For anyone's following the story: the weeks-long congestion on he.net remains,
however, hetzner has switched my original route to an alternative uplink.
I'm no longer experiencing the he.net evening jitter that would bring my
avg rtt from the non-congested 114ms to an average of 140ms and
Hi,
can anybody from Cisco confirm that blogs.cisco.com
(2001:4800:13c1:10::178) is not available via IPv6?
Regards
--
Henri Wahl
IT Department
Leibniz-Institut fuer Festkoerper- u.
Werkstoffforschung Dresden
tel: (03 51) 46 59 - 797
email: h.w...@ifw-dresden.de
http://www.ifw-dresden.de
I'm seeing it down via IPv6:
* Trying 2600:1407:9:295::90...
* Connected to www.cisco.com (2600:1407:9:295::90) port 80 (#0)
GET / HTTP/1.1
User-Agent: curl/7.30.0
Host: www.cisco.com
Accept: */*
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
* Server Apache is not blacklisted
* About to connect() to blogs.cisco.com
Hi,
I'm doing some research on the Cisco Cloud Web Security offering, also
known as ScanSafe.
Has anyone on the lists explored Cisco's ScanSafe SaaS offering, now called
Cisco Cloud Web Security - as a means of providing protection in the cloud
that would potentially negate the requirement to
On Sun, 01 Dec 2013 01:19:14 +0100, Rene Wilhelm said:
(Getting caught up after a few weeks elsewhere)
Reporting in the same format as the IRR, riswhois is plugin
compatible with whois.radb.net. If your linux traceroutederives
from http://traceroute.sourceforge.net/ all it takes to switch to
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Herro91 herr...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I'm doing some research on the Cisco Cloud Web Security offering, also
known as ScanSafe.
Has anyone on the lists explored Cisco's ScanSafe SaaS offering, now called
Cisco Cloud Web Security - as a means of providing
One wonders if this is an industry trend.
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 10:38 PM, Thomas grave...@swbell.net wrote:
You need to talk to Alcatel Tac team. They will be able to help you.
Prem tech don't have the knowledge or resources. Tier one is useless and
can only do basic diagnostics., tier
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 7:57 PM, John Kreno john.kr...@gmail.com wrote:
One wonders if this is an industry trend.
Outsourcing the outsourcers to other outsourcers... and at the end of the
day everyone is congratulating everyone that the SLAs have been met :))
Brian Dickson brian.peter.dick...@gmail.com writes:
Rob Seastrom wrote:
Ricky Beam jfbeam at
gmail.comhttp://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
writes:
* On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 08:39:59 -0500, Rob Seastrom rs at seastrom.com
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog wrote: *
On 04.12.2013 4:14, Mark Andrews wrote:
In message 529d9492.8020...@inblock.ru, Nikolay Shopik writes:
On 03/12/13 02:54, Owen DeLong wrote:
I have talked to my bean counters. We give out /48s to anyone who wants
them and we don't charge for IPv6 add
ress space.
There is some ISP who
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Rob Seastrom r...@seastrom.com wrote:
Brian Dickson brian.peter.dick...@gmail.com writes:
Rob Seastrom wrote:
Ricky Beam jfbeam at
gmail.comhttp://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
writes:
* On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 08:39:59 -0500, Rob Seastrom rs at
First of all, why are you allowing or disallowing split tunnel networks ?
There is always the risk that he/she may get infected with some malware
that your antivirus does not recognize and it spreads through the internet
network when the user VPNs to the corporate network.
From what I've seen,
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Rob Seastrom r...@seastrom.com wrote:
Brian Dickson brian.peter.dick...@gmail.com writes:
Rob Seastrom wrote:
Ricky Beam jfbeam at gmail.com
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
writes:
* On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 08:39:59 -0500, Rob Seastrom
Not necessarily transit - leaf ASN ISP networks (which do IP transit for
consumers, but do not have BGP customers) would also be counted in. They do
still exist, right?
Brian
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Christopher Morrow
morrowc.li...@gmail.comwrote:
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Rob
Brian Dickson wrote:
And root of the problem was brought into existence by the insistence
that every network (LAN) must be a /64.
Get your history straight. The /64 was an outcome of operators deciding
there was not enough room for hierarchy in the original proposal for the
IPv6 address as 64
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 2:25 PM, Brian Dickson
brian.peter.dick...@gmail.com wrote:
Not necessarily transit - leaf ASN ISP networks (which do IP transit for
consumers, but do not have BGP customers) would also be counted in. They do
still exist, right?
that's still a transit as, right? I think
On Dec 4, 2013, at 10:32 , Nikolay Shopik sho...@inblock.ru wrote:
On 04.12.2013 4:14, Mark Andrews wrote:
In message 529d9492.8020...@inblock.ru, Nikolay Shopik writes:
On 03/12/13 02:54, Owen DeLong wrote:
I have talked to my bean counters. We give out /48s to anyone who wants
them and
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 2:34 PM, Tony Hain alh-i...@tndh.net wrote:
Brian Dickson wrote:
And root of the problem was brought into existence by the insistence
that every network (LAN) must be a /64.
[snip]
about how many bits to add for hosts on the lan. The fact it came out to 64
The
On Dec 4, 2013, at 10:21 , Brian Dickson brian.peter.dick...@gmail.com wrote:
Rob Seastrom wrote:
Ricky Beam jfbeam at
gmail.comhttp://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
writes:
* On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 08:39:59 -0500, Rob Seastrom rs at seastrom.com
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:04 PM, Brian Dickson
brian.peter.dick...@gmail.com wrote:
IF deployed by operators correctly, the global routing table should be 1
IPv6 route per ASN.
However, that is only feasible if each ASN can efficiently aggregate
forever (or 50 years at least).
and if your
On Wed, 4 Dec 2013, Owen DeLong wrote:
significantly worse policies than wireline providers. Wireless bandwidth
is rapidly approaching parity with wired bandwidth pricing at consumer
levels.
Have you seen the cost of an LTE base station including install and
monthly fees? If you did, you
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
On Dec 4, 2013, at 10:21 , Brian Dickson brian.peter.dick...@gmail.com
wrote:
Second of all, what would make much more sense in your scenario is
to aggregate at one or two of those levels. I'd expect probably the POP
and
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Brian Dickson
brian.peter.dick...@gmail.com wrote:
Except that we have a hard limit of 1M total, which after a few 100K from
where does the 1M come from?
On Dec 4, 2013, at 12:43 , Brian Dickson brian.peter.dick...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
On Dec 4, 2013, at 10:21 , Brian Dickson brian.peter.dick...@gmail.com
wrote:
Second of all, what would make much more sense in your
On Dec 4, 2013, at 12:35 , Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote:
On Wed, 4 Dec 2013, Owen DeLong wrote:
significantly worse policies than wireline providers. Wireless bandwidth is
rapidly approaching parity with wired bandwidth pricing at consumer levels.
Have you seen the cost of
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:48 PM, Christopher Morrow
morrowc.li...@gmail.comwrote:
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Brian Dickson
brian.peter.dick...@gmail.com wrote:
Except that we have a hard limit of 1M total, which after a few 100K from
where does the 1M come from?
FIB table sizes,
On 12/4/13, 12:58 PM, Brian Dickson wrote:
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:48 PM, Christopher Morrow
morrowc.li...@gmail.comwrote:
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Brian Dickson
brian.peter.dick...@gmail.com wrote:
Except that we have a hard limit of 1M total, which after a few 100K from
where
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:58 PM, Brian Dickson
brian.peter.dick...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:48 PM, Christopher Morrow morrowc.li...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Brian Dickson
brian.peter.dick...@gmail.com wrote:
Except that we have a hard limit of 1M
On Wed, 4 Dec 2013, Owen DeLong wrote:
Nope... I look at the consumer side pricing and the fact that cellular
providers by and large are NOT losing money. I assume that means that
the rest of the math behind the scenes must work somehow.
Cost != price.
Also, wireless providers are not
In message cec4c38b.3a8eb%...@asgard.org, Lee Howard writes:
On 12/3/13 7:14 PM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
In message 529d9492.8020...@inblock.ru, Nikolay Shopik writes:
On 03/12/13 02:54, Owen DeLong wrote:
I have talked to my bean counters. We give out /48s to anyone who
All,
I realize this is not exactly relevant to the usual topics on NANOG, but I
thought this list was a decent place to ask a question related to cellular data
usage limits.
Have any of you experienced or been subjected to a domestic data roaming
policy? I am a customer of a carrier who
Have any of you experienced or been subjected to a domestic data
roaming policy? I am a customer of a carrier who advertises
Unlimited Nationwide 4G data, but limits their customers to 50MB per
month while traveling in an area they do not have coverage (Alaska,
for example). I've never heard
In my experience, nationwide, typically just means the continental 48 states,
for the most part.
From: Jay Ashworth [j...@baylink.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 5:20 PM
To: NANOG
Subject: Re: Question related to Cellular Data and
Since we're on the subject of T-Mobile USA, who was kind enough to send me a
notification via SMS that my 10 megabytes of roaming data allotment was all
used up yesterday while driving a long stretch of I-77 between somewhere in
mid-Ohio all the way to somewhere about Wytheville, VA, I'm
Traveling, I usually see better data performance natively on a network vs
roaming.
In outlying areas, such as Maine, Alaska, Hawaii, you're better off using a
local telco. More likely to have better coverage.
- Jared
On Dec 4, 2013, at 5:45 PM, Jack Vizelter j...@mail.rockefeller.edu wrote:
On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 22:18:12PM +, Joshua Goldbard wrote:
... When you send your data
over a partners network it raises your wireless company's cost of
delivering service, in some cases so much so that you become
unprofitable.
Some folks over at Ting(.com) suggest that the cost for
On Dec 4, 2013, at 13:43 , Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote:
On Wed, 4 Dec 2013, Owen DeLong wrote:
Nope... I look at the consumer side pricing and the fact that cellular
providers by and large are NOT losing money. I assume that means that the
rest of the math behind the scenes
--- ja...@puck.nether.net wrote:
From: Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net
In outlying areas, such as Maine, Alaska, Hawaii, you're
better off using a local telco. More likely to have better
coverage.
Not in Hawaii. Hawaiian Telcom used to (still do?)
Ting is an MVNO (just like my company 2600hz) and while it would violate the
terms of my NDA to confirm the 10x number I can say that we found it to be
prohibitively expensive.
One should be aware that, just like in the IP transit world, the small players
have different rules than the big
For example, the regional wireless carrier my $DAYJOB has partnered with has
rate-limiting in place with its two major roaming partners, to help control
roaming costs. And when it uses the word unlimited in its marketing
materials it means you can access data anywhere where there is access, not
Good Afternoon,
If there is a Comcast DNS Engineer on the list could you contact me off-list?
We are experiencing an odd issue with 75.75.75.75.
Thanks,
Aaron
[Description: Description: Description: logo-email]
Aaron Childs, CCNA
Associate Director, Networking
Information Technology
Phil if you can send me your full name, address, billing telephone number,
contact number, U-Verse BAN if you know it, and what is wrong and for how long,
I can escalate this to get immediate attention.
Steve
-Original Message-
From: Phil Karn [mailto:k...@philkarn.net]
Sent:
My Cisco IPv6 contacts confirmed that they were made aware of this 12 hours
ago and it's being worked on.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Jared Mauch [mailto:ja...@puck.nether.net]
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 8:23 AM
To: Henri Wahl
Cc: NANOG list
Subject: Re: blogs.cisco.com not
On Wed, 4 Dec 2013, Owen DeLong wrote:
Depends on your carrier. From ATT, I have $29 unlimited and I have definitely
cranked down more over that (faster) LTE connection in some months than through my
$100+ cable connection.
From VZW, I'm paying $100+/month and only getting 10GB over LTE, but
Blanket reply.. :)
So at what point does unlimited mean unlimited? Roaming agreements have always
been two sided. In my case.. I roam on to ATT's network, the same as ATT folk
roam into tmo when they do not have coverage. At the end of the month the two
are reconciled and someone gets paid. If
45 matches
Mail list logo
