Hi all,
I have a 7200 series router (7204) here and I am trying to figure out
something with it. Currently the router has a NPE-G1 card in it, giving
it 3 gig interfaces but I need an extra gig interface on it to make 4.
Having a look around the available options are either get a PA-GE card
Hi,
The other option left is the I/O controller. I found that you can get a port
adaptor jacket card [2] for the 7200's that let you stick a normal interface
card into the I/O controller slot (instead of the I/O controller itself).
My main concern is if the jacket card uses its own PCI
On 3/08/2012 5:44 PM, Sander Steffann wrote:
On a 7206VXR it shows:
PCI bus mb0_mb1 (Slots 0, 1, 3 and 5) has a capacity of 600 bandwidth points.
PCI bus mb2 (Slots 2, 4, 6) has a capacity of 600 bandwidth points.
Slot 0 is the I/O module, so it seems to share the same limitations.
- Sander
shthead wrote:
Hi all,
I have a 7200 series router (7204) here and I am trying to figure out
something with it. Currently the router has a NPE-G1 card in it, giving
it 3 gig interfaces but I need an extra gig interface on it to make 4.
Having a look around the available options are either
This is a fascinating thread!
I have had multiple class C address blocks assigned to us for many years (since
the 80's) I have 2 T1 connections and one of them is up for contract renewal. I
have wanted to replace one of the expensive T1s for a long time. DSL and Cable
are available here at
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Richard Miller rmil...@millerad.com wrote:
I am stumped.
Any ideas?
time to migrate to carriers that care about you and your business?
On 08/03/2012 10:31 AM, Richard Miller wrote:
--snip--
Perhaps I can route to a co-located server then a tunnel back to the server farm
over a static IP DSL or Cable link???
I am stumped.
Any ideas?
Rich
That would indeed be a solution to your problem. Have a cheap colo
somewhere. Have
Hi,
Yes the easier way to do it is have your subnet routed to someone
that is willing to colo your router, or provide your with something like
NHRP, and use a 87x on your brand new unnamed Cable/DSL provider to
create a NHRP tunnel for it.
We have many customers which required
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 11:26 AM, Alain Hebert aheb...@pubnix.net wrote:
Yes the easier way to do it is have your subnet routed to someone that
is willing to colo your router, or provide your with something like NHRP,
and use a 87x on your brand new unnamed Cable/DSL provider to create a
On 08/03/2012 11:44 AM, Richard Miller wrote:
Chris,
Been thinking about taking that route no pun intended. It just
moves the main link off-site. We've had these T1s for so long the
maintenance and ops have become second nature. Someone should be able to
route over a DSL/Cable/whatever link.
On Fri, 3 Aug 2012, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Richard Miller rmil...@millerad.com wrote:
I am stumped.
Any ideas?
time to migrate to carriers that care about you and your business?
The tough part there is that Verizon is not required (as I understand it)
[Feels operational to me.]
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/260299/us_house_to_itu_hands_off_the_internet.html
The U.S. House of Representatives voted late Thursday to send a message to the
United Nations' International Telecommunication Union that the Internet doesn't
need new
On 8/3/12 8:56 AM, William Herrin wrote:
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 11:26 AM, Alain Hebert aheb...@pubnix.net wrote:
Yes the easier way to do it is have your subnet routed to someone that
is willing to colo your router, or provide your with something like NHRP,
and use a 87x on your brand new
This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet
Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan.
The posting is sent to APOPS, NANOG, AfNOG, AusNOG, SANOG, PacNOG, LacNOG,
TRNOG, CaribNOG and the RIPE Routing Working Group.
Daily listings are sent to
Anyone charging end users for IPv6 space yet? :p
Just wondering, with so many IPv6 resources in a single allocation it
would seem difficult to charge anything at all.
1. How are you making up loss of revenue on IPv4 assignments?
2. Are you charging anything?
3. Is the cost built into the
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 8:51 AM, Seth Mattinen se...@rollernet.us wrote:
On 8/3/12 8:56 AM, William Herrin wrote:
It
seems the telcos and cable companies don't consider the commodity
Internet part of their equipment to be something which needs
electricity during an extended grid outage. Cox.
On 8/3/12 12:22 PM, Otis L. Surratt, Jr. wrote:
Anyone charging end users for IPv6 space yet? :p
Nope, and no plans to.
~Seth
FWIW - Comcast isn't charging for native connectivity to residential users.
/TJ
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 3:38 PM, Seth Mattinen se...@rollernet.us wrote:
On 8/3/12 12:22 PM, Otis L. Surratt, Jr. wrote:
Anyone charging end users for IPv6 space yet? :p
Nope, and no plans to.
~Seth
On Aug 3, 2012, at 12:31 , William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 8:51 AM, Seth Mattinen se...@rollernet.us wrote:
On 8/3/12 8:56 AM, William Herrin wrote:
It
seems the telcos and cable companies don't consider the commodity
Internet part of their equipment to be
When I try to us the automated form to unblock my server's IP I get:
***
67.22.175.244
We have received your request for removal from our inbound blocklist.
After investigating the issue, we have found that the IP you provided
for removal is currently not on our blocklist.
We need the IP
On Aug 3, 2012, at 2:06 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.net wrote:
[Feels operational to me.]
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/260299/us_house_to_itu_hands_off_the_internet.html
The U.S. House of Representatives voted late Thursday to send a message to
the United
On Aug 3, 2012, at 3:22 PM, Otis L. Surratt, Jr. o...@ocosa.com wrote:
Anyone charging end users for IPv6 space yet? :p
snip/
Otis
I can't imagine that this would be anything but counterproductive. End users
are not interested in IPv6 - most would not recognize IPv6 if it fell out of
The U.S. House of Representatives voted late Thursday to send a message to
the United Nations' International Telecommunication Union that the Internet
doesn't need new international regulations. The vote was unanimous: 414-0
Unanimous? I didn't think this
On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 08:47:30PM +, John Curran wrote:
On Aug 3, 2012, at 2:06 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.net wrote:
[Feels operational to me.]
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/260299/us_house_to_itu_hands_off_the_internet.html
The U.S. House of
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
On Aug 3, 2012, at 12:31 , William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
Could be worse. I could have Pepco instead of Dominion. But it could
be better. And 20 years ago the reliability was.
20 years ago you didn't have a megabit to
Correction: It's cable.comcast.com (not .net) and it turns out that
that is the domain used by comcast employees not customers. our mail
gets delivered to comcast customers just fine, just not to comcast
employees.
I have to say that the tier 1 person I talked to was fairly clueful
regarding
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 6:06 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.net wrote:
Unanimous? I didn't think this congress could agree the earth is round
unanimously.
Perhaps because the earth is usually more properly described as an
oblate spheroid...
Gary
A good portable generator is more than $500, and if it's a wide-spread
outage there's not enough portable generators to go around, and if there
were, not enough people to set them and give them their fluids. And it
doesn't pay to put a natural gas (or similar) generator at every node for
those
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 5:17 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
On Aug 3, 2012, at 12:31 , William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
Could be worse. I could have Pepco instead of Dominion. But it could
be better. And 20 years
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 11:26 AM, Frank Bulk frnk...@iname.com wrote:
A good portable generator is more than $500, and if it's a wide-spread
outage there's not enough portable generators to go around, and if there
were, not enough people to set them and give them their fluids.
Doesn't take a
On Aug 3, 2012, at 5:09 PM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 08:47:30PM +, John Curran wrote:
In this case, I believe that the message is now quite clear...
Its just the house :) But I suspect Terry delegation will take
note.
Actually, I believe
-Original Message-
From: Frank Bulk [mailto:frnk...@iname.com]
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2012 5:27 PM
To: 'William Herrin'
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: Verizon FiOS - is BGP an option?
A good portable generator is more than $500, and if it's a wide-spread outage
there's not enough
John,
I like your approach - simply no comments
I think the way as your legislation guys decided to follow can be absolutely
wrong.
My opinion that the real problem laid in financial issues with developing
countires and US native commercial interests that you (not you personally - of
This report has been generated at Fri Aug 3 21:13:03 2012 AEST.
The report analyses the BGP Routing Table of AS2.0 router
and generates a report on aggregation potential within the table.
Check http://www.cidr-report.org for a current version of this report.
Recent Table History
Date
BGP Update Report
Interval: 26-Jul-12 -to- 02-Aug-12 (7 days)
Observation Point: BGP Peering with AS131072
TOP 20 Unstable Origin AS
Rank ASNUpds % Upds/PfxAS-Name
1 - AS580054239 3.2% 205.5 -- DNIC-ASBLK-05800-06055 - DoD
Network Information Center
2
On Aug 3, 2012, at 5:57 PM, Dmitry Burkov db...@burkov.aha.ru
wrote:
My opinion that the real problem laid in financial issues with developing
countires
Dmitry -
There is a very real financial issue that developing countries face
with affording the infrastructure that their citizens
On Aug 3, 2012, at 14:17 , William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
On Aug 3, 2012, at 12:31 , William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
Could be worse. I could have Pepco instead of Dominion. But it could
be better. And 20 years ago
If my ISP charged me fees for IPv6 space, I'd ditch them. They already
make enough money as is from modem/cable box rentals.
Derek
On 8/3/2012 6:12 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 12:22 PM, Otis L. Surratt, Jr. o...@ocosa.com wrote:
Anyone charging end users for IPv6 space
Hi,
On Aug 3, 2012, at 2:22 PM, Otis L. Surratt, Jr. o...@ocosa.com wrote:
Anyone charging end users for IPv6 space yet? :p
Just wondering, with so many IPv6 resources in a single allocation it
would seem difficult to charge anything at all.
1. How are you making up loss of revenue on
If anyone's ISPs are overcharging them, I will be able to provide
service for no more than 1 cent per available routable IPv6 address in
any netblock from /64 on up. We have a reasonable startup rate of a
/56 for the price of a /64 for the remainder of 2012, even!
-george
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at
The real issue is not laid in their economics - but in ours - our legacy
players(mobile are the same)
We simply try to hide our own problems behind their issues and use them again
to protect our market interests
- no more.
On Aug 4, 2012, at 2:03 AM, John Curran wrote:
On Aug 3, 2012, at
On 8/3/12 3:42 PM, William Pitcock wrote:
Hi,
On Aug 3, 2012, at 2:22 PM, Otis L. Surratt, Jr. o...@ocosa.com wrote:
Anyone charging end users for IPv6 space yet? :p
Just wondering, with so many IPv6 resources in a single allocation it
would seem difficult to charge anything at all.
1.
On Aug 3, 2012, at 6:44 PM, Dmitry Burkov db...@burkov.aha.ru wrote:
The real issue is not laid in their economics - but in ours - our legacy
players(mobile are the same)
We simply try to hide our own problems behind their issues and use them again
to protect our market interests
- no
in my stupid opinion it is the problem of a new global still developing global
market - key dominated players are from our countries - which see on them as
on strategical national strategic assets. Should I explain more?
Or it is already clear?
I classified censorship and IPR protection in the
By end user I mean hosting clients (cloud, collocation, shared, dedicated, VPS,
etc.) of any sort. For example you have clients that would needsay /24 for
their dedicated server. If you charge a $1.00/IP which is typical then you
would lose that revenue if they converted to IPv6. If you
On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 01:01:35PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
[snip]
If you're that concerned about calling 911 for a heat stroke, why don't
you maintain a POTS line?
Choices are great but carry responsibility and result in
consequences. Some folks don't like to hear that, or just
can't be
Subject: Re: US House to ITU: Hands off the Internet Date: Sat, Aug 04, 2012 at
03:13:53AM +0400 Quoting Dmitry Burkov (db...@burkov.aha.ru):
in my stupid opinion it is the problem of a new global still developing
global market - key dominated players are from our countries - which see on
Hi!
On Aug 3, 2012, at 6:32 PM, Otis L. Surratt, Jr. o...@ocosa.com wrote:
By end user I mean hosting clients (cloud, collocation, shared, dedicated,
VPS, etc.) of any sort. For example you have clients that would needsay
/24 for their dedicated server. If you charge a $1.00/IP which is
On 8/3/12, Otis L. Surratt, Jr. o...@ocosa.com wrote:
Anyone charging end users for IPv6 space yet? :p
ISPs already charge for bandwidth link capacity. Why charge a fee to
discourage subscribers from adopting a protocol that will let the ISP
sell larger capacity links?
IPv6 packet headers are
Add value. You must not charge for the addresses at all, they are not
yours, you can't sell them.
In every smart business, the future is not anymore selling goods but
added value.
If you have a quasi-unlimited number of addresses in every customer, you
can star building up new value added
I would say that the typical usage, at least here in the US, is that an End
User is the one holding an iPhone or sitting at a computer watching the
Olympics, and, ultimately, paying that last mile fee.
Even using your definition, the costs of connectivity (routers, wires,
management) far
As someone else posted, many FTTH installations are centralized as much as
possible to avoid having non-passive equipment in the plant, allowing for
the practicality of onsite generators. That's what we do. But for those
who have powered nodes in the field (distributed/tiered BPON or GPON
You must not charge for the addresses at all, they are not
yours, you can't sell them.
do i pay for them?
On Aug 3, 2012, at 20:22 , Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
You must not charge for the addresses at all, they are not
yours, you can't sell them.
do i pay for them?
NO, you don't. You _MIGHT_ pay for registration services where you are paying
for the service of having them uniquely
I was thinking about End User in a sense of one to simply consume a product or
a service offered by a service provider. However, I should have left room for
those that are assigned GUA space by a service provider and reassign space to
their end users. (i.e. Allocated /48 and reassign /64 or
On Fri, 03 Aug 2012 14:06:19 -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore said:
The vote was unanimous: 414-0
Unanimous? I didn't think this congress could agree the earth is round
unanimously.
And in fact, they didn't - there's 435 Representatives.
pgpJqcuqtLEFV.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On 8/3/2012 9:26 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Fri, 03 Aug 2012 14:06:19 -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore said:
The vote was unanimous: 414-0
Unanimous? I didn't think this congress could agree the earth is round
unanimously.
And in fact, they didn't - there's 435 Representatives.
57 matches
Mail list logo
