On Fri, 2015-06-12 at 10:43 +0100, Marty Strong via NANOG wrote:
It *looks* like GBLX stopped accepting the leak.
Nope. Churn is ongoing, nothing has been fixed.
Global outage began 08:44 UTC and is still ongoing.
It's been so long people have now had time to come up with things like
33.333%.
this one. It
is unacceptable that no swift action was taken on your end to limit the
global routing issues you caused.
Sincerely,
Martin Millnert
Member of Internet Community - no carrier / ISP affiliation.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Hi list,
in the interest of really running down also the final /8 of RIPE, which
was entered today, let me point out that the cost to setup a new LIR is
a meager application + application fee (2000 EUR) + ~1500 EUR or so for
the first year. You can obviously transfer the resource as long as the
On Sun, 2012-04-29 at 21:50 +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote:
- the RIPE NCC is now funding a project for which there is no
consensus policy supported by the RIPE community, and is doing this on
the basis of a hair's breath majority vote amongst its membership.
Not only were the vote extremely
Jared,
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 5:56 PM, Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net wrote:
Rebuilding this trust can take some time. I do expect that with the iMessage
stuff that was released yesterday (SMS/MMSoIP to email/phone#) many more
companies will shift to using that instead as the value of
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 6:14 PM, Florian Weimer f...@deneb.enyo.de wrote:
IPv4 addresses will never run out in a strict sense of the word, it
will just become increasingly more difficult to reassign IPv4 address
space to those who need it.
If you by difficult mean expensive, then I agree.
Arturo,
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 8:59 PM, Arturo Servin arturo.ser...@gmail.com wrote:
ARIN and APNIC allows it, LACNIC will when it reaches the last /12 (so
now is not possible). RIPE NCC and Afrinic do not have a policy yet AFAIK.
RIPE's LIR IPv4 listing service has 1x /20 listed,
Hi,
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 1:11 PM, Claudio Lapidus clapi...@gmail.com wrote:
what actual use cases have you seen in the field (if any) for DPI'ing user
sessions,
considering we are mostly a DSL shop.
I've seen tyrannical governments use Bluecoat's to crack down on their
own population(*).
Leo,
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 7:34 PM, Leo Bicknell bickn...@ufp.org wrote:
The only way to make sure a route was correct, everywhere, would
be to have 39,000+ probes, one on every ASN, and check the path to
the root server. Even if you had that, how do you define when any
of the changes in
Jimmy,
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Jimmy Hess mysi...@gmail.com wrote:
The name for an ISP intercepting traffic from its own users is not
interference or DoS,
because they're breaking the operation of (er) only their own network.
This statement somehow assumes that users of said
Mike,
On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 8:44 PM, Mike Jones m...@mikejones.in wrote:
It will take a while to get updated browsers rolled out to enough
users for it do be practical to start using DNS based self-signed
certificated instead of CA-Signed certificates, so why don't any
browsers have support
Steinar,
On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 8:12 PM, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
To pop up the stack a bit it's the fact that an organization willing to
behave in that fashion was in my list of CA certs in the first place.
Yes they're blackballed now, better late than never I suppose. What does
that say
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 5:09 PM, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com wrote:
And how long would it be before browsers allowed
self-signed-but-ok'ed-using-dnssec-protected-cert-hashes?
As previously mentioned, Chrome = v14 already does.
Regards,
Martin
Brent,
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 11:13 PM, Brent Jones br...@servuhome.net wrote:
Lots of devices can have trouble if you direct high PPS to the control
plane, and will exhibit performance degradation, leading up to a DoS
eventually.
That isn't limited to software based routers at all, it will
Hi,
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 10:39 AM, Cameron Byrne cb.li...@gmail.com wrote:
In message 4df053aa.50...@axu.tm, Aleksi Suhonen writes:
Some people were talking about Large Scale NATs (LSN) or Carrier Grade
NATs (CGN) yesterday. Comments included that DS-Lite and NAT64 are
basically LSNs and
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 4:10 PM, Ken Chase k...@sizone.org wrote:
So we have to buy from BOTH HE and Cogent?! Sounds like market fixing to me!
:/
Guess if we do we can advertise that on our webpage... now with BOTH halves
of the ipv6 internets!
Or just buy from someone who have sessions with
Iljitsch,
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum
iljit...@muada.com wrote:
Are there any switches out there that do MLDP snooping to avoid flooding IPv6
multicasts?
Something as enterprisey as even HP Procurve (!) has been doing this for years.
Regards,
Martin
Cameron,
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 8:48 AM, Cameron Byrne cb.li...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 5:47 AM, Cameron Byrne cb.li...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 12:09 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
On Jun 7, 2011, at 9:59 PM, Martin Millnert wrote:
Owen,
On Tue, Jun
Nick,
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 9:51 AM, Nick Olsen n...@flhsi.com wrote:
I'm sure someone here is doing IPv6 peering with cogent.
(snip)
Any things to be aware of before
pulling the trigger on it? (Other then them not having connectivity to HE's
IPv6 side of things, Wish they would fix that
Owen,
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 11:47 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
LSN is required when access providers come across the following two
combined constraints:
1. No more IPv4 addresses to give to customers.
2. No ability to deploy those customers on IPv6.
2 has
George,
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 11:41 AM, George Bonser gbon...@seven.com wrote:
A lot. I see /48 breakouts from /32 PA blocks for instance, announced
by a
customer AS of the PA holder AS.
--
Mikael Abrahamsson email: swm...@swm.pp.se
Which is kinda sad.
It's reality.
If those
Owen,
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 8:40 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
RIPE-NCC is probably next and I expect they will likely run out next month.
Seems a bit improbable to me, considering:
http://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/ipv4-exhaustion/ipv4-available-pool-graph
Regards,
Martin
Daniel,
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 7:44 PM, Daniel Roesen d...@cluenet.de wrote:
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 05:51:25PM -0400, Jay Ashworth wrote:
Imagine: multicast internet radio! Awesome!
That would, indeed, be awesome; when everyone in my office was listening to
the royal wedding, there would
Mobile v6 folks,
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Kevin Day toa...@dragondata.com wrote:
T-Mobile: Nokia N900 works great thanks to you(admittedly a dead-end from
Nokia, but it works with the same level of shell script and kernel hacking
that all N900 users expect)
Add the Nokia N97 to
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 1:00 PM, Scott Berkman sc...@sberkman.net wrote:
It's not specific for mobile, but this is one of the most well know VOIP
exchanges:
And here I thought IP exchanges would cover the IP in VOIP.
When do we get HTTP exchanges? :)
Regards,
Martin
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 9:55 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.net wrote:
On Apr 20, 2011, at 9:35 PM, Curran, David wrote:
I'm interested in any evidence (even anecdotal) that general Internet usage
(and more importantly, link utilization) has increased at higher rates in
the last 6-12
John,
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 4:44 PM, Brzozowski, John
john_brzozow...@cable.comcast.com wrote:
Folks,
Since deploying our 6to4 relays, Comcast has observed a substantial
reduction in the latency associated with the use of 6to4. As such we are
contemplating further opening our relays for
Butch,
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 8:52 PM, Butch Evans but...@butchevans.com wrote:
The drafts I saw posted earlier were discussing what is
essentially toredo services (anycast tunnel) at least.
6to4 is significantly different from Teredo, since it:
a) it does not hurt web deployments using DNS
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Akyol, Bora A b...@pnl.gov wrote:
One could argue that you could try something like the facebook model (or
facebook itself). I can see it coming.
Facebook web of trust app ;-)
Indeed not very unreasonable at all, except a) it would be kind of
unfortunate if
Paul,
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Paul Graydon p...@paulgraydon.co.uk wrote:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/03/133-us-cities-now-run-their-own-broadband-networks.ars
Ars Technica has a short article up about the growth of municipal networks,
but principally a nice little
Jay,
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 9:46 PM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Leo Bicknell bickn...@ufp.org
Having looked around the world I personally believe most communities
would be best served if the government provided layer-1 distribution,
possibly
List,
since there are IRR databases operated by non-RIRs, does one need to
register a prefix in any RIR-DB at all, to see it reachable on the
Internet?
Have there been any presentations/research done on reachability of
RIR-registered vs non-RIR-registered vs completely unregistered
To my surprise, I did not see a mention in this community of the
latest proof of the complete failure of the SSL CA model to actually
do what it is supposed to: provide security, rather than a false sense
of security.
Essentially a state somewhere between Iraq and Pakistan snatched valid
certs
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 6:35 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.net wrote:
Is 127.0.0.1 / ::1 the Internet version of 555?
Not according to the RFC:s.
Given the use of 555 in the (North American) TV world, and the
regularity with which IETF defines specific example resources of
various sorts,
On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 1:45 AM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
thanks, craig
luckily, we have no problems like this
http://www.boingboing.net/2011/02/17/dhs-erroneously-seiz.html
mm what would we do without these well-functioning blacklists (
Mounir,
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 6:58 PM, Mounir Mohamed
mounir.moha...@gmail.com wrote:
No the BGP and the physical links were down.
did you have any domestic BGP sessions up?
Regards,
Martin
On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 12:00 AM, Joly MacFie j...@punkcast.com wrote:
Lebanon's Telecom minister is claiming that US Navy radar is blocking the
country's Internet..
http://www.naharnet.com/domino/tn/NewsDesk.nsf/0/93A95CA1A4E42178C225782E007371AF
The problem, however, is due to a
Paul,
a key piece in the article is on the second page:
In fact, a lot of what the bill provides for are a very good ideas.
The bill sets out the concept that cyberspace is a strategic asset for
the United States and needs to be protected like any other strategic
asset. This is good.
The bill
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 3:32 PM, Majdi S. Abbas m...@latt.net wrote:
If your business requires connectivity, you're not going to
have a choice, so you might as well get with the program. It's
less about making a business case for v6, and more about risk
management at this point.
+1
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 5:15 PM, Carlos M. Martinez
carlosm3...@gmail.com wrote:
Although I support Rpki as a technology, there are legitimate concerns that
it could be abused. I now believe that Rpki needs work in this area at IETF
level so the concerns are adressed.
I imagine some form of
Alex,
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 4:57 PM, Alex Band al...@ripe.net wrote:
On 1 Feb 2011, at 22:20, Owen DeLong wrote:
RPKI is a big knob governments might be tempted to turn.
Of course we looked into this, cause we're running our service from
Amsterdam, the Netherlands. The possibilities for
Jeremy,
I have not heard of any IP stack that is built to accept 240/4.
Neither Linux 2.6.37 nor Windows 7 accepts it, and let's not think
about all routers, including CPE:s, out there.
The logic goes:
You are many orders of magnitudes more likely to get v6 off the
ground, than 240/4 or 224/4 as
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 12:00 AM, Martin Millnert milln...@gmail.com wrote:
Neither Linux 2.6.37 nor Windows 7 accepts it
Oops, I was clumpsy there, apologies. When I was testing this, I
messed up one of my hosts :/ It seems 240/4 *does* work as unicast v4
in Linux 2.6.37.
Then it's easy, just
On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 3:52 AM, Joseph Prasad joseph.pra...@gmail.com wrote:
A very good interview with John Young on Russia Today.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMRUiB_8tTc
One thing that Mr Young mentions in this interview is the threat
secret governance poses for any free and democratic
Here be dragons,
On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo
carlosm3...@gmail.com wrote:
The solution to this problem (theoretical at least) already exist in
the form of RPKI.
Any top-down RPKI model is intrinsically flawed.
Deploying an overlay of single-point(s) of failure
On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 5:08 PM, Jack Bates jba...@brightok.net wrote:
Just a simple, if route invalidly signed, drop it.
What constitutes a invalidly signed route more exactly?
Would a signed route by a signer (ISP) who's status has been revoked
by an entity in the RPKI-hierarchy-of-trust
Carlos,
On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 9:22 PM, Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo
carlosm3...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
this is the second mention I see of RPKI and Egypt in the same
context. I sincerely fail to see the connection between both
situations.
It is quite simple actually.
1. Governments
47 matches
Mail list logo
