Hi,
We are looking for some NEBS compliant servers. What do you use for DC
powered servers colocated in CO?
Thanks,
Richard
On 4/18/2011 2:53 PM, Scott Weeks wrote:
---
They are testing IPTV on Oahu in preperation for roll-out, so maybe they
renumbered in order to more easily identify the segments.(?)
Really, I'd have hoped they'd use their two-year-old
On Apr 18, 2011, at 10:35 PM, David Conrad wrote:
To try to bring this back to NANOG (instead of PPML-light), the issue is that
since at least two alternative registries have apparently been established,
how are network operators going to deal with the fact that the currently
execrable
- Original Message -
From: Richard Zheng rzh...@gmail.com
We are looking for some NEBS compliant servers. What do you use for DC
powered servers colocated in CO?
Do you need NEBS *compliant*, or NEBS *certified* servers? 19 or 23?
-48V isn't hard to come by; lots of people make
On Apr 18, 2011, at 10:09 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Apr 18, 2011, at 12:18 PM, Jeff Wheeler wrote:
2011/4/18 Lukasz Bromirski luk...@bromirski.net:
LISP scales better, because with introduction of *location*
prefix, you're at the same time (or ideally you would)
withdraw the
On 4/19/11 3:30 AM, ML wrote:
With the crudiness of the IPTV middleware aimed for smaller deployments,
I'd expect nothing less than blank stares if you mention IPv6 multicast.
Not to mention it would probably not work for 5 years.
NTT's deployment of globally scoped but not internet
On Apr 18, 2011, at 9:50 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
Any edges which talk to a significant number of other networks will
have to cache a significant portion of the Internet, which will
actually lead to edge boxes having to be larger than they are now.
This is not accurate. For networks with
John,
On Apr 19, 2011, at 3:46 AM, John Curran wrote:
Does it have to get worse simply because there is change?
Have to? No. However, historically, entropy has generally increased.
I see no particular
reason that the Internet number registry system can't evolve into something
with
On Apr 19, 2011, at 12:16 PM, David Conrad wrote:
However, as far as I can tell, multiple registries isn't what is implicitly
being proposed. What appears to be eing proposed is something a bit like the
registry/registrar split, where there is a _single_ IPv4 registry and
multiple
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 12:16 PM, David Conrad d...@virtualized.org wrote:
However, as far as I can tell, multiple registries isn't what is implicitly
being proposed. What appears to be eing proposed is something a bit like the
registry/registrar split, where there is a _single_ IPv4
On Apr 19, 2011, at 1:19 PM, Jeff Wheeler j...@inconcepts.biz wrote:
Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how a bunch of different
entities providing fragmented post-allocation services is of any
benefit.
Jeff -
Imagine for a moment that you had quite a few
unneeded addresses and
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 2:37 PM, John Curran jcur...@arin.net wrote:
Imagine for a moment that you had quite a few
unneeded addresses and the upheaval also meant
no pesky policy constraints on your monetization efforts -
would you then view it as having some benefit? You just
might not
John,
On Apr 19, 2011, at 9:36 AM, John Curran wrote:
There are already two address registrars and at least 5 (6 if you count
IANA) address whois databases. I expect there to be more in the future,
particularly now there is an existence proof that you can sell addresses and
the Internet
Jeff,
On Apr 19, 2011, at 10:19 AM, Jeff Wheeler wrote:
Are you saying there are people who advocate creating a new ecosystem
of service providers for supplying several things that the RIRs
exclusively supply today?
Yes.
Sign me up. As a vendor. I'd love to over-charge for the dead simple
On Apr 19, 2011, at 3:29 PM, David Conrad wrote:
to the list I provided you in the previous message. Or are you implying that
ARIN and the other RIRs are committing to synchronizing their databases with
alternative address registrars as they become established?
If by established, you mean as
On Apr 19, 2011, at 2:56 PM, David Conrad wrote:
On Apr 19, 2011, at 10:19 AM, Jeff Wheeler wrote:
Are you saying there are people who advocate creating a new ecosystem
of service providers for supplying several things that the RIRs
exclusively supply today?
Yes.
Sign me up. As a
On Apr 19, 2011, at 3:56 PM, David Conrad wrote:
On Apr 19, 2011, at 10:19 AM, Jeff Wheeler wrote:
Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how a bunch of different
entities providing fragmented post-allocation services is of any
benefit.
Some folks find competition in service
John,
Given ARIN's STLS, it would seem even ARIN has the 'right perspective' to see
the up$ide. It's more about the implication of folks having increasing
financial incentive to go outside the existing mechanisms (e.g.,
Nortel/Microsoft) and the implications that has on network operations.
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 4:14 PM, Benson Schliesser
bens...@queuefull.net wrote:
Meanwhile, under the current system, ARIN has managed to accumulate a $25M
cash reserve despite an increasing budget. (see
Folks,
Since deploying our 6to4 relays, Comcast has observed a substantial
reduction in the latency associated with the use of 6to4. As such we are
contemplating further opening our relays for use by others. The
availability of our 6to4 relays should improve the experience of others
using 6to4 as
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 4:46 PM, Jeff Wheeler j...@inconcepts.biz wrote:
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 4:14 PM, Benson Schliesser
bens...@queuefull.net wrote:
Meanwhile, under the current system, ARIN has managed to accumulate a $25M
cash reserve despite an increasing budget. (see
On Apr 19, 2011, at 3:46 PM, Jeff Wheeler wrote:
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 4:14 PM, Benson Schliesser
bens...@queuefull.net wrote:
Meanwhile, under the current system, ARIN has managed to accumulate a $25M
cash reserve despite an increasing budget. (see
On Apr 19, 2011, at 4:45 PM, David Conrad wrote:
Given ARIN's STLS, it would seem even ARIN has the 'right perspective'
to see the up$ide.
To be clear, the listing service is simply so that those who want to
be contacted because they need address space can identify themselves,
along with
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 5:16 PM, Benson Schliesser
bens...@queuefull.net wrote:
Without defining what an optimal cost might be, my comment was intended to
show that our current baseline already results in a surplus.
I don't think the cost of IPv4 addresses has anywhere to go but up.
This
On 04/19/2011 13:44, Brzozowski, John wrote:
Folks,
Since deploying our 6to4 relays, Comcast has observed a substantial
reduction in the latency associated with the use of 6to4. As such we are
contemplating further opening our relays for use by others. The
availability of our 6to4 relays should
On Apr 19, 2011, at 5:50 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
At minimum one would hope that you're heeding the warnings in the first.
Another view (one that I personally hold) is that any effort you might be
putting into making 6to4 work better would be better placed in deploying real
IPv6 instead;
On Tue, 19 Apr 2011, Doug Barton wrote:
Another view (one that I personally hold) is that any effort you might
be putting into making 6to4 work better would be better placed in
deploying real IPv6 instead; and that the world would be a better place
generally if all of the so-called transition
On Apr 19, 2011, at 4:26 PM, Jeff Wheeler wrote:
I don't think the cost of IPv4 addresses has anywhere to go but up.
This mysterious Nortel/Microsoft transaction would seem to give
credibility to an assumption of increasing cost.
I think we can agree on this. It is the natural result of
On Apr 19, 2011 2:56 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote:
On Tue, 19 Apr 2011, Doug Barton wrote:
Another view (one that I personally hold) is that any effort you might be
putting into making 6to4 work better would be better placed in deploying
real IPv6 instead; and that the world
John,
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 4:44 PM, Brzozowski, John
john_brzozow...@cable.comcast.com wrote:
Folks,
Since deploying our 6to4 relays, Comcast has observed a substantial
reduction in the latency associated with the use of 6to4. As such we are
contemplating further opening our relays for
On Tue, 2011-04-19 at 16:47 -0700, Cameron Byrne wrote:
On Apr 19, 2011 2:56 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote:
+1. 6to4 is very bad and should be off my default, but unfortunately many
end users unwittingly have it on and this may provide them some relief.
So am I to understand
John,
Please note that we have filed our proposal for accreditation of IP address
registrars with ICANN over a month ago. (Please see ICANN's Correspondence
Page, Letters from David Holtzman to David Olive and John Jeffrey, filed 2
March 2011, Proposed Statement of IP Policy)
It is going to be hard to constructively debate the merits of a
proposal that begins with a rather condescending ad hominem attack.
There are multiple ways to bring a policy discussion in front of a
larger / different audience than whatever group or stakeholder
community you seek to raise it in,
Butch,
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 8:52 PM, Butch Evans but...@butchevans.com wrote:
The drafts I saw posted earlier were discussing what is
essentially toredo services (anycast tunnel) at least.
6to4 is significantly different from Teredo, since it:
a) it does not hurt web deployments using DNS
On Apr 19, 2011, at 9:08 PM, Peter Thimmesch wrote:
John,
Please note that we have filed our proposal for accreditation of IP address
registrars with ICANN over a month ago. (Please see ICANN's Correspondence
Page, Letters from David Holtzman to David Olive and John Jeffrey, filed 2
March
On Apr 19, 2011, at 5:52 PM, Butch Evans wrote:
+1. 6to4 is very bad and should be off my default, but unfortunately many
end users unwittingly have it on and this may provide them some relief.
So am I to understand that services like Toredo client (which is what I
PRESUME is being
Mr. John,
I thank you for asking the advice of the community.
As our colleagues suggest, having 6to4 relays inside the network helps to
reduce the latency. Opening up your generous services to a larger Internet
community by advertising the 192.88.99.0/24 BGP prefix outside the network
could
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 7:26 PM, Bhoomi Jain bhoo...@india.com wrote:
Mr. John,
I thank you for asking the advice of the community.
As our colleagues suggest, having 6to4 relays inside the network helps to
reduce the latency. Opening up your generous services to a larger Internet
On Wed, 20 Apr 2011, Bhoomi Jain wrote:
To give you an idea, a lot of the Internet in India depends on the
service of the Tata companies, with international routing coming from
Tata Communications AS 6453. Announcing 192.88.99.0/24 to 6453 as a
customer, I would worry about its treatment as
39 matches
Mail list logo
