On 18 Jul 2010, at 10:58, "Dobbins, Roland" 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 based device -
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
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 t
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 station
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 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 cables, but there are
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 inte
On 15 May 2010, at 04:30, Christopher Morrow
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 zero.
Nick
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 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 IR
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
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 1 May 2010, at 22:42, Steve Bertrand 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 to provide the full ta
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
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 ha
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 16/04/2010 16:48, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> the cx4 interface is xaui 4x3Gb/s, as is xenpack. xfp is xfi 1 x 10Gb/s
> so connecting the two requires a serdes device.
you're mixing up interfaces here. This is certainly true of the electrical
interface between transceiver and transceiver port. Howe
On 14/04/2010 08:06, Srinivas Chendi 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 an octal
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.
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 us
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 wor
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 programm
On 01/04/2010 00:40, Michael Dillon wrote:
In fact, consumer demand for IPv6 is close to 100%.
Michael, I think you fat-fingered "0%".
Just to be clear, I'm talking about the real world here.
Nick
On 31/03/2010 23:55, Charles N Wyble wrote:
What good off the shelf solutions are out there? Should one buy the high
end d-link/linksys/netgear products? I've had bad experiences with those
(netgear in particular).
Some people have said that the Fritz!box is quite good. No idea if it's
approv
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
On 31/03/2010 21:07, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> the current wrt610n supports ipv6 I failed to see why a slightly
> updated and rebranded one would not as well.
because for low-end CPE devices like this, a tiny change in the model
number (e.g. v1->v2) might mean a completely different internal system,
On 23/03/2010 12:59, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> And now, you're still acting like you've got new unique insights and going out
> of your way to irritate the very same more experienced people that you
> probably
> should be trying to learn from, when you haven't bothered to find out that
> yo
On 09/03/2010 18:54, John Lightfoot wrote:
> Can anyone tell me how to get the beta 64 bit client? Thanks.
> http://tools.cisco.com/support/downloads/go/ImageList.x?relVer=5.0.7+Beta&mdfid=281940730&sftType=VPN+Client+Software&optPlat=Windows
Nick
On 27/02/2010 04:04, Phil Regnauld wrote:
> I'm not saying that political incentives (carrot & stick) or government
> regulations in the line of "implement IPv6 before X/Y or else..." have
> had any effect, except maybe in Japan:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Japanese governme
On 27/02/2010 06:20, Kevin Oberman wrote:
> I'm sorry, but some people are spending too much time denying
> history. IPv6 has been largely ready for YEARS. Less than five years ago
> a lot of engineers were declaring IPv6 dead and telling people that
> double and triple NAT was the way of the futur
On 26/02/2010 22:13, David Conrad wrote:
If you want to be really frightened, remember that the IPv4 free pool
is going to be exhausted in something like 576 days. Given the lack
of IPv6 deployment, the subsequent food fights that erupt as markets
in IPv4 addresses are established are likely goi
On 26/02/2010 21:13, Antonio Querubin wrote:
Some googling for 'itu ipv6' turns up the following (among other things):
http://www.itu.int/net/ITU-T/ipv6/itudocs.aspx
Wow, there are some real classics in there. Anyone in need of a good
end-of-week belly laugh should take a look at "Delayed Co
On 18/02/2010 10:40, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
> They seem to be doing that a lot of late. They also contacted my
> employer and demanded $100k/yr(?) for having a "Use Spamhaus RBL" in our
> software.
I sympathise. It's very frustrating when you try to deal with these
anti-spam outfits in a rea
On 17/02/2010 20:51, Tomas L. Byrnes wrote:
> [Tomas L. Byrnes] We were a small regional ISP with only one main POP at
> the time.
off-net resolvers means that your continued customer satisfaction (and
therefore your continued reliable cash-flow) is completely dependent on
maintaining a good worki
On 17/02/2010 01:19, Randy Bush wrote:
> i would add decades of bad anecdotes where the data plane is not
> congruent with the control plane. in general, when plane N is not
> congruent with plane N+1, management and debugging are problematic.
I've always maintained publicly and privately that ro
On 16/02/2010 19:47, Thomas Mangin wrote:
During the discussion, a developers of Bird said that their filtering
code _may_ still have bugs (when performing community based
filtering).
medium-long term, community based route-server filtering has no future.
There will be two reasons for its dem
On 12/02/2010 21:21, Mr. James W. Laferriere wrote:
> ps:I am Very well aware that (so far) there is no standard format
> for returned requests from *whois daemons .
eh, what are you talking about?
If you want to prefix-filter your bgp feeds using RPSL objects, you can
pull the "fltr-bogons"
On 11/02/2010 12:26, Igor Ybema wrote:
> Ok, policy is policy and we should not complain. However, I'm asking
> your opinions about this policy. I find this really stupid because
> this completely brakes use for 6to4 in Germany and their is no good
> reason to block it.
Someone once asked Angela M
On 10/02/2010 14:46, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> I guess we can agree to disagree then. I think it's highly biased
> towards promoting IXPs,
Uh, it was produced and paid for by IXPs for the intention of promoting
IXPs. Why do you have an issue with this?
> and it gives the impression that priva
On 03/02/2010 12:51, Andy Davidson wrote:
> It looks like the lack of ipv6 support in ipplan is partly due to the
> maintainer not wanting to support it, so we might be tempted to (if the
> license permits) fork the project and hack in support.
There is a FAQ entry for ipv6 support in ipplan:
> O
On 02/02/2010 02:21, Chadwick Sorrell wrote:
> This outage, of a high profile customer, triggered upper management to
> react by calling a meeting just days after. Put bluntly, we've been
> told "Human errors are unacceptable, and they will be completely
> eliminated. One is too many."
Leaving t
On 26/01/2010 13:35, TJ wrote:
> The US DoD has the equivalent of a /13 ... what is the question?
In fact, they have a little less than a /18. This is still the largest
block when aggregated - France Telecom comes second with a single /19.
http://www.mail-archive.com/nanog@nanog.org/msg01876.htm
On 22/01/2010 16:32, Brian Dickson wrote:
> So, if the tainted *portions* of problem /8's are set aside
What portion of 1/8 is untainted? Or any other /8 that the IANA has
identified as having problems? How do you measure it? How do you ensure
that other /8s which don't _appear_ to have problem
On 22/01/2010 15:16, William Allen Simpson wrote:
> Because relying on a blog post for policy really meets everybody's
> definition of rationality :-(
What works then? What happened to rough consensus and running code?
> If you're assigning 2 at the same time, they should be adjacent.
>
> T
On 22/01/2010 13:54, William Allen Simpson wrote:
> Also, 27/8 is clearly in the middle of a group of North American military
> assignments. So at the very least, these aren't very CIDR'ish.
Is that operationally relevant to the /8 assignment process?
> Why not 36 & 37?
Random selection to ensu
On 22/01/2010 05:07, Jim Mercer wrote:
> i'm doing some consulting work for a cable operator in Pakistan.
>
> while i'm guessing that realistically we will be approaching RIPE for address
> space, i'm just wandering what happened to 24.0.0.0/8 and what policies
> govern who and what can use the ad
On 02/01/2010 18:37, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
> I'm a big believer in running my own tests when possible, and not just
> relying on $provider's word. It also allows me to verify what their
> engineering reports tell me about the condition of a span.
+1
There's nothing like having hard data to s
On 02/01/2010 00:24, ML wrote:
> Pardon my ignorance in this area but is too much to ask for OTDR data
> before signing contracts? In addition to data on the make of the fiber
> if you wanted to do xWDM in the future.
fibre grade / quality, absolutely. otdr is difficult, because fibre
providers
On 29/12/2009 21:10, Joe Greco wrote:
> How do you offer a "cheaper" level of
> (let's say) Web-only Internet access, when the support costs will be
> higher? Where's the value? What's the business plan? Where's the profit
> in that?
As an unrelated footnote, these are questions which will beco
On 22/12/2009 23:36, Jon Lewis wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Jon Lewis wrote:
Should US based networks be willing to route RIPE "ASSIGNED PA" space
customers provide?
I would argue not and the bofh in me would be inclined to announ
On 18/12/2009 18:19, Joly MacFie wrote:
> I have posted sa comment on this from ISOC England on
> http://www.isoc-ny.org/p2/?p=134
>
> Please feel free to add comments there.
I tried to read this article earlier today, but my lolwut meter exploded.
It's not really clear whether the confusion in
On 12/11/2009 20:40, Bulger, Tim wrote:
Slightly off-topic.. Consider offloading 100Mb connections like PDUs,
DRAC/iLO, etc. to lower cost switches to get the most out of your
premium ports.
Not just that, you can also use lower cost switches to move your management
fully out-of-band with resp
On 10/11/2009 09:52, a...@baklawasecrets.com wrote:
3) Arrange for PI space and ASN myself, so become an LIR through RIPE.
You don't need to become a LIR to get PI space and an ASN.
Do I really lose a lot by asking Level3 or GBLX to get the PI and ASN
for me?
You lose relatively little. If
On 22/10/2009 12:49, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
its been a few weeks/years/minutes since I ran an exchange fabric,
but when we first turned up IPv6 - the first thing they did was try
to hand all the other routers IPv6 addresses. that pesky RA/ND
thing...
On 22/10/2009 11:30, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 09:20:11PM +1100, Karl Auer wrote:
The RA contains a preference level... maybe that doesn't cut it if
multiple routers are sending the same preference level, but presumably
that would not happen in a well-tended ne
On 18/10/2009 11:05, Nathan Ward wrote:
Remember RA does not mean SLAAC, it just means RA.
This is not ideal because two protocols are being mandated instead of just
one: RA for client-side autoconfiguration and DHCPv6 for everything else.
This is pointless. We have a good working model in
On 13/10/2009 12:18, Ingo Flaschberger wrote:
.se statement:
http://www.iis.se/en/2009/10/13/felaktig-dns-information/
The internet's reply (sfw):
http://pr0nbot.phetast.nu/src/iis_xzibit-1255422509.JPEG
Nick
On 12/10/2009 21:38, Ben White wrote:
Does anyone else also see trouble reaching .se domains at the moment?
it would appear that someone may have left out the trailing dot on ".se.".
Dig is returning:
se. 172800 IN NS h.ns.se.se.
se. 172800
On 05/10/2009 17:08, Brian Johnson wrote:
So a customer with a single PC hooked up to their broad-band connection
would be given 2^64 addresses?
I realize that this is future proofing, but OMG! That’s the IPv4
Internet^2 for a single device!
No, for a single LAN.
Am I still seeing/reading/un
On 11/09/2009 21:13, William Herrin wrote:
180kbps is more or less middle-of-the-road for ADSL.
In terms of technology, it's about as close to bottom of the range as
you can get. The south african incumbent, Telkom, have three different
products, described here:
http://www.telkom.co.za/pro
On 10/09/2009 22:17, Scott Spencer wrote:
I can't really find anything much on X6148A internal architecture online,
but it would seem that each port gets its own 1gb/s link to the
card/backplane, and that the bottleneck then is the 32gb/s backplane (which
is fine, as long as it's not 1 gb/s per e
On 01/09/2009 21:01, Jim Wininger wrote:
Anyone else seeing issues with gmail?
Down, definitely down. Call the White House!
It should be clear that the root cause here is a lack of regulation, so
could someone phone Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) _urgently_ and advise him
that the only way to
On 30/08/2009 17:53, Shane Ronan wrote:
What system were you using to monitor link usage?
yrtg
Nick
On 30/08/2009 13:04, Randy Bush wrote:
the normal snmp and other averaging methods *really* miss the bursts.
Definitely. For fun and giggles, I recently turned on 30 second polling on
some kit and it turned up all sorts of interesting peculiarities that were
completely blotted out in a 5 min
On 24/08/2009 19:03, Holmes,David A wrote:
Additionally, and perhaps most significantly for deterministic network
design, the copper cards share input hardware buffers for every 8 ports.
Running one port of the 8 at wire speed will cause input drops on the
other 7 ports. Also, the cards connect t
On 22/08/2009 06:26, Andrew Parnell wrote:
The 67xx series cards aren't supported by the sup32, though. Would 65xx
line cards do the trick?
unfortunately not:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/switches/lan/catalyst6500/ios/12.2SXF/native/configuration/guide/storm.html
• The following LAN sw
On 21/08/2009 17:04, Roland Dobbins wrote:
Yes, but this is evil and dangerous in a customer-facing environment;
transparent mode is the preferred option, in most circumstances.
It is very evil, yes. SXH and later support VTPv3 which allows you to
disable VTP on a per port basis. But as you
On 21/08/2009 16:39, Roland Dobbins wrote:
Chopping up the layer-2 broadcast domain for a given VLAN into smaller
pieces via pVLANs can't hurt, either, as long as the hosts have no need
to talk to one another - and it has other benefits, as well.
Unless your broadcast storm happens on an untagg
Peter,
This question would be better directed at cisco-nsp, but...
On 21/08/2009 11:39, Peter George wrote:
I have several Catalyst 6500 (Supervisor 32) aggregation switches with
WS-X6148A-GE-TX and WS-X6148-GE-TX line cards.
These line cards do not support storm-control/broadcast suppression.
On 19/08/2009 16:12, Clue Store wrote:
I would like to run an IGP (currently OSPF) to our customers that are
multi-homed in a non-mpls environment.
Unless you want your customers to have very substantial control over your
internal network, don't use an SPF IGP like ospf or is-is. You really
On 13/08/2009 04:03, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
In fact this is one of
the reasons why querying data from RIPE is such a pain, their query
language lacks a recursive service side expansion mechanism so the
transaction latency turns querying a large AS-SET into a multi-hour or
day long operation
On 11/08/2009 00:24, Martin Hannigan wrote:
The only question I have is a context switch. Why Mogadishu? Do the (sea)
pirates need more capacity to manage their ship hijacking business?
The indications are that Somalia has been improving over the past year
or two. If this continues, then it m
On 08/08/2009 18:09, William Allen Simpson wrote:
Not in a long time. My memory is that SAT-3 was supposed to be a nice
cooperative effort funded by the nations themselves, rather than an
outside investor. With cooperation, I'd have expected good peering.
Indeed, it is a co-operative affair own
On 05/08/2009 15:18, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> I don't understand why replacing DNS is "not feasible".
I'd be happy to think about replacing the DNS as soon as we've finished
off migrating to an ipv6-only internet in a year or two.
Shall we set up a committee to try to make it happen faster?
Nick
On 24/04/2009 18:46, Leo Bicknell wrote:
I have looked at the failure modes and the cost of fixing them and
decided that it is cheaper and easier to deal with the failure modes
than it is to deal with the fix.
Leo, your position is: "worse is better". I happen to agree with this
sentiment for
On 19/04/2009 08:31, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
Well, as long as it simply drops packets and doesn't shut the port or
some other "fascist" enforcement. We've had AMSIX complain that our
Cisco 12k with E5 linecard was spitting out a few tens of packets per
day during two months with random source m
On 17/04/2009 15:11, Sharlon R. Carty wrote:
I like would to know what are best practices for an internet exchange. I
have some concerns about the following;
Can the IXP members use RFC 1918 ip addresses for their peering?
Can the IXP members use private autonomous numbers for their peering?
May
On 18/04/2009 01:08, Paul Vixie wrote:
i've spent more than several late nights and long weekends dealing with
the problems of shared multiaccess IXP networks. broadcast storms,
poisoned ARP, pointing default, unintended third party BGP, unintended
spanning tree, semitranslucent loops, unauthori
On 27/03/2009 15:26, Leo Bicknell wrote:
AFAIK you have to have native peering with them to be part of the
pilot. At least, you did when we signed up. They may have relaxed
that since.
According to a Google IPv6 talk I attended yesterday, they don't intend to
relax that rule. Tunneling ipv6
On 21/03/2009 16:36, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
er... 'parm me sir, but aren't -all- ASNs 4 bytes?
i mean, for lo these many years we cheated and only
used the first two bytes... but the spec always
called out four bytes.
There seems to be a bug in my
On 15/03/2009 01:55, Andy Bierlair wrote:
I’m trying to run netflow on one of our Cisco core routers (SUP720-3BXL),
but I think I am hitting some limitations because of this:
Sounds about right for the amount of traffic you're pushing through the
box. The SUP720 is a very poor netflow platfor
On 23/02/2009 23:51, Tom Storey wrote:
Erm, what does that have to do with DNS lookups? :-)
Nothing at all, except that it stops this behaviour:
... when you have no DNS
servers configured and mistype "configt", or some other command that
doesnt exist and it tries to resolve it through broadc
On 23/02/2009 23:02, Tom Storey wrote:
Though the only thing it doesnt seem to help with is when you have no DNS
servers configured and mistype "configt", or some other command that
doesnt exist and it tries to resolve it through broadcast several times.
Ive found its futile to try and get out of
On 19/02/2009 07:27, David Conrad wrote:
those requirements to be. Unfortunately, that's not what we have. We
have network operators in their own little world, trying to keep the
network running and protocol developers in their own little world,
trying to come up with cool features that will make
On 18/02/2009 19:39, Kevin Loch wrote:
Just how DO we get the message to the IETF that we need all the tools we
have in v4 (DHCP, VRRP, etc) to work with RA turned off?
Easy. Disable all ipv4 at ietf meetings and change the address of the DNS
server on the LAN every couple of minutes.
Eatin
> That was one of our biggest worries people make mistakes and route
> leaks happen.
They do. And it's not just mom+pop providers who occasionally leak an
entire table. Big operators do it too.
> The unfortunate part we're faced with now is that we have several
> downstream customers wh
On 21/01/2009 21:30, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Jan 21, 2009, at 11:07 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
Finding ways to force object revalidation by an intermediary cache (so
the end origin server knows something has been fetched) and thus
allowing the cache to serve the content on behalf of the conten
Dennis Dayman wrote:
> So I apologize for that test, but I can no longer see posts to the list.
> I can send to the list, but I don't get a copy of my posts or anyone
> else's. My MTA is not blocking anything nor does it ever get a
> connection from MERIT mail servers to send me a copy of the posts
Martin Hannigan wrote:
> Is all of this terrestrial network already in place?
>
> http://www.hiberniaatlantic.com/maps/HA_NIreland_Routes.pdf
I understand that it isn't yet, but that it can be built out relatively
quickly.
Nick
Peter Beckman wrote:
* GMT is used to imply UT1, but sometimes UTC, but really GMT is just
massively confusing and you shouldn't use it, either in conversation
or in your servers/routers, because nobody is really sure without
reading a lot of documentation what GMT means for
Adrian Chadd wrote:
> Wow, how'd I miss that, I wonder? :)
I would recommend lodging a complaint to the relevant authorities. That's
sure to help.
But seriously. Leap seconds occur every couple of years, either on July
30th and Dec 31. Sometimes both. And sometimes every consecutive year for
Adrian Chadd wrote:
> This begs the question - how the heck do timekeepers and politicians get
> away with last minute time changes?
>
> Surely there's -some- pushback from technology related interest groups to
> try and get more than four weeks warning? :)
?
Notice for the leap second was issue
Hank Nussbacher wrote:
> You mean like for BGP neighbors? Wanna suggest an alternative? :-)
tcp/md5 + gtsm (assuming directly connected peers) makes messing around
with bgp sessions rather difficult. Filtering BGP packets at the edge and
borders slightly more so. If you have CPU and sufficient
Christopher Morrow wrote:
> This is a function of an upgrade (firefox3.5 coming 'soon!') for
> browsers, and for OS's as well, yes? So, given a future flag-day (18
> months from today no more MD5, only SHA-232323 will be used!!)
> browsers for the majority of the market could be upgraded. Certainly
Lee, Steven (NSG Malaysia) wrote:
> Hi all, do you have any recommended tools that can measure latency/delay
> hop by hop basis? Preferable the tools can measure the running (live)
> traffic.
Tools like smokeping, mtr, traceroute and all that will give you highly
skewed results, whose accuracy wil
chuck goolsbee wrote:
> would look, other than the granite walls
On the subject of suitability problems, unless there is good air
circulation in these bunkers from the outside, radon seepage from the
surrounding granite has the potential to cause a lot of health problems for
any unlucky punter who
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Are there any parties out there routing /48 IPv6 networks globally? I ran
> into a supposed Catch-22 with Verizon and IPv6 address space and was
> looking for clarification.
There are a bunch of IXPs around who have been announcing /48s for a some
while. From a cur
On 06/11/2008 02:00, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Who owns the DNS root?
The US Government claims to. However, asserting authority over the DNS
root is a different matter to a mere claim to ownership, and if the US
Government were to unilaterally decide on an action which directly acted
against
On 31/10/2008 13:23, Joe Greco wrote:
It is certainly not "just" a bullying tactic. It may be "A" bullying
tactic, I won't even attempt to guess at the intent, but the tactic also
has the very real side effect of re-establishing full connectivity to
Sprint-connected sites that lose it.
you-re
701 - 800 of 801 matches
Mail list logo
