leaks have come from
> non-transit networks reliant on IRR managed prefix lists.
>
Can you be more specific?
Was it malicious?
Who in the usa was impacted ?
Keep mind rpki only solves misorigination.
> On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 5:21 PM Ca By wrote:
>
>>
>>
>
On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 2:02 PM Sean Donelan wrote:
>
> Sigh, industry hasn't solved spoofing and routing insecurity in two
> decades. If it was easy, everyone would have fixed it by now.
>
> Industry has been saying 'don't regulate us' for decades.
I hope the regulations are more outcome
On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 5:40 AM Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Forrest Christian (List Account)
> said:
> > I have a feeling that I might be stepping into a can of worms by asking
> > this, but..
> >
> > What's the current thinking around reverse DNS on IPs used by typical
> >
Folks,
I reached out to Brightcloud directly and they cant fix this and it has
been 3 weeks. What can i say besides don’t use them.
https://whois.domaintools.com/172.59.72.103
They are locating 172.32.0.0/11 , which belongs to T-Mobile USA for 10+
years… to China. There is no reason for them
> **ROA Auto-renewal**
>
> After the May software release, any ROA created via ARIN Online or the new
> RESTful provisioning endpoint will be automatically renewed, meaning all
> newly created ROAs will persist indefinitely until they are manually
> deleted. ARIN will also apply the auto-renew
On Fri, Apr 7, 2023 at 6:47 AM Tim Burke wrote:
> I thought so too, but we already send good geofeed data to Maxmind, and
> queried their DB to verify.
>
The worst of the worst is brightcloud / opentext
They randomly assigned my arin ip space to china 2 weeks ago
This space has
1. Not
On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 6:23 AM Jared Mauch wrote:
> The common tech is 100G-LR4 these days - I'm wondering how many operators
> are supporting the LR1 to allow its use on 400G and future 800G optics as
> those use breakout to support 100G ports.
>
> Would you rather do a 400G port on a router
On Mon, Oct 10, 2022 at 9:17 AM Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG
wrote:
> The technology for IPv6 client to connect IPv4 web server on Internet is
> just not specified in IETF.
>
> Ed/
>
Ed, you seem to be not so familiar with the this ietf body of work
RFC6877
“ 464XLAT is a simple and scalable
On Mon, Oct 10, 2022 at 7:59 AM Edvinas Kairys
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> We're considering to buy some Cisco boxes - NCS-55A1-24H. That box has
> 24x100G, but only 2.2mln route (FIB) memory entries. In a near future it
> will be not enough - so we're thinking to deny all /24s to save the memory.
>
On Tue, Oct 4, 2022 at 6:20 AM Mike Hammett wrote:
> Sorta like in the IP world, if everyone did BCP38/84, amplification
> attacks wouldn't exist. Not everyone does, so...
>
Tragedy of the commons
Furthermore, those customers are paying to not be policed.
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
>
have an roa expire, and a well documented process
will create a lot of confidence.
As where an expired roa outage will cause a company to never use rpki
again.
>
>
> *From: *NANOG on behalf of Ca
> By
> *Date: *Friday, September 9, 2022 at 10:12 AM
> *To: *John Sweeting
>
On Fri, Sep 9, 2022 at 5:21 AM John Sweeting wrote:
> You can contact the ARIN Helpdesk at +1-703-227-0660. Someone will also be
> sending you an email off list.
>
John
Where is ARIN’s documented procedure for how hosted ROAs handle renewal
prior to expiration ?
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> >
On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 10:58 AM Rob Robertson
wrote:
> The Zayo/as6461 network will shortly start dropping all RPKI-invalid route
> announcements that we receive from our peers. This should be rolled
> out over our network in the next week or so.
>
> While we will still continue to accept
e:
>
> It's not devices. It's software and what's worse protocol specifications
> that are implemented in this software.
>
> And we still didn't get the memo in 2022. Some colleagues think that
> having builtin 5x Amplification in protocols freshly out just this year "is
> OK&
On Tue, Aug 9, 2022 at 7:23 PM Christopher Wolff
wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> Has anyone proposed that the adoption of billions of IoT devices will
> ultimately ‘break’ the Internet?
>
> It’s not a rhetorical question I promise, just looking for a journal or
> other scholarly article that implies that
On Mon, Aug 8, 2022 at 5:39 AM wrote:
> You keep using the term “imaginary” when presented with evidence that does
> not match your view of things.
>
> There are many REAL scenarios where single flow high throughout TCP is a
> real requirements as well as high throughput extremely small packet
On Mon, May 2, 2022 at 7:26 AM Raymond Dijkxhoorn via NANOG
wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > If, for any reason, you want to opt out from us using your ASN
> > for our experiments, you can do so in the following form before May 9:
> >
> > https://forms.gle/ZvZaodndPhCqMvR89
>
> > If I am interpreting
On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 6:22 AM Philip Homburg
wrote:
> >If by ?straightforward transition plan? one means a clear and rational
> set of
> >options that allows networks to plan their own migration from IPv4-only
> to IPv
> >6, while maintaining connectivity to IPv4-only hosts and with a level of
On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 7:15 AM Abraham Y. Chen wrote:
> Dear Ca By:
>
> 1)It appears that you are reading the Google graph too optimistically,
> or incorrectly. That is, the highest peaks of the graph are about 38%. The
> average of the graph is about 36%. Citing
On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 12:45 PM Josh Luthman
wrote:
> >but nowadays, some are going all v6.
>
> Where is there v6 only services/content?
>
V6 only to 100m+ Smartphones and now coming up on millions of home
broadband , we out here
On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 11:56 PM Saku Ytti wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Mar 2022 at 21:00, Joe Greco wrote:
>
> > I really never thought it'd be 2022 and my networks would be still
> > heavily v4. Mind boggling.
>
> Same. And if we don't voluntarily agree to do something to it, it'll
> be the same in
On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 6:06 AM Mark Tinka wrote:
>
>
> On 1/25/22 15:45, Masataka Ohta wrote:
>
> > As is stated in free part of the article that:
> >
> > The country’s three biggest carriers, AT, Verizon and
> > T-Mobile, have offered 5G connectivity but in practice
> > this
one example.
There are many large companies that could do a lot to make things more
secure, but it is more profitable for them when things are a bit broken and
they can charge more for a solution
Jean
>
>
>
> *From:* NANOG *On Behalf Of *Ca
> By
> *Sent:* December 9, 2021 9:36 AM
>
On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 1:07 AM Arne Jensen wrote:
> Den 08-12-2021 kl. 15:32 skrev Niels Bakker:
> > * darkde...@darkdevil.dk (Arne Jensen) [Wed 08 Dec 2021, 15:23 CET]:
> >> To me, that part of it also points towards a broken implementation at
> >> CloudFlare, letting a bogus (insecure)
On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 6:35 AM Niels Bakker wrote:
> * darkde...@darkdevil.dk (Arne Jensen) [Wed 08 Dec 2021, 15:23 CET]:
> >To me, that part of it also points towards a broken implementation at
> >CloudFlare, letting a bogus (insecure) responses take effect anyway.
>
> Or they prefer allowing
On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 6:07 PM Michael Thomas wrote:
>
> On 11/26/21 1:44 PM, Jean St-Laurent via NANOG wrote:
>
> Here are some maths and 1 argument kicking ass pitch for CFO’s that use
> iphones.
>
> *Apple tells app devs to use IPv6 as it's 1.4 times faster than IPv4*
>
>
>
On Sun, Oct 24, 2021 at 9:28 AM Masataka Ohta <
mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote:
> Ca By wrote:
>
> > First, consider that the 3 major cell carriers in the usa each have
> > 100 million customers. Also, consider they all now have a home
> > broadband an
or a mobile
> carrier these days?
>
> Mike
>
>
> On 10/23/21 8:13 AM, Brian Johnson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Oct 23, 2021, at 8:30 AM, Ca By wrote:
>
> 87% of mobiles in the usa are ipv6
>
> https://www.worldipv6launch.org/measurements/
>
>
>
> Agreed.
On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 8:48 AM Bryan Fields wrote:
> On 10/22/21 11:13 AM, Job Snijders via NANOG wrote:
> > Another aspect that flabbergasts me anno 2021 is how there *still* are
> > BGP peering disputes between (more than two) major global internet
> service
> > providers in which IPv6 is
On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 11:47 AM Max Tulyev wrote:
> We have 2 ports from Telia, one in Kiev (Ukraine) and one in New York
> (USA). I have seen both ports simultaneously dropped traffic volume for
> about one hour today.
>
> It was not critical (for us), as traffic was shifted to another links,
>
>
>
>
>
> This has nothing to do with IPv6, of course, other than that modern phones
> use
> VoLTE so within a mobile carrier's network your voice call is probably
> handled
> using IPv6 transport.
>
> Good point John.
A lot of folks missed that ipv6 absorbed the scale growth in mobile, and
On Thu, Aug 5, 2021 at 2:31 PM Ca By wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 5, 2021 at 1:54 PM Andy Ringsmuth wrote:
>
>> *Sigh*
>>
>> I hear you. Have IPv6 at home perfectly fine via Spectrum.
>>
>> At work however, my provider (Allo Communications in Lincoln, Neb.
re now
selling them back to us.
>
>
> Andy Ringsmuth
> 5609 Harding Drive
> Lincoln, NE 68521-5831
> (402) 304-0083
> a...@andyring.com
>
> “Better even die free, than to live slaves.” - Frederick Douglas, 1863
>
> > On Aug 5, 2021, at 3:19 PM, Ca By wrote
On Thu, Aug 5, 2021 at 1:09 PM Tony Wicks wrote:
> Contact eddie at iptrading.com , I have used their
> services several times and never had any issues.
>
>
>
Yep, this what it has come to.
“I got a guy”
Just keep buying addresses and slamming in NAT boxes folks …
Here is a meme
On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 12:34 PM Eric Germann via NANOG
wrote:
> Does anyone have a pointer to a good resource for current best practices
> for deployment of DNSSEC, preferably newer than RFC6781?
>
> What algorithms do you typically sign with (RSASHA256, ECDSAP256SHA256,
> both, something
On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 6:36 AM Tom Beecher wrote:
> As long as that IP space was isolated to the .mil network, it was private
>> space, as far as the Internet was concerned.
>>
>
> The DoD allocation of 11/8 predates the concept of 'private network space'.
>
> 11/8 was first assigned to the DoD
On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 5:29 AM Douglas Fischer
wrote:
> P.S.: Forking thread from CGNAT.
>
> Hello Jordi!
>
> Since our last heated talk about transitions methods(Rosario, 2018?), I
> must recognize that the intolerance to other scenarios other than
> dual-stack had reduced(mostly because of
On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 10:52 AM Mike Hammett wrote:
> This is from the perspective of an eyeball network. I understand that
> content networks would have different objectives and reasons. For instance,
> I have little to no reason as an eyeball network to exchange traffic with
> any other
On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 6:11 AM Bjørn Mork wrote:
> Ca By writes:
>
> > The 3 cellular networks in the usa, 100m subs each, use ipv6 to uniquely
> > address customers. And in the case of ims (telephony on a celluar), it is
> > ipv6-only, afaik.
>
> I certa
On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 5:50 AM Bjørn Mork wrote:
> Ca By writes:
>
> > On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 4:32 AM Valdis Klētnieks <
> valdis.kletni...@vt.edu>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 10 Feb 2021 04:04:43 -0800, Owen DeLong said:
> >> > Plea
On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 4:32 AM Valdis Klētnieks
wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Feb 2021 04:04:43 -0800, Owen DeLong said:
> > Please explain to me how you uniquely number 40M endpoints with RFC-1918
> without running out of
> > addresses and without creating partitioned networks.
>
> OK.. I'll bite. What
te
> resources from ARIN -> this-org
> in it... so at least the content of this file is generated/maintained
> by the parent (RIR in this case).
>
> > On Fri, Nov 20, 2020, 6:55 AM Ca By wrote:
> >>
> >> Hello folks,
> >>
> >> I use ARIN hosted RPKI to publish ROAs
> >>
> >> The ROAs have an expire date
> >>
> >> How do i rotate the cert to push out the expiration date? Does ARIN do
> this for me?
> >>
> >> Thanks!
>
Hello folks,
I use ARIN hosted RPKI to publish ROAs
The ROAs have an expire date
How do i rotate the cert to push out the expiration date? Does ARIN do
this for me?
Thanks!
On Sat, Oct 10, 2020 at 8:14 AM Christopher J. Wolff
wrote:
> Dear Mr. Curtis and Nanog;
>
> Thank you for your responses. Yes, I am investigating the feasibility of
> public internet access to help with Digital Divide issues in light of the
> COVID-19 pandemic as well as the challenges of
On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 6:00 PM Randy Bush wrote:
> > Would your arin approach of netrange work in all regions?
>
>
>
> no. to the best of my knowledge, other regional registries and
>
> independent irr registries use rpsl; i.e. inetnum: and remarks:.
>
Radb only supports
route
-route6
On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 5:53 PM Randy Bush wrote:
> >> the edit buffer, yet to be published, has
>
> >>
>
> >>Currently, the registry data published by ARIN is not RPSL;
>
> >>therefore, when fetching from ARIN whois, the "NetRange" attribute/
>
> >>key must be treated as "inetnum"
On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 3:02 PM Randy Bush wrote:
> the edit buffer, yet to be published, has
>
>
>
>Currently, the registry data published by ARIN is not RPSL;
>
>therefore, when fetching from ARIN whois, the "NetRange" attribute/
>
>key must be treated as "inetnum" and the
On Sat, Sep 12, 2020 at 4:43 PM Randy Bush wrote:
> hi ca
>
>
>
> > I gave your I-D a try in the real world, and it does not work with a
>
> > major player.
>
>
>
> i.e. arin and radb, your region, which does not do rpsl as others do.
>
&g
On Sat, Sep 12, 2020 at 1:13 PM Randy Bush wrote:
> hi camron
>
> sad to say, the days of faxing around number assigments have passed.
> the kiddie googlers who wrote the geofeeds rfc probably have not even
> seen a fax machine. they just did not like having a hundred gnomes in
> the basement
On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 1:49 PM Randy Bush wrote:
> would folk familiar with the north american RIR and IRR registries be
>
> kind enough to suggest how this might adapt? thanks.
>
>
>
> A new version of I-D, draft-ymbk-opsawg-finding-geofeeds-02.txt
>
> has been successfully submitted by Randy
On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 1:00 AM Brian Johnson
wrote:
> I hope I’m not adding to any confusion. I find this conversation to be
> interesting and want it to be productive. I have not deployed 464XLAT and
> am only aware of android phones having a proper client.
Platforms with CLAT include:
On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 9:17 AM Mark Tinka wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On 24/Aug/20 17:21, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG wrote:
>
>
>
> > You probably mean 464XLAT
>
> >
>
> > Ask you vendors. They should support it. Ask for RFC8585 support, even
> better.
>
> >
>
> > If they don't do, is because
On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 6:51 AM Brian wrote:
> Is there anyway to deploy ipv6 and push ipv4 traffic end to end across
> the ipv6 network. With out having an ipv4 address for everything that is
> ipv6? If someone could reach out off list if there is a real solution to
> deploy ipv6 as almost
On Sun, Aug 2, 2020 at 9:36 AM Robert Raszuk wrote:
> Hi Ca,
>
> > Noction is sold to ISPs, aka transit AS, afaik
>
> Interesting.
>
> My impression always was by talking to Noction some time back that mainly
> what they do is a flavor of performance routing. But
On Sun, Aug 2, 2020 at 4:34 AM Robert Raszuk wrote:
> All,
>
> Watching this thread with interest got an idea - let me run it by this
> list before taking it any further (ie. to IETF).
>
> How about we learn from this and try to make BGP just a little bit safer ?
>
> *Idea: *
>
> In all stub
on known accepted
> practices.
>
> Another solution could be having the BGP daemon disclose the make, model
> family, and exact model of hardware it is running on, to BGP peers, and add
> more knobs into policy creation to match said values, and take action
> appropriately. That would
On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 7:21 AM Etienne-Victor Depasquale
wrote:
> The surprise for me regards Intel's (and the entire Cloud Native Computing
> Foundation's?) readiness to move past network functions run on VMs
> and towards network functions run as microservices in containers.
>
> See, for
On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 4:21 AM Mark Tinka wrote:
>
>
> What I meant by "TOTALLY avoidable" is that "this particular plane
> crash" has happened in the exact same way, for the exact same reasons,
> over and over again.
>
> Aviation learns from mistakes that don't generally recur in the exact
>
On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 2:18 PM Brian Johnson
wrote:
> Has anyone implemented a MAP-T solution in production? I am looking for
> feedback on this as a deployment strategy for an IPv6 only core design. My
> concern is MAP-T CE stability and overhead on the network. The BR will have
> to do
On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 8:04 PM James Breeden wrote:
> I have been doing a lot of research recently on operating networks with
> partial tables and a default to the rest of the world. Seems like an easy
> enough approach for regional networks where you have maybe only 1 upstream
> transit and
On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 7:17 PM Brandon Martin
wrote:
> On 4/29/20 10:12 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> >> What allows them to work with v6 in such an efficient manner?
> > A piece of client software is installed on every phone that presents
> > an IPv4 address to the phone and then translates
On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 7:46 PM Masataka Ohta <
mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote:
> Ca By wrote:
>
> >>>You can't eliminate that unless the CPE also knows what internal
> port
> >>> range it's mapped to so that it restricts what range it uses. If
On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 1:06 AM Masataka Ohta <
mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote:
> Brandon Martin wrote:
>
> >> If you mean getting rid of logging, not necessarily. It is enough if
> >> CPEs are statically allocated ranges of external port numbers.
> >
> > Yes, you can get rid of the
On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 3:14 PM Compton, Rich A
wrote:
> Good luck with that. As Damian Menscher has presented at NANOG, even
> if we do an amazing job and shut down 99% of all DDoS reflectors, there
> will still be enough bandwidth to generate terabit size attacks.
>
On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 8:27 AM Dovid Bender wrote:
> We have customers in CT with the same issues. When did this start?
>
Seems to have started 5 years ago when we ran out of ipv4 and all comers
needed to embrace ipv4 life-support mechanisms
an be discussed here.
>
Watch what others are talking about and add to it. Nobody else here is
doing conversations like you.
> Pengxiong
>
> On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 12:34 PM Ca By wrote:
>
>> This topic is out of scope for the list. Please stop emailing these
>>
This topic is out of scope for the list. Please stop emailing these baiting
questions.
On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 12:27 PM Pengxiong Zhu wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> We got plenty of positive responses in our last email regarding China's
> slow transnational network. Many are suggesting it is likely
t changing ipv4 filters, Sorry pool. Burned once, twice shy.
There is no simple way to do router filters based on ntp app modes.
I suggest people be aware of time.google.com
And time.cloudflare.com
CB
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 11:17 AM Mark Tinka wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 1
On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 9:03 AM Compton, Rich A
wrote:
> Yes, we still see lots of UDP amplification attacks using NTP monlist. We
> use a filter to block UDP src 123 packets of 468 bytes in length (monlist
> reply with the max 6 IPs).
>
> -Rich
+1 , still see, still have policers
Fyi, ipv6
On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 8:51 AM Livingood, Jason <
jason_living...@comcast.com> wrote:
> > Folks saw congestion from a massive free content drop this past week.
> > But as folks had called out, that was the CDN angle of distributing that
> content rather than the actual game play. There is a
On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 2:22 PM Hunter Fuller wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 2:42 PM Jared Mauch wrote:
> > I can already hear the QUIC WG types blaming the network in abstentia,
> because well, why would an operator want to keep their network functioning?
> :-)
>
> In fairness, it's not
On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 10:41 AM Dave Bell wrote:
>
> Not indiscriminate.
>>
>
> Indiscriminate - done at random or without careful judgement.
>
> Considering that Daniel is complaining that QUIC is broken, it certainly
> seems like some network operators are subjecting all UDP traffic on their
On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 10:19 AM Blake Hudson wrote:
>
>
> On 2/19/2020 3:21 PM, Daniel Sterling wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 3:34 PM Blake Hudson wrote:
> >> Yeah, that was a nice surprise to find that my tethered LTE connection
> >> was out performing my wired cable modem service. Of
On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 9:56 AM Dave Bell wrote:
>
> On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 at 15:31, Ca By wrote:
>
>> UDP is broken
>>
>
> I would argue that UDP isn't broken. Networks which drop it
> indiscriminately are broken.
>
Not indiscriminate.
As Google was informed by
On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 8:34 AM Tom Beecher wrote:
> I only wish I were insane; but from where I'm sitting, QUIC has broken
>> my internet, and the resolution is blocking QUIC.
>>
>
> The QUIC protocol itself isn't breaking anything ; some middlebox is
> breaking QUIC. It's likely collateral
On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 5:44 PM Daniel Sterling
wrote:
> I've AT fiber (in RTP, NC) (AS7018) and I notice UDP QUIC traffic
> from google (esp. youtube) becomes very slow after a time.
>
> This especially occurs with ipv4 connections. I'm not the only one to
> notice; a web search for e.g.
On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 2:17 PM William Herrin wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 2:11 PM Ca By wrote:
> > You are not using ipv4 today.
> >
> > The scenario you describe, using facetime (iOS) on T-Mobile US, you are
> not using ipv4 on the device. T-Mobile does not assign
On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 1:54 PM Sabri Berisha wrote:
> - On Jan 3, 2020, at 1:00 AM, Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu wrote:
>
> > On 2/Jan/20 21:02, Sabri Berisha wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Maybe you're just dating yourself here :) I use video calling on an
> almost
> >> daily basis with my family
On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 12:56 AM Mark Tinka wrote:
>
>
> On 1/Jan/20 17:35, Brandon Butterworth wrote:
>
> >
> > If the mobile companies are providing the WiFi routers they can
> > control it (see LTE WiFi attempt) and one day replace it with
> > 5G or 6G in all the things. If they make a better
On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 3:51 PM Christopher Morrow
wrote:
> Oh good :) someone coaxed cameron out of the holiday keg :)
>
I can only take reading how others imagine it may work for so long
> On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 6:32 PM Ca By wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 2:41 PM Christopher Morrow
wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 4:11 PM Brian J. Murrell
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 2019-12-30 at 09:50 -0500, Shane Ronan wrote:
> > >
> > > Also, keep in mind that 10 years ago, you didn't know you would want
> > > or
> > > need 25mbits to
November 29, 2019 10:29:17 AM
> *Subject: *Re: RIPE our of IPv4
>
>
> > On Nov 27, 2019, at 4:04 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >> On 28 Nov 2019, at 06:08, Brian Knight wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 2019-11-26 17:11, Ca By wrote:
>
jority of
real bits/s and dollars are in ipv6. Ymmv. But i reject vehemently the
notion that v6 vanity project with no obvious business case / roi (Another
misstatement by Sabri).
If your business is dysfunctional, that is a different issue from ipv6
being dysfunctional.
> scott
>
>
>
On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 12:15 AM Sabri Berisha
wrote:
> - On Nov 26, 2019, at 1:36 AM, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote:
>
> > I get that some people still don't like it, but the answer is IPv6. Or,
> > folks can keep playing NAT games, etc. But one wonders at what point
> > rolling out
On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 9:18 PM Michael Crapse wrote:
> IPv6 is a lot more granular when it comes to geolocation data. It is also
> very very unlikely that the block has been used before, and you never know
> what the previous owner did or what geolocation/VPN blacklists it was added
> to. Let
On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 6:05 AM David Funderburk
wrote:
> One of our customers office number is coming across as 'Survey Call' on
> T-Mobile cell phones. I know with certainty it's with 'T-Mobile' phones.
> I don't have another contact on another network that I know I can try. How
> do we get
I just hope the next fire is not sparked by a diesel generator that is
running because commercial power is off.
On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 3:48 PM Sean Donelan wrote:
>
>
> AT statement:
>
> Like all PG customers, we are also affected by this power shutdown.
> Overall our network continues to
On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 12:40 PM John R. Levine wrote:
> In article ,
> Stephen Satchell wrote:
> > My AT cell phone has both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses. The IPv4 address
> > is from my access point; the IPv6 address appears to be a public address.
>
> My AT cellphone (via MVNO Tracfone) has a
On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 1:54 PM John Levine wrote:
> In article <804699748.1254612.1570037049931.javamail.zim...@baylink.com>
> you write:
> >Tools. Are. Neutral.
> >
> >Any solution to a problem that involves outlawing or breaking tools will.
> >Not. Solve. Your. Problem.
>
> I think in the
On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 6:23 AM Stephane Bortzmeyer
wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 12:11:32PM +0200,
> Jeroen Massar wrote
> a message of 101 lines which said:
>
> > - Using a centralized/forced-upon DNS service (be that over DoT/DoH
> > or even plain old Do53
>
> Yes, but people using a
On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 7:27 PM Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
> I've been embroiled in my first house-move in 28 years, and just got back
> to the table. I don't see any threads here about whatever this
> thing-which-
> appears-to-me-to-be-a-monstrosity; has it been discussed here and I missed
> it?
>
See below for high value of the list, both items are very pleasing
On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 6:10 AM Hank Nussbacher wrote:
> On 05/09/2019 08:09, Kasper Adel wrote:
>
> No. This is art & tech from 12 years ago:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_y36fG2Oba0
>
> -Hank
>
> In SPRING a time when
On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 2:58 AM Todd Underwood wrote:
>
> that's unkind and is taking advantage of the attention and goodwill of
> the community here. this is becoming a pattern.
>
+1 on this noisy pattern. Hire an consultant to google these things for
you.
>
Paging someone at Centurylink to fix your looking glass.
https://lookingglass.centurylink.com
None of the functions in any of the cities work
Your network is kind of a big deal, so please try to provide visibility to
your routing state so the rest of us can do our day-job, on Sunday
On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 5:17 AM Lee Howard wrote:
>
> On 8/2/19 1:10 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG wrote:
>
> The cost of sharing IPs in a static way, is that services such as Sony
> Playstation Network will put those addresses in the black list, so you need
> to buy more addresses. This
gt;
>
> --- cb.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> From: Ca By
>
> My understanding is that is not currently commonly the
> case
>
>
> https://www.worldipv6launch.org/apps/ipv6week/measurement/images/graphs/T-MobileUSA.png
> ---
>
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 4:02 PM Jerry Cloe wrote:
> There's already widespread use (abuse ?) of DOD /8's. T-Mobile commonly
> assigns 26/8 space (and others) to customers and nat's it.
>
>
My understanding is that is not currently commonly the case
On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 7:06 AM Stephen Satchell wrote:
> On 6/25/19 2:25 AM, Katie Holly wrote:
> > Disclaimer: As much as I dislike Cloudflare (I used to complain about
> > them a lot on Twitter), this is something I am absolutely agreeing with
> > them. Verizon failed to do the most basic of
On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 5:59 PM Seth Mattinen wrote:
> On 5/20/19 4:26 PM, John Kristoff wrote:
> > On Mon, 20 May 2019 23:09:02 +
> > Seth Mattinen wrote:
> >
> >> A good start would be killing any /24 announcement where a covering
> >> aggregate exists.
> > I wouldn't do this as a general
Midwest-IX
> http://www.midwest-ix.com
>
> --
> *From: *"Ca By"
> *To: *"Dan White"
> *Cc: *nanog@nanog.org
> *Sent: *Wednesday, May 15, 2019 1:50:41 PM
>
> *Subject: *Re: BGP prefix filter list
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 7:27 AM Dan White wrote:
1 - 100 of 330 matches
Mail list logo
