in4 are not NAT. They're tunnels (VPNs) that allow two IPv6
nodes to talk to each other via an IPv4 backbone.
nat64 is NAT. It allows IPv6 endpoints to communicate with IPv4 end
Depends on the network, but we use private IPs on the eMTA side of the CM.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Alexander O. Yuriev [mailto:alex-lists-na...@yuriev.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 2:48 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: What vexes VoIP users?
> There's no particularly goo
On 3/3/2011 3:47 PM, Alexander O. Yuriev wrote:
There's no particularly good reason that a VoIP-over-cable system
shouldn't be able to hand off calls to an arbitrary SIP device.
No, there's no particulary good technological reason why VOIP-over-cable
system shouldn't be able to hand off calls to
Get A.S.S.P and integrate it with your postfix box, implement SPF and run
dkimproxy on your postfix box and bid spams adieu .
You would be surprised the power of ASSP . It is the best out there that kills
spam dead on arrival and departure.
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 3, 2011, at 10:18, Rober
> There's no particularly good reason that a VoIP-over-cable system
> shouldn't be able to hand off calls to an arbitrary SIP device.
No, there's no particulary good technological reason why VOIP-over-cable
system shouldn't be able to hand off calls to an arbitrary SIP device.
The reason is pure
First, thanks for all the responses to "What vexes VoIP users?"
I'm looking for pointers to sites, like Geoff Huston's potaroo.net,
that are VoIP clue dense, or mailing lists(*) where the VoIP-full lurk.
Thanks in advance,
Eric
(*) I'm already on the ecrit list, though my real interest in the
I need a cheat sheet.
nat64
6to4nat
6in4nat
etc...
-Hammer-
"I was a normal American nerd."
-Jack Herer
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Elliot Finley wrote:
> So as not to re-invent the wheel - if you are currently doing NAT64 in
> production and are willing to share:
>
> What software/h
So as not to re-invent the wheel - if you are currently doing NAT64 in
production and are willing to share:
What software/hardware are you using?
Why?
TIA
Elliot
On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 11:15:51AM -0500, Morgan Miskell wrote:
> I've noticed that we have thousands of routes for AT&T via Tata that
> we don't have from AT&T through Level3. I would expect Level3 to have
> most of the routes for AT&T that Tata does since they are both
> directly peered with
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 7:40 PM, ann kok wrote:
> Hello
> Have you had any experience about icmp from window and linux?
> I ping this linux host and they all are same LAN
> but Linux (ubuntu) is slow than window to this linux host
> Do you know why?
> Thank you
Hello,
Without posting any inteface
Hello
Have you had any experience about icmp from window and linux?
I ping this linux host and they all are same LAN
but Linux (ubuntu) is slow than window to this linux host
Do you know why?
Thank you
In addition to the CMTS configuration, added to the CM configuration file
are a two parameters that describe how much more bandwidth (peak rate) and
how many more bytes (burst size). More here on Cisco's implementation:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/cable/configuration/guide/cmts_docsis11_
p
On 03/03/2011 16:55, p8x wrote:
>> also some EU customers are getting redirected to .au domain
>>
I was being redirected to .ru earlier this week from UK addresses...
Has stopped now.
Paul.
>> also some EU customers are getting redirected to .au domain
Mine got redirected to google.be for a while.
I seem to be getting redirected to Google HK as well for the last week
to 2 weeks or so (I am in AU).
On 4/03/2011 12:50 AM, Varun wrote:
I have seen some of our APAC customers getting redirected to
google.com.tw; the internet egress point is in japan.
also some EU customers are getting redir
I have seen some of our APAC customers getting redirected to
google.com.tw; the internet egress point is in japan.
also some EU customers are getting redirected to .au domain
On 03-Mar-2011 9:46 PM, "Richard Barnes" wrote:
What networks are the affected clients on?
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 1
Deric,
Depending on the kind of access gear being used there are different
methods for making this work. This kind of technology is most commonly
deployed on DOCSIS cable systems, for example Comcast has this
trademarked as PowerBoost and they have done a ton of marketing around
it. You
It's essentially a 2 token bucket system. We implement based on the rate plan
given via our DHCP server for residential customers, but it can be implemented
using QoS on any router. Most DHCP server platforms offer it, and it is written
into the configuration file downloaded by a cable modem.
S
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 9:11 AM, Deric Kwok wrote:
> Hi all
>
> Do you know about sppedboost?
>
> Why it can suddenly burst to higher transfer rate from first 10M
>
> Can you share what equipment behinds to make it work?
>
> eg: cisco, juniper?
>
> Thank you so much
>
>
I don't know about hardware
I've noticed that we have thousands of routes for AT&T via Tata that we
don't have from AT&T through Level3. I would expect Level3 to have most
of the routes for AT&T that Tata does since they are both directly
peered with AT&T.
This seems to have started around midnight last nigh
On 3/3/2011 8:07 AM, isabel dias wrote:
The only reason why you feel that way is cause you haven't been made aware and
your network of friends is not "helping you at all" so do speak up and make
yourself heard!
No, don't speak up. Please don't pollute NANOG any further than it
already is, and
If you can't be good be carefull!
A "relation" is just a relationship between sets of information
What is a relation? A Relation is a group of Functions
- Original Message
From: isabel dias
To: litera...@gnaa.eu; full-disclos...@lists.grok.org.uk; nanog@nanog.org;
irc-secur...@li
What networks are the affected clients on?
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Skywing wrote:
> (Apologies for the top-post.)
>
> I've been experiencing the same. Seems like their geolocation data is busted
> (since last morning at least), if I had to take a guess.
>
> - S
>
> -Original Messa
My IPs have been redirecting to google bk for several days. I thought it
was just me.
Sent via DROID on Verizon Wireless
-Original message-
From: Skywing
To: Wil Schultz , nanog
Sent: Thu, Mar 3, 2011 15:53:36 GMT+00:00
Subject: RE: Interesting google redirects.
(Apologies for the
The only reason why you feel that way is cause you haven't been made aware and
your network of friends is not "helping you at all" so do speak up and make
yourself heard!
- Original Message
From: Leon Kaiser
To: full-disclos...@lists.grok.org.uk; nanog@nanog.org;
irc-secur...@lists
(Apologies for the top-post.)
I've been experiencing the same. Seems like their geolocation data is busted
(since last morning at least), if I had to take a guess.
- S
-Original Message-
From: Wil Schultz
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 7:25
To: NANOG Operators Group
Subject: Interest
On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 10:18:03 EST, Alex Yuriev said:
> It seems the panic over IPv4 scarcity is resulting in the most peculiar
> ideas bubbling up in the IP provisioning side
What peculiar ideas might these be? Inquiring minds want to know (as well as
those who seek amusement, or need to be ready
Hi,
Does anyone know if it is possible to get a cross connect from Telx
(room 524) to Level 3 (room 304) at 111 8th Ave?
Neither Telx or L3 can do this without serious complication and
prohibitive cost.
(contact me off list please)
Thanks.
Regards,
Andy Ashley.
--
This message has been sc
Has anyone else had complaints that www.google.com is occasionally redirecting
(http 302) to www.google.com.hk this morning?
-wil
I know it may be a stretch but is there a remote possibility that someone
knows anyone inside Verizon Business who has an ounce of clue about IPv4
address allocation and routing?
It seems the panic over IPv4 scarcity is resulting in the most peculiar
ideas bubbling up in the IP provisioning side
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 8:09 PM, Brandon Ross wrote:
>> IPs are announced by Level3... I respect this company but looks like
>> Level3 is scammed and currently announce without necessary permissions.
>
> Again, do you believe these networks are hijacked? If they are in
Hmm - so who should announc
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 9:39 AM, Brandon Ross wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Mar 2011, Alfa Telecom wrote:
>
>> On 03/03/2011 03:25 PM, Brandon Ross wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, 3 Mar 2011, Alfa Telecom wrote:
>>>
Both ranges are from RIPE region and couldn't be announced from ARIN ASN
at all.
netblocks i
On Thu, 3 Mar 2011, Alfa Telecom wrote:
On 03/03/2011 03:25 PM, Brandon Ross wrote:
On Thu, 3 Mar 2011, Alfa Telecom wrote:
Both ranges are from RIPE region and couldn't be announced from ARIN ASN
at all.
Your premise is incorrect. Any block from any RIR can be announced by any
ASN.
1) Al
On Mar 3, 2011, at 9:34 AM, Alfa Telecom wrote:
> On 03/03/2011 03:25 PM, Brandon Ross wrote:
>> On Thu, 3 Mar 2011, Alfa Telecom wrote:
>>
>>> Both ranges are from RIPE region and couldn't be announced from ARIN ASN at
>>> all.
>>
>> Your premise is incorrect. Any block from any RIR can be ann
On 03/03/2011 03:25 PM, Brandon Ross wrote:
On Thu, 3 Mar 2011, Alfa Telecom wrote:
Both ranges are from RIPE region and couldn't be announced from ARIN
ASN at all.
Your premise is incorrect. Any block from any RIR can be announced by
any ASN.
1) All routing data must be present at the RIPE
On Thu, 3 Mar 2011, Alfa Telecom wrote:
Both ranges are from RIPE region and couldn't be announced from ARIN ASN at
all.
Your premise is incorrect. Any block from any RIR can be announced by any
ASN.
We're sponsored LIR for both companies, I sent several emails to Level3
noc, made several
Hi all
Do you know about sppedboost?
Why it can suddenly burst to higher transfer rate from first 10M
Can you share what equipment behinds to make it work?
eg: cisco, juniper?
Thank you so much
This is the man who poisoned DroneBL. He is a bad man. Keep your
children safe.
> http://raged.tittybang.org/
>
> Leon
>
> Leon Kaiser - Head of GNAA Public Relations -
> litera...@gnaa.eu || litera...@goatse.fr
>http:/
This is the man who poisoned DroneBL. He is a bad man. Keep your
children safe.
http://raged.tittybang.org/
Leon
Leon Kaiser - Head of GNAA Public Relations -
litera...@gnaa.eu || litera...@goatse.fr
http://gnaa.eu || htt
> From nanog-bounces+bonomi=mail.r-bonomi@nanog.org Wed Mar 2 02:53:14
> 2011
> Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2011 10:46:03 +0200
> From: Peter Rudasingwa
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Postfix spam
>
> Hello,
>
> I am being attacked by a lot of spams on my postfix box. What is the best
> way to blo
39/8 was assigned to APNIC in January, and realistically should have been
removed from any bogon lists at that time.
At this stage it appears they are still doing "Resource Quality Assessment"
on it and haven't actually carried out any assignments, but that in itself
is enough of a reason to make
Hi!
1) RIPE NCC policy requires all routes must be present at the RIPE DB
and RIPE IPs could be officially announced outside RIPE Region.
2) Resources owners don't know anything about these routes.. so it
means that ranges were announces without permission by third party
company.
On Thu, Mar 3,
Hi ,
I saw 39.0.0.0/8 from AS273 on global table till last week .Was it a genuine
advertisement or some tests ongoing with 39.0.0.0/8 or any other previously
reserved spaces .
I am updating my bogons lists and want to know any experiments happening with
previous reserved spaces.
Thanks,
Dan
69 matches
Mail list logo
