Re: Netflix banning HE tunnels

>> >> I dare you to purchase a Yamaha amplifier with an ethernet interface, >> connect it to a good set of speakers within range to make it loud in >> your bedroom and provide me with your timezone and the IP address >> of the Yamaha in its default configuration. > > I don't want a Yamaha

Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?

Owen > On Jun 20, 2016, at 6:03 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >>> If ARIN didn’t exist, how would you go about guaranteeing unique registered >>> GUA blocks and ASNs? Who would operate whois and in-addr.arpa, ip6.arpa? >> ICANN operates in-addr.arpa and ip6.arpa. > ICANN takes the

Re: Netflix banning HE tunnels

On 6/20/16, 1:45 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Mark Andrews" wrote: >For a lot of homes it actually makes sense. You laptops are safe >as they are designed to be connected directly to the Internet. We >do this all the time. Similarly phone

Re: Netflix banning HE tunnels

Wait, is this April Fools? The way to make device manufacturers tighten up their security holes is to stick them on the public Internet? That's a hoot. On Jun 20, 2016 6:57 PM, "Mark Andrews" wrote: > > In message <28657bed-e262-452d-b218-7b39b17f3...@delong.com>, Owen DeLong >

Re: IPv6 Ingress traffic by default

In message , Owen DeLong writes: > > > > And that is the fault of the Raspberry PI. There is zero reason for > > the Raspberry PI to be open to the world before it has been configured. > > It could have a initial configuration that is just > > >

Re: Netflix banning HE tunnels

In message <28657bed-e262-452d-b218-7b39b17f3...@delong.com>, Owen DeLong writes: > > > On Jun 20, 2016, at 13:45 , Mark Andrews wrote: > > > > > > In message , Owen DeLong > > writes: > >> > >>> On Jun 17, 2016, at 10:10 , Mark

Re: IPv6 Ingress traffic by default

> > And that is the fault of the Raspberry PI. There is zero reason for > the Raspberry PI to be open to the world before it has been configured. > It could have a initial configuration that is just > > permit /64 any port 22 > deny any any port 22 It’s very hard to configure a

Re: Netflix banning HE tunnels

> On Jun 20, 2016, at 13:45 , Mark Andrews wrote: > > > In message , Owen DeLong > writes: >> >>> On Jun 17, 2016, at 10:10 , Mark Milhollan wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, 14 Jun 2016, Owen DeLong wrote: On

Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?

> On Jun 17, 2016, at 09:03 , David Conrad wrote: > > Owen, > > On Jun 17, 2016, at 1:20 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: >>> On Jun 16, 2016, at 06:03 , Ca By wrote: >>> >>> Perhaps it is me and my sensibilities, perhaps it is my miser corp

Re: IPv6 Ingress traffic by default

In message , Jared Mauch writes: > > > On Jun 20, 2016, at 1:30 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > > > > >> On Jun 17, 2016, at 10:10 , Mark Milhollan wrote: > >> > >> On Tue, 14 Jun 2016, Owen DeLong wrote: >

Re: IPv6 Ingress traffic by default

On Mon, 20 Jun 2016, Jared Mauch wrote: >On Jun 20, 2016, at 1:30 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >>On Jun 17, 2016, at 10:10 , Mark Milhollan wrote: >>>This (open by default vs closed) has been discussed before, with plenty >>>of people on either side. >>I'm

Re: Netflix banning HE tunnels

My son came home from uni and complained that Netflix wasn't working - which turned out to be my HE tunnel. So I blocked a few suggested IPv6 addresses, and everything is now fine. Except that using IPv6 was connecting to some Netflix servers in the US of A, and using IPv4 connects to the local

Re: Netflix banning HE tunnels

In message , Owen DeLong writes: > > > On Jun 17, 2016, at 10:10 , Mark Milhollan wrote: > > > > On Tue, 14 Jun 2016, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> On Jun 14, 2016, at 11:57 , Ricky Beam wrote: > > > >>> I've seen

Re: IP and Optical domains?

Mark Tinka wrote: Layer 2 transport is required in any scenario. Yes, of course, as I wrote: > all the thing to be done at L2 is to watch BER/FER > above some threshold. I don't deny L2 exist, though, if L3 protocols were properly designed, L2 protection is not required. > Dark fibre, for

Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?

> > Really? The x-connect is run through active equipment operated by the > data centre? > > Is this a specific service you purchased, or is this the way they > deliver x-connects? I remember fighting with Terremark around 2005 or so on this... Connecting OC-12s through them, they insisted

Re: cross connects and their pound of flesh

David said:* Gotta watch out for specifying T1 when you want Ethernet- they could just give you 4 wires on pins 1,2,4,5 :)* I think Patrick was thinking back in the days when Ethernet was just two pairs. You could get away with a lot on 10BaseT, I've even used dry telco pairs between buildings

Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?

> Op 17 jun. 2016, om 21:58 heeft Arnold Nipper het volgende > geschreven: > > On 17.06.2016 10:44, Fredrik Korsbäck wrote: > >> Last year i added 0 new IXPs, upgraded 0 IXPs, but i added over 30 >> new PNI's. >> >> If IXPs wants more of those bits, adjusting prices much

IPv6 Ingress traffic by default

> On Jun 20, 2016, at 1:30 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > >> On Jun 17, 2016, at 10:10 , Mark Milhollan wrote: >> >> On Tue, 14 Jun 2016, Owen DeLong wrote: >>> On Jun 14, 2016, at 11:57 , Ricky Beam wrote: >> I've seen many "IPv6

Re: Netflix banning HE tunnels

> On Jun 17, 2016, at 10:10 , Mark Milhollan wrote: > > On Tue, 14 Jun 2016, Owen DeLong wrote: >> On Jun 14, 2016, at 11:57 , Ricky Beam wrote: > >>> I've seen many "IPv6 Capable" CPEs that apply ZERO security to IPv6 >>> traffic. >> >> Those are by

Re: 1GE L3 aggregation

On 20/Jun/16 16:07, Baldur Norddahl wrote: > > > On 2016-06-20 08:50, Mark Tinka wrote: >> We don't run l3vpn's for infrastructure requirements. We only run >> them if a customer wants an l3vpn service. Mark. > > For a long time we only had one l3vpn customer: our self. It is a good > way to

Re: 1GE L3 aggregation

On 2016-06-20 08:50, Mark Tinka wrote: We don't run l3vpn's for infrastructure requirements. We only run them if a customer wants an l3vpn service. Mark. For a long time we only had one l3vpn customer: our self. It is a good way to separate the control network from the internet. So our

Sri Lanka options

Dear all, One of our partners[1] customers is based in Sri Lanka and we're having issues with latency creeping up to them. We're usually good via our tier 1 transits (Level3 and NTT) at around 180ms, but it's now up to 260ms and causing issues for their tunnels into the kit our partner hosts for

Re: IP and Optical domains?

On 20/Jun/16 12:45, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > > So if you have a fiber break, you're not going to have enough > overcapacity in your network to remain uncongested until this fiber > break is fixed? That was my point - we will have enough capacity on diverse routes to handle the outage. We

Re: IP and Optical domains?

On Mon, 20 Jun 2016, Mark Tinka wrote: If you are deploying additional bandwidth just for protection, I hope you're my competitor. So if you have a fiber break, you're not going to have enough overcapacity in your network to remain uncongested until this fiber break is fixed? -- Mikael

Re: IP and Optical domains?

On 20/Jun/16 11:59, Masataka Ohta wrote: > > The problem is not optical at all but caused by poor L3 routing > protocols and operational attempts to compensate them at L2. Ummh, how so. Layer 2 transport is required in any scenario. Dark fibre, for example, would not have any optical kit on

Re: IP and Optical domains?

Glen Kent wrote: It says that "The IP layer and optical layer are run like two separate kingdoms," Wellingstein says. "Two separate kings manage the IP and optical networks. There is barely any resource alignment between them. > Can somebody shed more light on what it means to say that the IP

Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?

Hi, well, you an say one thing - the talk got a lot of conversation going - most of it useful and positive and informational.isnt that the sign of a good talk? ;-) seriously, this thread has been very active/alive based on the initial trigger of his talk. as for the talk

Re: RPKI implementation

> In single cache scenarios, waiting for some time after the cache has > disappeared is akin to standard BGP session keepalive protocols. > However, several vendors have implemented protocol enhancements to > immediately drop BGP sessions that have failed, rather than wait for the > Hold timer to

Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?

On Mon, 20 Jun 2016, Thomas Mangin wrote: Is this a specific service you purchased, or is this the way they deliver x-connects? It is how they provide x-connects. That's not a x-connect, that's a transport capacity service. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se

Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?

On 20/Jun/16 10:30, Thomas Mangin wrote: > It is how they provide x-connects. Which is fine, but does not work for me. So I won't be using them. Thanks for the info, wasn't aware. Mark.

Re: AW: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?

On 20/Jun/16 10:17, Jürgen Jaritsch wrote: > Same drama in Chicago with Atlantic Metro ... you can purchase a SMF DF xcon > for 800USD/month ... everything else is actively transported on an Ethernet > platform with simple/stupid VLAN tagging. You're even receiving their STP > packets

Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?

On 20 Jun 2016, at 9:13, Mark Tinka wrote: >> Telecity Manchester (UK), now Equinix Manchester, have charged MRC for >> internal cabling since forever (in my case, forever being 2001 when I >> first became customer). >> They normally run their cables through their switches but when the >>

AW: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?

> Really? The x-connect is run through active equipment operated by the data > centre? Same drama in Chicago with Atlantic Metro ... you can purchase a SMF DF xcon for 800USD/month ... everything else is actively transported on an Ethernet platform with simple/stupid VLAN tagging. You're even

Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?

On 20/Jun/16 09:59, Thomas Mangin wrote: > > > Telecity Manchester (UK), now Equinix Manchester, have charged MRC for > internal cabling since forever (in my case, forever being 2001 when I > first became customer). > They normally run their cables through their switches but when the > distance

Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?

http://exa.net.uk/about/contact-us On 17 Jun 2016, at 17:50, Dave Temkin wrote: And with Equinix buying Telecity, how long until we see US-style XCs in Europe? Telecity Manchester (UK), now Equinix Manchester, have charged MRC for internal cabling since forever (in my case, forever being

Re: IP and Optical domains?

On 20/Jun/16 09:28, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > > > E, it didn't flop at all. I know lots of operators that do this. Not the technology - I meant the goal, i.e., that IPoDWDM will merge the optical and IP domains, simplify operations, remove the need for grey-light transponders 100%,

Re: IP and Optical domains?

On Mon, 20 Jun 2016, Mark Tinka wrote: Many of us will remember the days of IPoDWDM. That flopped. E, it didn't flop at all. I know lots of operators that do this. For networks that lease all of their transport, not sure how this will help as transport providers will not open their

Re: 1GE L3 aggregation

On 19/Jun/16 10:17, Saku Ytti wrote: > But I do think, that if L3 to the edge had no commercial problems, > people would universally choose to do it. L2VPN is just workaround to > a commercial problem. Sometimes (residential access) to a technical > problem (how do I share my IPv4 space

Re: IP and Optical domains?

On 19/Jun/16 03:28, Glen Kent wrote: > Mikael, > > Thanks. I was looking at a technical problem. I say this because you may > not have this problem when both are networks are being run by the same > vendor equipment, say Alcatel-Lucent (or Nokia now). Even then. This isn't the first time the

NOC Contact Megafon AS31133

Hi, I need a contact person NOC Megafon AS31133, can you help me ? Thanks ! Kind regards, Marco Paesani Skype: mpaesani Mobile: +39 348 6019349 Success depends on the right choice ! Email: ma...@paesani.it

Re: 1GE L3 aggregation

On 18/Jun/16 21:55, Baldur Norddahl wrote: > Just want to point out that there is no eBGP multi-hop involved. These are > L2 tunnels so the devices appear to be directly connected on the layer 3 > level. Agree, but there is still a disconnect between what the network knows is the actual

Re: 1GE L3 aggregation

On 18/Jun/16 21:31, Baldur Norddahl wrote: > Is the claim about fewer moving parts actually true? Yes if you are > comparing to a plain native single-stack network with IPv4 (or IPv6) > directly on the wire. But we are doing MPLS, so in our case it is L2VPN vs > L3VPN. Both will reroute using

Re: 1GE L3 aggregation

On 18/Jun/16 17:37, James Jun wrote: > One issue with pushing IP transit (L3-wise) with small boxes down to the > metro is that if a particular customer comes under attack, any DDoS in > excess of 10-30 Gbps is going to totally destroy the remote site down to > the floor and then some, until