> could network operators do anything to make these sites “not so easy” to be
> found, reached, and used to end innocent lives?
Nope. If they follow the word of the providers and services they use, there is
no reason to terminate the service. CloudFlare terminating 8chan's service was
a one
Ok, two mass shootings, touchy topic, lots of emotions this weekend. Going
straight to the point.
Most of us who operate internet services believe in not being the moderator
of internet. We provide a service and that’s it. Obviously there are some
established laws around protecting copyrights,
Valdis Kletnieks wrote:
-> Of course, everything has good and bad things, but with NAT444 you
need to do the same,
With static port range assignment, we don't have to.
So you're going to say what ports the users are forced to use...
Like DHCP, yes. So?
Only users know what applications
On Mon, 05 Aug 2019 06:42:30 +0900, Masataka Ohta said:
> JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG wrote:
> > A problem of dynamic sharing is that logging information to be used
> > for such purposes as crime investigation becomes huge.
>
> > -> Of course, everything has good and bad things, but with NAT444
Did you get in touch with someone? What was the problem?
On Sun, Aug 4, 2019, 9:50 PM Janet Sullivan wrote:
> Nanog is magical. I have working IPv6 now.
>
>
>
> *From:* Janet Sullivan
> *Sent:* Sunday, August 4, 2019 6:29 PM
> *To:* 'nanog@nanog.org'
> *Subject:* Xfinity with IPv6 clue?
>
>
>
Nanog is magical. I have working IPv6 now.
From: Janet Sullivan
Sent: Sunday, August 4, 2019 6:29 PM
To: 'nanog@nanog.org'
Subject: Xfinity with IPv6 clue?
I hate resorting to NANOG, but I've spent over 5 hours on the phone with
Xfinity the past two days, and I can't seem to get someone who
Moving away from the discussion around what technology people may choose to go
with, and instead what CPEs may be suitable...
I know this is 464XLAT rather than MAP-E that was originally requested, but
recent versions of D-Link firmware, eg for the DVA-2800, include the CLAT
functionality. My
I hate resorting to NANOG, but I've spent over 5 hours on the phone with
Xfinity the past two days, and I can't seem to get someone who understands my
problem.
I do not have working IPv6 - I do not get an address or PD. I have working
IPv4. Xfinity wanted to blame this on my modem, so I went
Baldur Norddahl wrote:
Or the case of Playstation network. Yes they WILL blacklist your CGN
just the same as they can blacklist a shared MAP ip address. Except it
affects more users.
If IP address sharing by blocks of ports becomes common and there is
typical block size (say, 1024),
cyrus,
cyrus ramirez wrote on 04/08/2019 21:40:
If you're looking for vendor neutral FHRP, VRRP has RFC
documentation. GLBP and HSRP are Cisco proprietary protocols
and are protected information other than the study material
and how too out there.
The thing about the study material I know
On Sat, Aug 3, 2019 at 11:30 AM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG <
nanog@nanog.org> wrote:
>
> > which again is not the case for 464XLAT/NAT64. Each user gets
> > automatically as many ports as he needs at every moment.
>
> Unless all the ports are used up.
>
> -> That's right, but you
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG wrote:
A problem of dynamic sharing is that logging information to be used
for such purposes as crime investigation becomes huge.
-> Of course, everything has good and bad things, but with NAT444 you
need to do the same,
With static port range assignment, we
Keith,
thank you for your response, I think this is slightly becoming offtopic, I
will take this offlist with you but in short, that's not how GeoServer
works (or mainly GIS when displaying things publicly) for something to be
displayed to you, it needs to make it available, and if it's available
On Sunday, 4 August, 2019 12:20, Mehmet Akcin wrote:
>I understand and share your frustration about forcing account
>registration. We had no other way but to implement this as constantly
>we had sources trying to download our data by examining our code. By
>having access controls we were able
If you're looking for vendor neutral FHRP, VRRP has RFC documentation. GLBP and
HSRP are Cisco proprietary protocols and are protected information other than
the study material and how too out there.
Cyrus
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Sat, Aug 3, 2019 at 10:19 AM, Chriztoffer Hansen
thank you for the feedback. It's quite challenging to keep a high scale,
open, a free platform without having ads, they are designed to be easily
closed and should you have problem with it, I am happy to help understand
and hear recommendations.
I understand and share your frustration about
thank you for reaching out offlist.
We've received our core switching hardware (thank you Arista for donating
these) and identified 5-7 potential different sites which we can be
colocated, however, we will start with two that are diversely connected
with each other. somewhere others can go deploy
Between overlaid ads and the thing trying to force an account, i’d Describe it
as a waste of time. Now, a page that delivered the data advertised...
Sent using a machine that autocorrects in interesting ways...
> On Aug 3, 2019, at 3:36 PM, Mehmet Akcin wrote:
>
>
> Feel free to open
Done, Sir. Thanks.
Tim Burke
t...@burke.us
On Sat, Aug 3, 2019, at 10:42 PM, John Curran wrote:
> Tim -
>
> When you have moment, could you forward both of those Whois spam messages to
> complia...@arin.net ?
>
> Thanks!
> /John
>
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> American Registry for
On Sun, Aug 4, 2019 at 5:17 AM Scott Christopher wrote:
> John Curran wrote:
>
> ...
>
> As I have noted previously, I have zero doubt in the enforceability of the
> ARIN registration services agreements in this regard – so please carefully
> consider proposed policy both from the overall
On 4 Aug 2019, at 4:16 AM, Scott Christopher
mailto:s...@ottie.org>> wrote:
...
What I have been saying is that if ARIN revoked Amazon's resources because of a
trivial matter of bounced Abuse PoC, even if the small "community" of network
operators and other interested parties passed a rule
On 8/4/19 3:27 AM, Mark Tinka wrote:
For shorter runs, I think it's cheaper to find dark fibre and do
something yourself.
This was a bit of an unusual situation. One end it rather rural. The
only fiber within miles was one semi-independent operator, the area
RBOC, and Comcast. The
John Curran wrote:
...
> As I have noted previously, I have zero doubt in the enforceability of the
> ARIN registration services agreements in this regard – so please carefully
> consider proposed policy both from the overall community benefit being
> sought, and from the implications faced
A friend of mine whom I rely upon took it upon himself to put my question
to a reliable contact of his. In the hope of adding some value to this
thread, I'm reproducing this exchange with their names removed, in
descending chronological order (latest first, earliest last).
Academic in the US:It’s
On Thu, Aug 1, 2019, 1:25 AM Joe Provo wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 04:02:58PM +0300, T??ma Gavrichenkov wrote:
> I think they will be planning to reach out to ARIN with the same text
> > right after the RIPE process ends this way or another.
>
> Uh, ARIN-2019-5 has been in the ARIN PDP
On 4/Aug/19 02:16, Brandon Martin wrote:
>
>
> Those are definitely longer distances than I was inquiring about. I
> was asking for distances in the range of more like 100km.
For shorter runs, I think it's cheaper to find dark fibre and do
something yourself.
Mark.
On 8/3/19 9:15 PM, John Curran wrote:
> As I have noted previously, I have zero doubt in the enforceability
> of the ARIN registration services agreements in this regard – so
> please carefully consider proposed policy both from the overall
> community benefit being sought, and from the
27 matches
Mail list logo
