On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 6:09 PM, Jonathon Exley
wrote:
> This has probably been said before, but it makes me uncomfortable to think of
> everybody in the world being given /48 subnets by default.
> All of a sudden that wide expanse of 2^128 IP addresses shrinks to 2^48
> sites. Sure that's still
On Sun, Aug 07, 2011 at 09:45:31PM -0400, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Aug 2011 20:47:48 EDT, Randy Carpenter said:
> > Does AT&T seriously serve the entire state of Indiana from a single POP???
> > Sounds crazy to me.
>
> It makes sense if they're managing to bill customers by the
On Sun, 07 Aug 2011 20:47:48 EDT, Randy Carpenter said:
> Does AT&T seriously serve the entire state of Indiana from a single POP???
> Sounds crazy to me.
It makes sense if they're managing to bill customers by the cable mile from
their location to the POP. Imagine a POP in Terre Haute or Indiana
> >> AT&T serves some entire states out of a single POP, as far as
> >> layer-3
> >> termination is concerned.
> >>
> >
> > Are any of the states with populations larger than Philadelphia
> > among
> > them?
>
> Yes, for example, Indiana. Pretty much every state in the former
> Ameritech servic
On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 6:58 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> So you want HE to force all their clients to renumber.
No. I am simply pointing out that Owen exaggerated when he stated
that he implements the following three practices together on his own
networks:
* hierarchical addressing
* nibble-aligned
In message
, Jeff Wheeler writes:
> On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 7:26 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> >> Well, you aren't actually doing this on your network today. =A0If you
> >> practiced what you are preaching, you would not be carrying aggregate
> >> routes to your tunnel broker gateways across your whol
Historically the network gets more stable when they are on strike. It is
amazing how well stuff works when nobody is mucking with the network. We
received new keys for all of our Verizon colos the other day, first time that
has happened.
- Original Message -
> From: "Zaid Ali"
> T
Jonathon,
On Aug 7, 2011, at 12:09 PM, Jonathon Exley wrote:
> This has probably been said before,
Once or twice :-)
> but it makes me uncomfortable to think of everybody in the world being given
> /48 subnets by default.
This isn't where the worry should be. Do the math. Right now, we're
a
On Aug 7, 2011, at 3:09 PM, Jonathon Exley wrote:
> This has probably been said before, but it makes me uncomfortable to think of
> everybody in the world being given /48 subnets by default.
> All of a sudden that wide expanse of 2^128 IP addresses shrinks to 2^48
> sites. Sure that's still 655
This has probably been said before, but it makes me uncomfortable to think of
everybody in the world being given /48 subnets by default.
All of a sudden that wide expanse of 2^128 IP addresses shrinks to 2^48 sites.
Sure that's still 65535 times more than 2^32 IPv4 addresses, but wouldn't it be
On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 7:26 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> Well, you aren't actually doing this on your network today. If you
>> practiced what you are preaching, you would not be carrying aggregate
>> routes to your tunnel broker gateways across your whole backbone.
>
> Yes we would.
No, if you actu
On Sat, Aug 06, 2011 at 01:25:18PM -0500, Jimmy Hess wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 12:08 PM, Joe Provo wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Aug 06, 2011 at 10:41:10AM -0400, Scott Helms wrote:
> > > Correct, I don't believe that any of the providers noted are actually
> > [snip]
> > Disappointing that nanog r
This is one of the reasons that I thought a useful output from the opsec or idr
working group would be a documented set of community functions. Not mapped to
values mind you. but I really like to say to providers "do you support rfc blah
communities" or "what's your rfc blah community mapping" r
On Sun, 07 Aug 2011 08:53:05 CDT, Graham Wooden said:
> I should also note that Centurylink has been less than cooperative on even
> thinking about changing my routes to a pref of 70 on our behalf (they don't
> accept communities). I think time to get the account rep involved ...
"they don't accep
On Aug 5, 2011, at 9:17 AM, Brian Mengel wrote:
> In reviewing IPv6 end user allocation policies, I can find little
> agreement on what prefix length is appropriate for residential end
> users. /64 and /56 seem to be the favorite candidates, with /56 being
> slightly preferred.
>
> I am most cu
I should also note that Centurylink has been less than cooperative on even
thinking about changing my routes to a pref of 70 on our behalf (they don't
accept communities). I think time to get the account rep involved ...
On 8/7/11 8:30 AM, "Graham Wooden" wrote:
> Thanks Paul.
>
> Localpref wi
Thanks Paul.
Localpref with Qwest on my AT&T prefixes was 100 until last week ... So my
prepends to balance between the two was working just fine for the past 2
years or so.
My announcements to CenturyLink to Qwest are coming out as 100.
I am not a direct customer of Qwest, so sending the communi
17 matches
Mail list logo
