At 20:42 22/06/2011 -0700, Jason Roysdon wrote:
Let me be a bit of a heretic here. How often does your router fail? Or
your firewall? In the 25 years I have gone into customers I have found
when they did a cross setup as proposed below by Bret and Jason, only one
person truly knew the
Well I just asked the question during the Getting Ready panel at the
ICANN 41 meeting.
Q: How much on top of the $185K is required for a new gTLD
Answers:
It is hard to say, too many variables, biz plan dependencies, if the
string will be contended it can go to a more complex/costly process,
That's fine if you are running a website. When it comes to telecommunications,
a 15 minute outage is pretty huge. Especially with certain types of customers:
emergency services for example.
-Bret
On Jun 23, 2011, at 12:02 AM, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
At 20:42 22/06/2011 -0700, Jason Roysdon
Well I just asked the question during the Getting Ready panel at the
ICANN 41 meeting.
keep in mind that the venues for asking precise questions for the
purpose of obtaining accurate answers of record are tdg-legal, or
the saturday gnso gtld hours (the kurt show).
Q: How much on top of the
keep in mind that the venues for asking precise questions for the
purpose of obtaining accurate answers of record are tdg-legal, or
the saturday gnso gtld hours (the kurt show).
Kurt Show that's a good one.
I was not expecting any elaborated response, just see if anybody on
that panel had a
Lets say I want to apply for .WINE with commercial purposes, then what
is a ballpark figure for the funds/investment required ?
My guess, it is way way above the $185K
assuming no defect in the application, necessitiating a second bite
at the apple, at cost (extended eval), and no objections
Agreed. At an enterprise level, there is no need to risk extended
downtime to save a buck or two. Redundant hardware is always a good way
to keep Murphy out of the equation. And as far as hardware failures go,
it's not that common. Nowadays it's the bugs in overly complicated code
on your gear
I have just turned up and migrated to a new circuit. I'm getting a few reports
from one customer that some of his users are unable to reach his system.
If I could get people on the list to ping 65.5.48.2, and if it fails, to do a
traceroute and email it to me offlist? I'd appreciate it.
Thanks.
Works from here (AS30914)
Regards,
Neil
-Original Message-
From: Eric J Esslinger [mailto:eesslin...@fpu-tn.com]
Sent: 23 June 2011 14:08
To: 'nanog@nanog.org'
Subject: ping me please...
I have just turned up and migrated to a new circuit. I'm getting a few reports
from one
You may want to take a look at traceroute.org and use the many sites
listed there.
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 9:07 AM, Eric J Esslinger eesslin...@fpu-tn.com wrote:
I have just turned up and migrated to a new circuit. I'm getting a few
reports from one customer that some of his users are unable
works from AS15982
[admin@router] ping 65.5.48.2
65.5.48.2 64 byte ping: ttl=245 time=141 ms
65.5.48.2 64 byte ping: ttl=245 time=141 ms
65.5.48.2 64 byte ping: ttl=245 time=141 ms
65.5.48.2 64 byte ping: ttl=245 time=141 ms
4 packets transmitted, 4 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip
On Thu, 23 Jun 2011, Eric J Esslinger wrote:
I have just turned up and migrated to a new circuit. I'm getting a few reports
from one customer that some of his users are unable to reach his system.
If I could get people on the list to ping 65.5.48.2, and if it fails, to do a
traceroute and
-Original Message-
From: Eric J Esslinger [mailto:eesslin...@fpu-tn.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2011 8:08 AM
To: 'nanog@nanog.org'
Subject: ping me please...
I have just turned up and migrated to a new circuit. I'm
getting a few reports from one customer that some of his
users
On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 07:44:33 CDT, -Hammer- said:
Agreed. At an enterprise level, there is no need to risk extended
downtime to save a buck or two. Redundant hardware is always a good way
to keep Murphy out of the equation. And as far as hardware failures go,
it's not that common. Nowadays
Reachable from Ireland using Eircom AS5466.
Host is up (0.029s latency).
Not shown: 64531 filtered ports, 1002 closed ports
PORT STATE SERVICEVERSION
443/tcp open ssl/http Cisco ASA firewall http config (Cisco AWARE 2.0)
|_http-methods: No Allow or Public header in OPTIONS response
Hi,
From France provider Orange echo request reply ok with 700ms
Regards,
__
Jean CLERY
Technical Dep.
GSM : +33 628 553 540
Support : +33 491 100 441
-Message d'origine-
De : Eric J Esslinger [mailto:eesslin...@fpu-tn.com]
Envoyé : jeudi 23 juin 2011
HaHa! I agree with keeping it simple. I keep my routers simple. I keep
my switches simple. Sometimes it's not as easy on a Layer 7 FW or a load
balancer. So plan accordingly. :)
-Hammer-
On 06/23/2011 08:59 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 07:44:33 CDT, -Hammer-
Folks,
The Call for Presentations for NANOG 53 is up on
http://nanog.org/meetings/nanog53/callforpresent.php
Looking forward to your submissions and seeing you all in Philadelphia.
Dave
(for the NANOG PC)
___
NANOG-announce mailing list
Lets say I want to apply for .WINE with commercial purposes, then what
is a ballpark figure for the funds/investment required ?
I wouldn't try it with less than a million bucks in hand. Beyond the
ICANN application nonsense, you'd also want to budget something for
running and promoting it for
On 6/22/11 3:07 PM, Joe Greco wrote:
Your average person cares a whole lot less about what's crossing their
Internet connection than they care about whether or not this works
than I do.
I continue to be amazed at the quality of Netflix video coming across
the wire. Our local cable company
Except in those (becoming less rare than hardware failure) instances where the
software controlling the failover process is the actual cause of the outage.
Owen
On Jun 23, 2011, at 5:44 AM, -Hammer- wrote:
Agreed. At an enterprise level, there is no need to risk extended downtime to
save a
True True. I've seen that before as well. Actually I've seen it more
with various vendors implementations of VRRP than I have with Cisco HSRP
or Juniper NSRP. But it seems to me more or less that most issues we
deal with these days are software related bugs as opposed to hardware
related
On Jun 23, 2011, at 6:59 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 07:44:33 CDT, -Hammer- said:
Agreed. At an enterprise level, there is no need to risk extended
downtime to save a buck or two. Redundant hardware is always a good way
to keep Murphy out of the equation. And as
Joe Greco wrote:
toddlers around and drive to and from work. An SUV in almost all cases
is added luxury.
My SUV carries seven passengers and allows me to haul gear including
conduit, lumber, ladders, etc. It's actively dangerous to do some of
these things in a sedan.
Hence I said in almost
I am sure it has come up a number of times, but with IPv6 you can make
up fancy addresses that are (almost) complete words or phrases. Making
it almost as easy to remember as the resolved name.
It'd be nice in a weird geek sort of way (but totally impractical) to be
able to request IPv6
On 06/23/2011 12:10 PM, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
I am sure it has come up a number of times, but with IPv6 you can make
up fancy addresses that are (almost) complete words or phrases. Making
it almost as easy to remember as the resolved name.
It'd be nice in a weird geek sort of way (but
(Warning: This email contains scenes of flashbacks)
On Thu, 23 Jun 2011, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
I am sure it has come up a number of times, but with IPv6 you can make up
fancy addresses that are (almost) complete words or phrases. Making it almost
as easy to remember as the resolved name.
On 06/23/2011 06:16 PM, Paul Graydon wrote:
On 06/23/2011 12:10 PM, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
I am sure it has come up a number of times, but with IPv6 you can
make up fancy addresses that are (almost) complete words or phrases.
Making it almost as easy to remember as the resolved name.
It'd be
On Jun 23, 2011, at 3:23 PM, Pete Carah wrote:
On 06/23/2011 06:16 PM, Paul Graydon wrote:
On 06/23/2011 12:10 PM, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
I am sure it has come up a number of times, but with IPv6 you can
make up fancy addresses that are (almost) complete words or phrases.
Making it almost
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 6:10 PM, Jeroen van Aart jer...@mompl.net wrote:
I am sure it has come up a number of times, but with IPv6 you can make up
fancy addresses that are (almost) complete words or phrases. Making it
almost as easy to remember as the resolved name.
It'd be nice in a weird
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 12:10 PM, John Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote:
Lets say I want to apply for .WINE with commercial purposes, then what
is a ballpark figure for the funds/investment required ?
I wouldn't try it with less than a million bucks in hand. Beyond the
ICANN application nonsense,
William Herrin wrote:
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 6:10 PM, Jeroen van Aart jer...@mompl.net wrote:
able to request IPv6 blocks that have some sort of fancy name of your
choice.
4-character or shorter hex words, for your reference:
aced
ace5
ac1d
:-D
Thanks.
I wonder about 2001:db8
The
2607:f9a0::f0c:0ff ;-)
scott
My perception is that if you don't have access to ~$2M for that kind
of gTLD don't even waste your time.
you may want to consult with a practitioner in the jurisdiction of your
choice who does business organization and investor equity structures,
as the cost to acquire a right to contract for a
On 6/22/2011 14:33, Nathan Eisenberg wrote:
I agree, the whole use of the terms 'need' and 'want' in this conversation
are
ridiculous. It's the Internet. The entire thing isn't a 'need'. It's not
like life
support or something that will cause loss of life if it isn't there. The
only
That one would be good for a firewall/IDS setup... Oh rats, our attack was
stopped by a firewall at... HEY! :-D
bc
-Original Message-
From: Scott Weeks sur...@mauigateway.com
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2011 7:59pm
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: IPv6 words
2607:f9a0::f0c:0ff ;-)
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 05:47:18PM -0700, Seth Mattinen wrote:
On 6/22/2011 14:33, Nathan Eisenberg wrote:
I agree, the whole use of the terms 'need' and 'want' in this conversation
are
ridiculous. It's the Internet. The entire thing isn't a 'need'. It's
not like life
support or
Pinging behind my natted ISP conection (AS22566), seems to work:
$ ping 65.5.48.2
PING 65.5.48.2 (65.5.48.2) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 65.5.48.2: icmp_seq=1 ttl=240 time=72.5 ms
64 bytes from 65.5.48.2: icmp_seq=2 ttl=240 time=72.9 ms
64 bytes from 65.5.48.2: icmp_seq=3 ttl=240
My big concern with pitiful low speed upstream speed is the whole 'cloud'
movement. Every one will have all of their 'data' in the 'cloud' sooner than
we all think, and that involves uploading it from their PC to the 'cloud'. For
instance, I use a 'cloud' drive to backup bunches of data
39 matches
Mail list logo
