William Herrin wrote:
C) Big iron is either using massively parallel FIBs (many copies of
the radix tree) or they're using TCAM instead of DRAM, a specialized
tristate version of SRAM. In either case, you're talking 10 to 100
times the cost, ten times the power consumption and ten times the
Joel jaeggli wrote:
That's a fairly simplistic version of why shim6 failed. A better reason
(appart from the fact the building an upper layer overlay of the whole
internet on an ip protocol that's largely unedeployed was hard) is that
Shim6 failed mostly because of its complexity.
It is
Morn' Steve,
s...@gibbard.org (Steve Gibbard) wrote:
I have no idea what Cisco equipment Elmar is using, but I wouldn't jump to
the conclusion that it can't withdraw routes when needed.
We use scripts external to both the routing platform and the
service delivery platform to check the
Just looked at j root in detail.
Unfortunately not much of traffic is going to J root. BSNL along with its
main upstream providers Tata Airtel - all picking outside routes. Tata
AS4755 is taking directly to AS6453 while AS6453 is passing to NTT in
London which is next taking back to Japan and
J root should be j.root-servers.net (192.58.128.30).
Che-Hoo
On 12 Mar, 2012, at 5:09 PM, Anurag Bhatia wrote:
Just looked at j root in detail.
Unfortunately not much of traffic is going to J root. BSNL along with its
main upstream providers Tata Airtel - all picking outside routes.
Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us writes:
On 3/11/2012 3:15 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
But ARIN's action meant it never had a chance. I really don't get why they
felt the need to start allowing IPv6 PI after a decade
Because as far back as 2003 ARIN members (and members from all the
Grass-roots, bottom-up policy process
+
Need for multihoming
+
Got tired of waiting
=
IPv6 PI
-r
A perfect summation. Also given that people understand what PI space is and how
it works and indeed it does pretty much just work for the end users of the
space.
--
Leigh Porter
UK
The big issue is not the control plane but forwarding plane memory. SRAM is hot
and expensive.
Jared Mauch
On Mar 10, 2012, at 5:50 PM, Sven Olaf Kamphuis s...@cb3rob.net wrote:
you did buy a new iphone i bet.. why no modern routers.
On 12-3-2012 16:07, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us writes:
Grass-roots, bottom-up policy process
+
Need for multihoming
+
Got tired of waiting
=
IPv6 PI
+
Cheap End Users
=
IPv6 NPt (IPv6 Prefix Translation)
Cheers,
Seth
In a message written on Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 11:07:54AM -0400, Robert E.
Seastrom wrote:
Grass-roots, bottom-up policy process
+
Need for multihoming
+
Got tired of waiting
=
IPv6 PI
I'll also add that Shim6 folks never made a good economic argument.
It's true that having routes in the
On 12 Mar 2012, at 16:21 , Leigh Porter wrote:
Grass-roots, bottom-up policy process
+
Need for multihoming
+
Got tired of waiting
=
IPv6 PI
A perfect summation.
Except that it didn't happen in that order. When ARIN approved PI the shim6
effort was well underway, but it was too early
On Mar 12, 10:07 am, Robert E. Seastrom r...@seastrom.com wrote:
It didn't help that there was initially no implementation of shim6
whatsoever. That later turned into a single prototype implementation
of shim6 for linux. As much as I tried to keep an open mind about
shim6, eventually it
Hey!
On 3/8/12 8:24 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:
On Monday, March 05, 2012 09:36:41 PM Jimmy Hess wrote:
...
(16) The default gateway's IP address is always 192.168.0.1
(17) The user portion of E-mail addresses never contain special
characters like - + $ ~ . ,, [, ]
I've just had my '
Does anyone have a user manual and/or configuration guide for a Ciena
CN4200? I tried contacting their technical publication phone number and
email but never heard back. If anyone has anything that's more in-depth
than marketing material, please contact me off-list. I'm primarily
interested in
On Mar 12, 2012, at 8:23 AM, Seth Mos wrote:
On 12-3-2012 16:07, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us writes:
Grass-roots, bottom-up policy process
+
Need for multihoming
+
Got tired of waiting
=
IPv6 PI
+
Cheap End Users
=
IPv6 NPt (IPv6 Prefix
On Mar 12, 2012, at 8:56 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 12 Mar 2012, at 16:21 , Leigh Porter wrote:
Grass-roots, bottom-up policy process
+
Need for multihoming
+
Got tired of waiting
=
IPv6 PI
A perfect summation.
Except that it didn't happen in that order. When ARIN
On Mar 11, 2012, at 3:15 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 11 Mar 2012, at 20:15 , Joel jaeggli wrote:
The IETF and IRTF have looked at the routing scalability issue for a
long time. The IETF came up with shim6, which allows multihoming
without BGP. Unfortunately, ARIN started to allow
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/03/11/icann_loses_one_horse_race/
-Henry
Hi,
Op 12 mrt 2012, om 18:09 heeft Owen DeLong het volgende geschreven:
+
Cheap End Users
=
IPv6 NPt (IPv6 Prefix Translation)
Cheers,
Seth
I don't get the association between cheap end users and NPT. Can you explain
how one relates to the other, given the added costs of
Ryan Malayter malay...@gmail.com writes:
On Mar 12, 10:07 am, Robert E. Seastrom r...@seastrom.com wrote:
It didn't help that there was initially no implementation of shim6
whatsoever. That later turned into a single prototype implementation
of shim6 for linux. As much as I tried to keep
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 11:31 AM, Leo Bicknell bickn...@ufp.org wrote:
In a message written on Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 11:07:54AM -0400, Robert E.
Seastrom wrote:
Grass-roots, bottom-up policy process
+
Need for multihoming
+
Got tired of waiting
=
IPv6 PI
It was never clear to me that
On Mar 12, 2012, at 11:53 AM, Seth Mos wrote:
Hi,
Op 12 mrt 2012, om 18:09 heeft Owen DeLong het volgende geschreven:
+
Cheap End Users
=
IPv6 NPt (IPv6 Prefix Translation)
Cheers,
Seth
I don't get the association between cheap end users and NPT. Can you explain
how one
On 12 March 2012 09:59, Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo carlosm3...@gmail.com wrote:
Hey!
On 3/8/12 8:24 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:
On Monday, March 05, 2012 09:36:41 PM Jimmy Hess wrote:
...
(16) The default gateway's IP address is always 192.168.0.1
(17) The user portion of E-mail addresses
On 12 Mar 2012, at 19:30, Owen DeLong wrote:
I know my view is unpopular, but, I really would rather see PI made
inexpensive and readily available than see NAT brought into the IPv6
mainstream. However, in my experience, very few residential customers make
use of that 3G backup port.
So
On Sun, 11 Mar 2012, Frank Bulk wrote:
Some nice info here, too: http://bgp.he.net/report/dns
Nice, but... not 100% up to date?
.cw seems to be missing.
--
Marco
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Doug Barton [mailto:do...@dougbarton.us]
Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2012 5:14 PM
Cc:
On Mar 12, 2012, at 12:50 PM, Tim Chown wrote:
On 12 Mar 2012, at 19:30, Owen DeLong wrote:
I know my view is unpopular, but, I really would rather see PI made
inexpensive and readily available than see NAT brought into the IPv6
mainstream. However, in my experience, very few
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Marco Davids (Prive) wrote:
Some nice info here, too: http://bgp.he.net/report/dns
.cw seems to be missing.
Oops, it isn't... it's just not wehere I expected it.
--
Marco
good head line copy edit.
body lacks substance, though not attitude.
-e
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 3:50 PM, Tim Chown t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk wrote:
On 12 Mar 2012, at 19:30, Owen DeLong wrote:
I know my view is unpopular, but, I really would rather see
PI made inexpensive and readily available than see NAT
brought into the IPv6 mainstream. However, in my
experience, very
Can you be a little more specific? Otherwise I think your answer would
be The Internet
-Hammer-
I was a normal American nerd
-Jack Herer
On 3/12/2012 3:05 PM, Maverick wrote:
Is there a whitelist that applications have to talk to in order to
update themselves?
Shouldn't eh be Canada and not Western Sahara?
-Hammer-
I was a normal American nerd
-Jack Herer
On 3/12/2012 3:10 PM, Marco Davids (Prive) wrote:
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Marco Davids (Prive) wrote:
Some nice info here, too: http://bgp.he.net/report/dns
.cw seems to be missing.
Oops, it
On 03/12/2012 10:05 AM, Maverick wrote:
Is there a whitelist that applications have to talk to in order to
update themselves?
Which applications? What updates?
2012/3/12 Maverick myeaddr...@gmail.com
Is there a whitelist that applications have to talk to in order to
update themselves?
sometimes
vague question gets vague answer.
yes
-Dan
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Maverick wrote:
Is there a whitelist that applications have to talk to in order to
update themselves?
Like list of sites that operating systems or applications installed on
your machines go to update themselves. One way could be to go on each
vendors site and look at their update servers like
microsoft.update.com but it would be good if there is a list of such
servers for all OS and applications
2012/3/12 Maverick myeaddr...@gmail.com
Like list of sites that operating systems or applications installed on
your machines go to update themselves. One way could be to go on each
vendors site and look at their update servers like
microsoft.update.com but it would be good if there is a list
I'm trying to determine if this is supposed to be an exercise in
How To Annoy Your Sysadmins
or
How To Do Network Security The Really, Really Wrong Way
or some combination of the two
- Pete
On 12-03-12 04:34 PM, Maverick wrote:
Like list of sites that operating systems or
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 4:40 PM, Peter Kristolaitis alte...@alter3d.ca wrote:
On 12-03-12 04:34 PM, Maverick wrote:
Like list of sites that operating systems or applications installed on
your machines go to update themselves. One way could be to go on each
vendors site and look at their update
On 12-03-12 04:53 PM, William Herrin wrote:
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 4:40 PM, Peter Kristolaitisalte...@alter3d.ca wrote:
On 12-03-12 04:34 PM, Maverick wrote:
Like list of sites that operating systems or applications installed on
your machines go to update themselves. One way could be to go
On 03/12/2012 10:53 AM, William Herrin wrote:
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 4:40 PM, Peter Kristolaitisalte...@alter3d.ca wrote:
On 12-03-12 04:34 PM, Maverick wrote:
Like list of sites that operating systems or applications installed on
your machines go to update themselves. One way could be to go
2012/3/12 Tei oscar.vi...@gmail.com
On 12 March 2012 09:59, Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo carlosm3...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hey!
On 3/8/12 8:24 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:
On Monday, March 05, 2012 09:36:41 PM Jimmy Hess wrote:
...
(16) The default gateway's IP address is always 192.168.0.1
On 12 Mar 2012, at 21:15 , William Herrin wrote:
Not at all. You just build a second tier to the routing system.
It's so strange how people think a locator/identifier split will solve the
scalability problem. We already have two tiers: DNS names and IP addresses. So
that didn't solve
Was waiting for a response from Eric and without fail he comes through in
record time... :-b
Stefan Fouant
JNCIE-SEC, JNCIE-SP, JNCIE-ER, JNCI
Technical Trainer, Juniper Networks
Follow us on Twitter @JuniperEducate
Sent from my iPad
On Mar 12, 2012, at 4:14 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams
On Mar 12, 2012, at 2:12 PM, Keegan Holley wrote:
2012/3/12 Tei oscar.vi...@gmail.com
On 12 March 2012 09:59, Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo carlosm3...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hey!
On 3/8/12 8:24 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:
On Monday, March 05, 2012 09:36:41 PM Jimmy Hess wrote:
...
(16) The
On 03/12/2012 02:32 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Whenever I've built code to check someone's email address on a form, I always just looked for the following: 1. matches ^[^@]+@[A-Za-z0-0\-\.]+[A-Za-z]$ 2. The component to the right of the @ sign returns at least one A, , or MX record. If it passed
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 5:32 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
Whenever I've built code to check someone's email address on a form, I always
just looked for the following:
1. matches ^[^@]+@[A-Za-z0-0\-\.]+[A-Za-z]$
2. The component to the right of the @ sign returns at least
On 03/12/2012 09:46 AM, Tei wrote:
On 12 March 2012 09:59, Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzocarlosm3...@gmail.com wrote:
Hey!
On 3/8/12 8:24 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:
On Monday, March 05, 2012 09:36:41 PM Jimmy Hess wrote:
...
(16) The default gateway's IP address is always 192.168.0.1
(17) The
On 2012-03-12 22:14, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 12 Mar 2012, at 21:15 , William Herrin wrote:
Not at all. You just build a second tier to the routing system.
It's so strange how people think a locator/identifier split will solve
the scalability problem. We already have two tiers: DNS
I don't believe that is true.
From RFC-821, it is true that:
@ONE, @TWO:JOE@THREE
Is supposed to be valid as a forward path, but, not an address. However, I
believe its
use is effectively, if not actually deprecated at this point.
It doesn't really describe address, per se, but, it does
I think this proves one thing...
Given enough monkeys with typewriters, you will, in fact, not
get Shakespeare, but, instead, regular expressions for Shakespeare's
email address.
Owen
On Mar 12, 2012, at 3:09 PM, Paul Graydon wrote:
On 03/12/2012 09:46 AM, Tei wrote:
On 12 March 2012 09:59,
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 5:14 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum
iljit...@muada.com wrote:
On 12 Mar 2012, at 21:15 , William Herrin wrote:
Not at all. You just build a second tier to the routing system.
We already have two tiers: DNS names and IP addresses.
Hi Iljitsch,
If only that were true. The DNS
Owen DeLong wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Email_address#Valid_email_addresses
You may have noticed my particular test wouldn't accept foo!bar!ucbvax!user
format addresses, either.
It works well enough for my purposes. I did not claim it was perfect.
Why not leave it to the MTA to
William Herrin wrote:
When I ran the numbers a few years ago, a route had a global cost
impact in the neighborhood of $8000/year. It's tough to make a case
that folks who need multihoming's reliability can't afford to put that
much into the system.
The cost for bloated DFZ routing table is
Sometimes you don't want to have your application exposed to an unconstrained
wait outside
of your control.
Sometimes your application may not have access/permissions/etc. to open
sockets. (This is actually
a common security precaution in some CGI environments).
Owen
On Mar 12, 2012, at 4:22
i tend to two defenses
o if it is not an urgent update, i wait to hear from peers that
it is safe.
o i generally do not accept pop-up updates. if one looks tasty,
when possible i navigate directly to the site (yes, i know about
dns spoofing) and download.
randy
2012/3/12 Masataka Ohta mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp:
William Herrin wrote:
When I ran the numbers a few years ago, a route had a global cost
impact in the neighborhood of $8000/year. It's tough to make a case
that folks who need multihoming's reliability can't afford to put that
much
Owen DeLong wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Email_address#Valid_email_addresses
You may have noticed my particular test wouldn't accept foo!bar!ucbvax!user
format addresses, either.
It works well enough for my purposes. I did not claim it was perfect.
Why not leave it to the
An IP-based whitelist is pretty much doomed from the start. Many
vendors use content delivery networks and that is too large and volatile
to chase.
We have had some success in captive portal environments with DNS
manipulation, allowing only certain domains to resolve, and redirecting
everything
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 8:01 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
But suppose you had a TCP protocol that wasn't statically bound to the
IP address by the application layer. Suppose each side of the
connection referenced each other by name, TCP expected to spread
packets across multiple
On Mar 12, 2012, at 5:32 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
On Mar 12, 2012, at 2:12 PM, Keegan Holley wrote:
2012/3/12 Tei oscar.vi...@gmail.com
On 12 March 2012 09:59, Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo carlosm3...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hey!
On 3/8/12 8:24 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:
On Monday,
In message camcdhonqqyuzd5cllzmbkw1tjq5h6qmle9lljo4z_h4d3co...@mail.gmail.com
, Josh Hoppes writes:
Also consider the significant increased load on DNS servers to
handling the constant stream of dynamic DNS updates to make this
possible, and that you have to find some reliable trust mechanism
In message 201203130131.q2d1vlxa087...@aurora.sol.net, Joe Greco writes:
Owen DeLong wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Email_address#Valid_email_addresses
You may have noticed my particular test wouldn't accept foo!bar!ucbvax!us
er format addresses, either.
It works well
On 13/03/2012, at 2:31 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
In a message written on Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 11:07:54AM -0400, Robert E.
Seastrom wrote:
Grass-roots, bottom-up policy process
+
Need for multihoming
+
Got tired of waiting
=
IPv6 PI
I'll also add that Shim6 folks never made a good
On 13/03/2012, at 8:14 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 12 Mar 2012, at 21:15 , William Herrin wrote:
Not at all. You just build a second tier to the routing system.
It's so strange how people think a locator/identifier split will solve the
scalability problem. We already have two
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 11:33 PM, Geoff Huston g...@apnic.net wrote:
On 13/03/2012, at 8:14 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 12 Mar 2012, at 21:15 , William Herrin wrote:
Not at all. You just build a second tier to the routing system.
It's so strange how people think a locator/identifier
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 10:42 PM, Josh Hoppes josh.hop...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 8:01 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
Which would be just dandy for mobile IP applications.
DNS handles many of millions of records sure, but that's because it
was designed with caching
66 matches
Mail list logo
