On 09/08/2011 15:45, Michael Hare wrote:
While attempting to focus on ISPs there is still [unbelievably] a vendor
support issue. You may consider this a procurement failure, but the fact
remains that some products [Cisco me3400e] have yet to implement support.
the me3400 is a metro core
On 09/08/2011 16:43, Blake Dunlap wrote:
Aren't there still community issues with 4 byte ASN space as well that have
not been resolved?
I think I mentioned that.
draft-raszuk-wide-bgp-communities will fix this, but it's unclear when
we'll start seeing this rolled out in production code.
Nick
On 29/07/2011 22:55, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
Friendly or non friendly response is usually gaugable in advance by the
tone of the initial email.
Which is usually gaugeable in advance by the tone of the customer
complaints that precipitated contact with SORBS in the first place.
Email is such a
On 11/07/2011 08:25, Tom Hill wrote:
I'm not saying it's any good, but it certainly didn't cost extra.
Several people mentioned this to Jeff on IRC a short time ago, so it's not
clear why he chose to suggest that ipv6 users in Europe were being fleeced
by Cogent for a set-up fee. Perhaps it has
On 29/06/2011 12:18, Tony Finch wrote:
Also TCP cannot measure the available bandwidth without packet loss.
?
TCP stacks will figure out available bandwidth just fine by measuring
return acks - there's no need to drop any packets.
Nick
Slightly old news, but it looks like Cogent depeered ESnet last week:
http://www.es.net/news-and-publications/esnet-news/2011/important-status-announcement-regarding-cogent-connectivity/
Current traceroutes indicate that ESnet is reaching Cogent via 6939_1299.
In other news, automatically
On 15/06/2011 17:47, James Grace wrote:
So we're running out of peering space in our /24 and we were considering
using private /30's for new peerings. Are there any horrific
consequences to picking up this practice?
yes. it causes nasty problems if you use urpf (as you should), in
particular
On 14/06/2011 16:12, Ray Soucy wrote:
The point was you shouldn't base protocol design around the
possibility that someone might tell it to do something you don't want
it to do; otherwise you'll end up with a one-size-fits-all protocol
that has zero flexibility (and might not even be functional
On 14/06/2011 17:02, Owen DeLong wrote:
That was kind of my point. You are unlikely to encounter such a large L2 domain
outside of an
exchange point.
Indeed so. Apart from large enterprise LANs. And campus LANs. And badly
designed large service provider LANs. And other types of large L2
On 10/06/2011 11:03, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
As far as I know only BGP but BGP runs over TCP so it's different from
all other routing protocols.
OSPF runs over protocol ospf, so it's also different from the other routing
protocols. EIGRP uses protocol 88 and ISIS runs over CLNS so both
On 10/06/2011 11:37, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
So it depends a little, but I still don't see any implementation leeway in RFC
2545:
On all competently constructed interior networks, ibgp will use loopbacks
as the session endpoints. This means that the loopback address will be
carried as
On 09/06/2011 17:59, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
can't get a router's global address from this. IPv6 routing protocols
also pretty much only use link locals
Really? I guess my eyes must be playing tricks on me then.
Nick
On 09/06/2011 18:19, Ray Soucy wrote:
DHCPv6 does not provide route information because this task is handled
by RA in IPv6.
Thankfully this silliness is in the process of being fixed, along with
prefix delegation - so in future, there will be no requirement for either
RA or cartloads of
On 09/06/2011 18:26, Ray Soucy wrote:
What OS?
IOS, for example (as opposed to iOS which is just freebsd from that point
of view). JunOS uses link-locals.
Iljitsch noted: IPv6 routing protocols also pretty much only use link
locals. This is not true in the general case.
Nick
On 23/04/2011 23:22, Dave Temkin wrote:
And as douchey as this is going to sound: If you can't be bothered to
take 15 minutes to learn RPSL (it's really that easy)
basic rpsl is pretty noddy, but it gets very hairy very quickly.
I'd say 15 minutes leaves 20 seconds for each page of rfc2622.
On 09/04/2011 10:37, Bryan Irvine wrote:
As do some states with automotive registration. It's a quite normal practice.
If you're in a monopoly or near-monopoly position, you can get away with
screwing over your customer base.
If you're in a competitive market, practices like support
On 6 Apr 2011, at 23:17, Daniel Roesen d...@cluenet.de wrote:
On Tue, Apr 05, 2011 at 08:05:59PM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote:
Some older equipment will unequally prefer certain links over others,
depending on the number of members in the LAG. I.e. a 2-member LAG might
load balance equally
On 07/04/2011 09:49, Daniel Roesen wrote:
Interesting, as Fou^WBrocade's statement was that this is unfixable due
to a chipset (which is Broadcom) limitation.
I asked them about this exact point, but my SE said it was a software
restriction which was fixed as of 4.2.
Nick
On 05/04/2011 16:30, Shane Amante wrote:
1) Be mindful of the number of component-links you can put into a
single LAG. This varies by platform. In general, for higher-end
routers/switches the minimum number of component-links in a single
LAG is 16.
Some older equipment will unequally prefer
On 04/04/2011 16:46, andrew.wallace wrote:
Someone has recently post to a mailing list:
http://lists.grok.org.uk/pipermail/full-disclosure/2011-April/080096.html
There's a serious vulnerability in the default ipv4 configuration too:
Windows will accept a reply from any DHCP server which
On 02/04/2011 12:32, Bogdan wrote:
as-set-3 has some members that i want to exlude; let's say as-set-xxx,
is a member of as-set as-set-3
is there something like
members: as-set-1, as-set-2, as-set-3 and not as-set-xxx ?
No, you can't do this in an as-set definition. What you can do is
On 27/03/2011 07:53, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
Accepting default is not ugly, especially if you don't even have a
backbone connecting your sites. And even if we could argue over
default's aesthetic qualities (which, honestly, I don't see how we can),
there is no rational person who would
On 25/03/2011 09:54, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 8:25 PM, Martin Millnertmilln...@gmail.com wrote:
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?
you successfully
On 21/03/2011 06:04, Martin Millnert wrote:
I assume it has been discussed and rejected. Can anyone enlighten us on why?
RFC 3849?
Nick
On 14 Mar 2011, at 23:30, Ask Bjørn Hansen a...@develooper.com wrote:
Doesn't SLAAC give you automatic MAC address to IP mapping? It'll save you
manually doing that (in an otherwise well controlled environment).
No, it doesn't. On some systems, the mac address is used to create the ipv6
On 01/03/2011 04:24, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
Oddly enough the meeting NOC is in the business of providing services to
customers and we generally assume that to be with the highest
availability and minimum breakage feasible under the circumstances...
That is exactly my point.
[...]
I am
On 28/02/2011 13:52, Ray Soucy wrote:
The real point, initially at least, for stateless addressing was to
make the Link-Local scope work. It's brilliantly elegant. It allows
all IPv6 configuration to be made over IPv6 (and thus use sane
constructs like multicast to do it).
Wonderful,
On 28/02/2011 14:59, Joe Abley wrote:
I'm not sure why people keep
fixating on that as an end goal. The future we ought to be working
towards is a consistent, reliable, dual-stack environment. There's no
point worrying about v6-only operations if we can't get dual-stack
working reliably.
On 28/02/2011 15:45, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
At that moment, the master was enlightened.
One day a master from another monastery came upon Dobbins and Abley as they
were watching a 14 year-old cripple learning how to fly.
I do not believe we should waste time teaching children to walk, said
On 18/02/2011 05:55, Peter Nowak wrote:
You can plug SFP module (copper or fiber) into any SFP+ port.
So, on 10G port you can run either 1GE or 10GE.
A well known counterexample of this is the Cisco Nexus5k, where only some
of the SFP+ ports are 1G capable (first 8 on the 20 port box, and the
On 13/02/2011 15:30, Joe Hamelin wrote:
day. I remember days spent hunting down ring-no-answers in a 400 POTS
line hunt group.
It was much easier to detect those by looking for strange port connectivity
patterns in the logs.
re: annexes, it was a happy day when we upgraded from annex 3 to
On 07/02/2011 21:53, Josh Smith wrote:
I agree that setting up local connectivity between the folks in my
neighborhood wouldn't be too much of a challenge. Getting anything
much beyond that up and running would be a stretch.
I can't help noticing some irony in seeing one nanog thread about
On 03/02/2011 12:49, Eugen Leitl wrote:
Any reason why RIPE NCC charges so much more?
http://www.ripe.net/membership/billing/procedure-enduser.html
(other than because they can, I mean).
That's if you deal with the RIPE NCC directly. If you get your direct
assignments via a LIR, the cost
On 03/02/2011 14:15, Jack Bates wrote:
Is this why the root isn't just using well-known?
No - that's pretty much the only situation where you have a technical
requirement to hardcode IP address, and there's basically no way of getting
around it.
Besides, it's completely different to having
On 01/02/2011 13:23, John Curran wrote:
FYI - Some people in this community may want to watch this event (either in
person or via webcast)
I see Mr. Kolkman is involved in this press conference, and can therefore
assume that Bert - working behind the scenes as he usually does - is fully
On 02/02/2011 08:16, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
Contrary to popular belief, the IETF listens to operators and wants them
to participate. Few do. For instance, I don't seem to remember your name
from any IETF mailinglists. (I could be mistaken, though.)
Regardless of the stated opinion of the
On 02/02/2011 12:50, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
But there's so much wrong with DHCPv6 that trying to fix it is pretty
much useless, we need to abandon DHCP and start from scratch. Good thing
IPv6 works just fine without DHCPv6.
I rest my case.
Nick
On 02/02/2011 17:43, Matt Addison wrote:
Why do they have to be mutually exclusive? What's wrong with having default
well known (potentially anycasted) resolver addresses, which can then be
overridden by RA/DHCP/static configuration?
because that increases the complexity of the system, and
On 02/02/2011 21:26, Matt Addison wrote:
RA Guard has been described in RFC 6105 (still draft, but standards track),
so that particular problem should be taken care of once vendors start
shipping code. It doesn't even require SeND- although it does accomodate it.
wonderful. In the interim, it
On 31/01/2011 14:16, Joe Abley wrote:
On 2011-01-30, at 12:15, Nick Hilliard wrote:
Depends on which IRR you use. The IRRDBs run by RIPE, APNIC and
AfriNIC implement hierarchical object ownership, which means that if
you're registering their address space, you can only do so if that
address
On 30/01/2011 09:08, Jeff Wheeler wrote:
This brings me to my point, which is that IRR is very good for
preventing accidents and automating some common tasks. It should be
secure to a point, but just because a route: object exists does not
mean that mntner: really has authority over that
On 30/01/2011 17:39, Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo wrote:
The solution to this problem (theoretical at least) already exist in
the form of RPKI.
So, what are peoples' routing policies on RPKI going to be? Are people
going to drop prefixes with no RPKI record? Or drop prefixes with an
incorrect
On 28/01/2011 15:15, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
Al Arabiya is reporting (via twitter) that the Internet has been shut of
in Syria (where I have not heard of reports of protests).
I have no confirmation of this as yet.
AS29386 (Syrian Telecommunication Establishment) appears to be up at this
On 27/01/2011 11:21, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
I thought it was an experiment and I thought that 4.3 billion IPv4
addresses would be enough to do an experiment, Cerf was quoted as saying,
adding it is his fault that we were running out of the addresses.
Fortunately, web developers have fixed the
On 18/01/2011 00:38, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
All of this IP space is null routed. The customer has been served with
notice to vacate. What more are you asking for?
Summarising other people positions: a functional abuse desk, a less
defensive attitude when people point out serious abuse going on
On 21/03/2007 09:41, Tarig Ahmed wrote:
Is it true that NAT can provide more security?
No.
Your security person is probably confusing NAT with firewalling, as NAT
devices will intrinsically do firewalling of various forms, sometimes
stateful, sometimes not. Stateful firewalling _may_
On 11/01/2011 10:50, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
I am hearing reports of Internet blockage in / to Tunisia, where a near full-on
revolt is being coordinated / reported on by
social media such as twitter ( #sidibouzid ), Facebook and Youtube.
Can anyone confirm that there is blockage ? Are there
On 20/12/2010 14:41, William Pitcock wrote:
[...] but the 6500
series chassis can do IP-level ACL in hardware.
as regards urpf on the sup720 / rsp720: ipv4, yes; ipv6, no.
BTW, it's worth asking this question when purchasing new equipment: does
the equipment support both loose and strict
On 17/12/2010 22:51, mkarir wrote:
Also the 105/8 which was recently allocated to AfriNIC.
all things considered, it's almost time to declare the bogons list dead.
Unless there are active updates installed, any new filtering should take
place on the basis of the smaller martians list.
Nick
http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2010/12/03/wsj-google-has-bought-111-8th-avenue/
Nick
On 22/11/2010 10:00, Sergey Voropaev wrote:
I'm sure that router updates its counter more often than 5 seconds.
some do, some don't. For example, sup720 snmp counters are updated every 9
seconds, while the show interface counters are updated every 30 seconds.
Nick
On 22/11/2010 10:47, Livio Zanol Puppim wrote:
Good to know. It such a dificult information to find in documentation.
I should have wrapped up that statement with a ymmv. Because probably,
your mileage will vary.
Nick
On 22/11/2010 14:02, Brandon Ross wrote:
That is most certainly NOT true.
You're correct that I'm mistaken. It's 9 second updates for both snmp and
the interface (packets / bytes) counters, at least on 6700 cards / SXI.
Are you getting different measurements?
Nick
On 22/11/2010 22:56, Tassos Chatzithomaoglou wrote:
Does service counters max age help in any way?*
*According to Cisco, setting it too low might upset the snmp counters.*
https://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/fundamentals/command/reference/cf_r1.html#wp1067159
The Usage Guidelines are
On 21/11/2010 22:50, William Herrin wrote:
Just for my own edification, who else besides Cisco do you know who
uses that notation for MAC addresses? I want some convincing before
I'll accept the claim that it's widespread.
Brocade, or at least the Foundry part of Brocade.
Nick
On 11/11/2010 03:03, Nick Hilliard wrote:
On 11/11/2010 01:25, Scott Weeks wrote:
Why did that make you feel safe? Other than a bug, and ignorance of
BGP, what is unsafe about a lotta prepends?
In theory, nothing. In practice:
I admit it. I'm feeling smug today.
Nick
On 11/11/2010 01:25, Scott Weeks wrote:
Why did that make you feel safe? Other than a bug, and ignorance of
BGP, what is unsafe about a lotta prepends?
In theory, nothing. In practice:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/products_security_advisory09186a0080af150f.shtml
On 09/11/2010 13:46, Tony Finch wrote:
Is a DNS server core or edge? ILNP aims to use the DNS as its mapping
service.
This is one of several reasons that ILNP is destined to fail - imho.
Nick
On 08/11/2010 21:51, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
So there's empirical data that It Does Indeed Matter (at least to some
people).
It certainly does. However, there is lots more empirical data to suggest
that It Does Not Matter to most service providers. We tried introducing it
to INEX
On 01/11/2010 15:21, Greg Whynott wrote:
you recently converted from token ring to ethernet? i had no idea
there was still token ring networks out there, or am i living in a
bubble?
Sadly, you're living in a bubble. As long as there are banks and very
large commercial institutions, there
On 26/10/2010 17:23, Owen DeLong wrote:
He's talking about the bloat that comes from ISPs getting slow-started and then
only being able to increase their network in increments of 2x each time, so,
effectively ISP gets:
[...]
Probably not quite as bad as IPv4, but, potentially close.
In
On 26/10/2010 18:19, Jack Bates wrote:
My minimum /30 allocation per ARIN met a /27 in HD-Ratio thresholds. To not
be given the threshold space means no reservations for subtending ISPs, no
room for subtending ISPs to grow, and multiple assignments. If ARIN only
does /29 boundaries, I'll also be
On 25/10/2010 15:56, Joe Greco wrote:
Four is, IMHO, the best number of servers to have. They do not need to be
fast or modern machines.
They do need to have a somewhat unbroken internal clock.
This tends to mean that running ntp on a VM is not generally a good idea.
Nick
On 18/10/2010 12:25, Lin Pica8 wrote:
We are starting to distribute Pica8 Open Source Cloud Switches :
Sounds interesting. What chipset does this run on?
Also, what's a cloud switch? Is this a switch which forwards L2 traffic,
or did I miss something?
Nick
On 18/10/2010 14:27, Brandon Kim wrote:
Good question Nick, what is a cloud switch? Is this like VSS in cisco
where you have a virtual chassis?
The vss is virtual management software for a virtual switch. This box
looks like a piece of hardware that you can plug things into, so I'm just
On 15/10/2010 20:26, Zaid Ali wrote:
SO I have been turning up v6 with multiple providers now and notice that
some choose /64 for numbering interfaces but one I came across use a /126. A
/126 is awfully large (for interface numbering) and I am curious if there is
some rationale behind using a
On 07/10/2010 13:10, Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote:
You know what, why don't we simply turn the smtp servers -off-
This is an excellent idea. I invite you to do everyone a favour and turn
yours off first.
Nick
On 04/10/2010 18:24, Heath Jones wrote:
I'm not clever enough to know of some way that you could do optical
regeneration without converting the signal to electrical and
retransmitting back as optical.. How is that done?
Wikipedia has a useful article on this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EDFA
On 29/09/2010 22:36, Dale W. Carder wrote:
I most often see RIPv2 used simply to avoid paying vendor license fees to run
more sophisticated things such as OSPF.
The good thing about vendors who charge license fees to run more
sophisticated things such as OSPF is that there are always other
On 21/09/2010 06:07, Positively Optimistic wrote:
Do any of our fellow nanog members have experience with cable management on
6509/6513 cisco switches? We're upgrading infrastructure in some of our
facilities,.. and until it came to cable management, the switches seemed to
be a great idea...
On 03/09/2010 16:16, Randy Bush wrote:
that was the condition at narita red carpet a few years back. had to
pull a chain at ugs in chicago to find someone who knew what i meant.
and people wonder why developers implement * over http/https. Sigh.
Nick
On 02/09/2010 13:20, lorddoskias wrote:
I'm just curious - what is the largest OSPF core (in terms of number of
routers) out there?
You don't expect anyone to actually admit to something like this? :-)
Nick
On 02/09/2010 10:30, Graham Beneke wrote:
I have been asked to investigate moving an entire network to multi-hop
on all the eBGP sessions. Basically all upstreams, downstreams and peers
will eBGP with a route reflector located in the core. This RR will be
some kind of quagga or similar box.
On 16/08/2010 21:46, Randy Bush wrote:
it is stopping fat fingers such as pk/youtube, 7007, and the every day
accidental mis-announcements of others' prefixes.
I am dying to hear the explanation of why the people who didn't bother
with irrdb filters are going to latch on en-masse to rpki
On 09/08/2010 16:12, Christopher Morrow wrote:
I think, from another list about 2 yrs ago, the person responsible for
this data inside the company at the time (now not there) said someone
misinterpreted his stats/numbers...
No doubt this is true. And I note we haven't even started discussing
On 23/07/2010 01:17, Mark Smith wrote:
Does this qualify? What the customer sees is delivered over IPv6,
unlike the CPE management problem, where the ISP is the IPv6 customer.
IPv6: The Future of IPTV? In Japan it isn't the future, it's now.
On 22/07/2010 22:38, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
As for those two scenarios (IPv6-only ISPs and IPv6-only clients, to simplify
them), the document doesn't place them as first preference solutions.
However, the fact is that various *extremely* large operators find themselves
more or less forced into
On 18 Jul 2010, at 10:58, Dobbins, Roland rdobb...@arbor.net wrote:
ASR1K, which is what I'm assuming you're referring to, is a hardware-based
router. Same for ASR9K.
My c* SE swears that the asr1k is a software router. I didn't push him on
it's architecture though.
The asr9k is an npu
On 13/07/2010 16:07, Curtis Maurand wrote:
On 7/13/2010 4:53 AM, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
When a single botted/misbehaving host easily can take down a
software-based BRAS, that's a pretty strong indication that
software-based edge devices are contraindicated, heh.
Software-based edge devices
On 30/06/2010 17:07, George Bonser wrote:
Some gear you add vlans to a port. Other gear you add ports to vlans.
Personally, I prefer the Cisco configuration syntax because if I want to
know which vlans a port is in, you look at the port config and there it
is. Other gear you need to look
On 27/06/2010 14:03, Jonathan Feldman wrote:
For example, it's not feasible to do a massive data load through the
networks that are currently available -- you need to FedEx a hard drive
to Amazon. Holy cow, it's SneakerNet for the 21st Century!
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a
On 14/06/2010 18:00, T.J. Kniveton wrote:
Thank you, now I can see the presenter.
Next challenge, can you put an overlay of the slides on the upper right
quarter of the screen? :-)
The slides are available on the flash stream:
http://www.nanog.org/streaming.php?secondflash=1
Nick
On 23 May 2010, at 09:31, Matthew Walster matt...@walster.org wrote:
No complaints here apart from the need to use MU connectors.
MU gives slightly lower attenuation than other types of physical
connector (i.e. non spliced). It's a minor pain if you don't have an
easy source of MU patch
On 21/05/2010 13:16, Lorell Hathcock wrote:
job just fine. (And he's the same guy that has bridged this whole network,
so it is easy to disbelieve his opinion.)
ew. nasty.
So here's the question. Is there something about running BGP on a Mikrotik
platform that precludes having the
On 15 May 2010, at 04:30, Christopher Morrow morrowc.li...@gmail.com
wrote:
See, done for 300$/month...
$300/month + the cost of building fossils into your network on day 1.
This cost is a whole pile more difficult to quantify than basic PoP
service capex/opex, but it's recurrent and non
On 10/05/2010 20:20, Randy Bush wrote:
if something like those happen again, we are gonna be spending a lot of
time explaining our selves to people who wear funny clothes, and telling
them why it is not going to happen again if they let us keep our jobs.
Yes, I have observed that people who
On 10/05/2010 16:29, Christopher Morrow wrote:
qwest customers may want to take note here...quickly enough is how
much of your business lost exactly?
this is a matter of risk analysis. No secure routing means we'll continue
to see the occasional high profile outage which is dealt with very
On 10/05/2010 17:00, Aaron Glenn wrote:
my gut says things would do well to begin with simply making an effort
at maintaining usable irr data and automagically generating sane
filters. why don't people do that again? I hope I'm not naively
misunderstanding a primary use of irr data in front of
On 10/05/2010 17:58, Jared Mauch wrote:
On May 10, 2010, at 12:48 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
- there are some endemic data reliability problems with the IRRDBs,
exacerbated by the fact that on most of the widely-used IRRDBs, there is no
link between the RIR and the IRRDB, which means that anyone
On 1 May 2010, at 22:42, Steve Bertrand st...@ipv6canada.com wrote:
On 2010.05.01 16:43, ML wrote:
Has anyone here heard of or do they themselves charge extra for
providing a complete internet table to customers?
... I've never heard of it, but iow, I'd pay more if I could get my
upstreams
On 27/04/2010 18:48, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
Anyone inventing a new service/protocol that doesn't work with NAT isn't
planning on success.
You mean, like multisession bgp over tls?
Nick,
just sayin'
On 25/04/2010 13:46, Mehmet Akcin wrote:
Anyone experiencing connectivity problems to South African networks at this
moment? A fellow colleague informed SEACOM cable which is serving east
Africa seems to be down.
Let me know if you have more information on this subject.
The problem may be
On 19/04/2010 16:14, Patrick Giagnocavo wrote:
The eyeball ISPs will find it trivial to NAT should they ever need to do
so [...]
Patrick,
Having made this bold claim, have you ever actually tried to run a natted
eyeball network? The last two natted eyeball networks I worked with could
never
On 19/04/2010 16:51, Florian Weimer wrote:
I'm pretty sure the acceptance of NAT varies regionally. I think
there's a large ISP in Italy which has been doing NAT since the 90s.
to my knowledge, if we're talking about the same organisation, this large
ISP is moving away from NAT, or already has
On 14/04/2010 08:06, Srinivas Chendi su...@apnic.net wrote:
APNIC received the following IPv4 address blocks from IANA in April
2010 and will be making allocations from these ranges in the near
future:
014/8
223/8
Sunny,
Please be careful about how you write this. 014 is formally
On 10/04/2010 21:36, Tim Durack wrote:
Notify all holders of a currently active AS they have been
allocated/assigned a /32. No fees. No questions.
To accept the allocation/assignment, it must be advertised within a 24
month period.
There is no shortage of available /32s in 2000::/3. There
On 07/04/2010 17:09, John Palmer (NANOG Acct) wrote:
Was looking at the ARIN IP6 policy and cannot find any reference to
those who have IP4 legacy space.
Isn't there an automatic allocation for those of us who have legacy IP
space. If not, is ARIN saying we have to pay them a fee to use
On 05/04/2010 18:51, Steven Bellovin wrote:
Yup. 10 years earlier, a 3Com Ethernet card for a Vax cost about $1500, if
memory serves.
To be fair, everything for a vax was somewhat pricey. And slow.
On an even more unrelated note, does anyone remember the day that
CMU-TEK tcp/ip stopped
On 02/04/2010 14:39, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Fri, 02 Apr 2010 13:48:48 BST, Michael Dillon said:
So, what are you having your up-and-coming NOC staff read?
In an attempt to wean them off of unmanageable PERL scripts
There is not, and there never will be, a useful programming
On 31/03/2010 22:30, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
It's not in the wrt610n docs either yet the code was unambiguously in
the box, complete with 6to4 that your couldn't shut off.
I have heard that if you visit the hidden /system.asp web page on those
devices and unclick the Vista Premium button, that this
601 - 700 of 773 matches
Mail list logo
