Composed on a virtual keyboard, please forgive typos.
On Jul 13, 2012, at 22:00, cidr-rep...@potaroo.net wrote:
This report has been generated at Fri Jul 13 21:10:00 2012 AEST.
The report analyses the BGP Routing Table of AS2.0 router
and generates a report on aggregation potential within
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-18704192
This is very good news, IMHO. And operationally relevant, even to North
American operators.
--
TTFN,
patrick
On Jun 13, 2012, at 10:12 , Randy Bush wrote:
Spammer Scott Whittle has harvested not only email addresses from the
NANOG list archives, but also Message-IDs
and draft-...@ietf.org addresses
Is his upstream, or the upstream of his hosting provider, on NANOG or IETF?
Or is he using a
On Jun 13, 2012, at 13:30 , Chris Boyd wrote:
On Jun 13, 2012, at 10:56 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
Is his upstream, or the upstream of his hosting provider, on NANOG or IETF?
My sample came via GoDaddy:
GoDaddy is not blind to these problems.
Has anyone asked them to look
On May 28, 2012, at 15:24 , Anurag Bhatia wrote:
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 12:50 AM, Tony Finch d...@dotat.at wrote:
Anurag Bhatia m...@anuragbhatia.com wrote:
One small concern I wanted to discuss here. I know few
registry/registrars which do not accept both (or all) name servers of
domain
On May 2, 2012, at 1:06, Aleksi Suhonen nanog-pos...@axu.tm wrote:
I have no idea what's really going on at LLNW, but I thought I'd still share
an alternative view on this matter:
My understanding is that LLNW is spending tons of money to upgrade some of
their IXP connections to 100GbE in
On May 1, 2012, at 13:26 , William Herrin wrote:
On 5/1/12, Dominik Bay d...@rrbone.net wrote:
Yesterday I received the following mail, from a CDN:
8
Greetings,
Limelight Networks [has] recently updated our requirements for
settlement-free peering
I love the fact Dominik says
On May 1, 2012, at 14:43 , William Herrin wrote:
On 5/1/12, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.net wrote:
On May 1, 2012, at 13:26 , William Herrin wrote:
If I'm willing to go to your location, buy the card for your router
and pay you for the staff hours to set it up, there should
On May 1, 2012, at 16:24 , Jerry Dent wrote:
Lets be honest. There are a million reasons we can all come up with to
try and justify something like this but 99% of the time it is just the
larger isp trying to throw their weight around in the name of greed.
In the end, the customers of both
On Apr 7, 2012, at 19:41 , TR Shaw wrote:
As for Yahoo, the problem will probably go away on its own over time. The
problem with companies that are in questionable/bad financial shape is that
they defund many activities that do not seem important but actually are.
These, such as abuse
On Apr 6, 2012, at 10:54 , Brielle Bruns wrote:
On 4/4/12 3:36 PM, Landon Stewart wrote:
It's best to not complain about it and just accept it as a fact of life
your IPs are listed on SORBS and move on. It's not the end of the world.
It turns into a customer service issue for most service
On Mar 28, 2012, at 10:44 , Bingyang LIU wrote:
I'm Bingyang Liu, a ph.d student in Tsinghua University. My thesis topic is
on source address validation.
Although BCP38 was proposed more than ten years ago, IP spoofing still
remains an attack vector [MIT-Spoofer] [ARBOR-Annual-Report]
On Mar 9, 2012, at 17:24 , Jay Hanke wrote:
How critical is BGP MD5 at Internet Exchange Points? Would lack of
support for MD5 authentication on route servers prevent some peers
from multilaterally connecting? Do most exchange operators support it?
On Mar 7, 2012, at 19:06 , Jim Cowie wrote:
As a meta-comment: this Quick Look style of blog is an experiment we're
trying, based on feedback that the community wanted to hear about more of
these little events as they happen. In a Quick Look, we're giving the facts
as they are known from
On Feb 19, 2012, at 10:59, Ken Gilmour ken.gilm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 18, 2012 10:24 PM, Robert Bonomi bon...@mail.r-bonomi.com wrote:
Even better, nat to a 'bogon' DNS server -- one that -- regardless of the
query -- returns the address of a dedicated machine on your network set up
Apparently I accidentally made two hotel reservations for the Westin Gas Lamp.
Made one, then thought I changed it, but just got confirmation I have two.
I have until 6 PM to cancel. If you want it, ping me before 5 PM PST.
--
TTFN,
patrick
And it's gone.
--
TTFN,
patrick
On Feb 1, 2012, at 5:01 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
Apparently I accidentally made two hotel reservations for the Westin Gas
Lamp. Made one, then thought I changed it, but just got confirmation I have
two.
I have until 6 PM to cancel. If you want
MD5 on BGP sessions is the canonical example of a cure worse than the disease.
There has been /infinitely/ more downtime caused by MD5 than the mythical
attack it protects again. (This is true because anything times zero is still
zero.)
It is far easier to take a router out than try to
On Jan 27, 2012, at 6:20 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:
On Jan 27, 2012, at 3:52 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
Your network, your decision. On my network, we do not do MD5. We do more
traffic than anyone and have to be in the top 10 of total eBGP peering
sessions on the planet. Guess how many
Akamai has a 24/7 NOC, n...@akamai.com or +1-617-444-3007. These are published
at http://www.akamai.com/peering/ and other places.
Akamai does not watch NANOG-l 24/7.
--
TTFN,
patrick
Composed on a virtual keyboard, please forgive typos.
On Jan 26, 2012, at 18:15, Thomas Magill
On Jan 15, 2012, at 7:36 AM, Robert Bonomi wrote:
I'v read RFC-1918. I cannot find *any* reference to 172.0/12, as the OP
was asking about. 172.16/12, yes. but not 172.0/12. Can you please clarify
your advice?
My advice is not to post when you are tired. :)
--
TTFN,
patrick
Read RFC1918.
Likely a machine on his local network (i.e. behind the same NAT box) is hitting
him.
But that is not guaranteed. A packet with a source address of 172.0.x.x could
be hitting his machine. Depends on how well you filter. Many networks only
look at destination IP address, source
On Dec 13, 2011, at 11:56 PM, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011, Matt Taylor wrote:
On 14/12/2011 2:13 PM, IPv4 Brokers wrote:
We are paying up-front (or escrow) for the use of networks that are not
used. The networks are used for honeypots and other research.
The networks
On Dec 12, 2011, at 12:18 AM, Joel jaeggli wrote:
On 12/11/11 19:49 , Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 10:46 PM, Faisal Imtiaz fai...@snappydsl.net wrote:
Simple, keep traffic off paid ip transit circuits
(I think joel's point was: peer with amazon, done-and-done)
On Dec 12, 2011, at 5:00 PM, Jason Lixfeld wrote:
On 2011-12-12, at 4:22 PM, Simon Lockhart si...@slimey.org wrote:
I guess most (i.e. those
which aren't Akamai) are more concerned with making money than with
delivering
a good service to the end user.
Really? I always thought that
On Dec 9, 2011, at 1:37 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
I just had a personal email from a brand new ISP in the Asia-Pacific area
desperately looking for enough IPv4 to be able to run their business the way
they would like…
This is just a data point.
Interesting data point.
Would be more
On Oct 15, 2011, at 3:29 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
From what I learned at the latest NANOG it's very clear that nobody
reads this any more.
some read it. we are the frustrated ones.
Some read it. I think everyone on NANOG is frustrated (or not paying
attention).
I would suggest that you
On Oct 15, 2011, at 5:17 PM, Phil Regnauld wrote:
John Peach (john-nanog) writes:
Normally I'd have just made this point privately, and perhaps only on
Futures, but since it seems to be a recent change, I'm doing the public
service of pointing it out, while asking that it be adjusted back.
On Oct 15, 2011, at 20:06, J na...@namor.ca wrote:
Simon Leinen wrote:
Guess it was a good idea to upgrade that Akamai cluster's uplink to
10GE, even though 2*GE (or was it 4*GE) looked sufficient at the time.
Remember folks, overprovisioning is a misnomer, it should be called
provisioning
On Oct 13, 2011, at 7:26 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
On 10/13/11 3:30 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
In fact, Skype, just as a for instance, is worse on hotel wifi as launching
the app on a laptop makes you a middle node for some conversations.
Per the Skype IT administrator guide, a Skype
On Oct 13, 2011, at 2:19 PM, Tom Vest wrote:
Note the distinction in the new peering relationship requirement -- only
direct adjacencies with other transit-providing ASes count.
...or did that change happen some time ago and I'm just noticing it now (?)
It is new.
I'm unclear how that
On Oct 13, 2011, at 3:21 PM, McCall, Gabriel wrote:
ActiveSync on Android allows corporate to force compliance with security
policy and allow remote wipe. User cannot complete the exchange account setup
without permitting the controls. If the user doesn't agree their sync isn't
enabled.
On Oct 3, 2011, at 7:25 PM, Nate Itkin wrote:
On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 11:14:03PM +, Michael J McCafferty wrote:
Our session with them is up and down at Any2 at OWB.
--Original Message--
From: Aiden Sullivan
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: he.net down?
Sent: Oct 3, 2011 3:35 PM
On Oct 3, 2011, at 6:54 PM, Dave hartzell wrote:
My peering with them at PAIX has been down for almost 50 minutes.
Not able to get to them via other paths...
Just posted to outages@ (where this discussion should likely be taking place):
HE's entire network is intermittently down. They
the costs or other
business conditions of every deal.
--
TTFN,
patrick
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 11:01 PM, Brandon Galbraith
brandon.galbra...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 5:06 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.netwrote:
If you have a lot more, you can negotiate tiers. E.g
On Sep 20, 2011, at 11:17 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
On Sep 20, 2011 7:54 PM, Joseph Gersch joe.ger...@secure64.com wrote:
Does anyone know if Akamai edgesuite servers rate limits or blacklists
caching servers that query it too often? It appears that queries are timing
out if we exceed a
On Sep 21, 2011, at 9:58 PM, Pradeep Bangera wrote:
I have a fundamental question regarding 95th percentile pricing. I will
make some prerequisite assumptions to set $/Mbps values before posting
my actual question.
Eg., For 1Gbps commitment, I will pay roughly $3/Mbps. Similarly for
On Sep 20, 2011, at 1:13 PM, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
Did Level3 withdraw 4.0.0.0/8 today and start announcing it as two /9s?
I don't know if it was today, but I see two /9s.
--
TTFN,
patrick
On Sep 20, 2011, at 2:54 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Why would you say that a GRE or other tunnel is not full-time connectivity? I
have full-time GRE tunnels to two ISPs and they do actually constitute
multihoming under the ARIN interpretation of NRPM 2.7.
i.e. if you have a leased line
On Sep 20, 2011, at 3:18 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.net said:
In the way that you are apparently incapable of reading what was written.
Jon very clearly states that if the GRE tunnel goes over the same physical
infrastructure
Mostly excellent thoughts, well documented. I have a question about this
statement though:
in fact, a number of global Tier-1 providers have preferred peers for decades
I assume you mean for a very limited subset of their customers? I've checked
routing on well over half the transit free
On Sep 4, 2011, at 9:59 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
I have worked for more then one transit free network, and have work
with people from (most) of the rest, we always prefer cust over peer,
every time.
again, more than one of the world's largest providers prefer peers. and
even if they wanted
On Sep 5, 2011, at 4:03, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
Because routing to peers as a policy instead of customer as a matter
of policy, outside of corner cases make logical sence.
welcome to the internet, it does not always make logical sense at first
glance.
the myth in academia that
On Aug 28, 2011, at 3:51 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
In a message written on Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 09:32:00PM -0400, Patrick W.
Gilmore wrote:
Why is that any different than forcing businesses to explain which links are
paid? Or any other internal data? Private businesses are private
On Aug 26, 2011, at 11:10 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 21:32:00 EDT, Patrick W. Gilmore said:
Next time Cogent de-peers someone, customers do not care who was being
more reasonable. They care that their links are broken.
Wouldn't that mostly affect people who
On Aug 27, 2011, at 8:30 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 13:56:35 EDT, Patrick W. Gilmore said:
And the customers still don't care. They just care _that_ it affected
them - at least during the problem. Although one can hope they care
enough to change their behavior
On Aug 24, 2011, at 12:41 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
From: Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.net
On Aug 24, 2011, at 8:55 AM, JC Dill wrote:
On 23/08/11 3:13 PM, William Herrin wrote:
A. Our structures aren't built to seismic zone standards. Our
construction workers aren't familiar with*how
.
--
TTFN,
patrick
On Aug 26, 2011, at 2:46 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
In a message written on Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 05:40:43PM -0400, Patrick W.
Gilmore wrote:
Yes, Above.Net broke the original peering-ratio fight that way. Thank you
for that. Too bad it didn't last.
I forgot to write
On Aug 24, 2011, at 8:55 AM, JC Dill wrote:
On 23/08/11 3:13 PM, William Herrin wrote:
A. Our structures aren't built to seismic zone standards. Our
construction workers aren't familiar with*how* to build to seismic
zone standards. We don't secure equipment inside our buildings to
seismic
On Aug 23, 2011, at 2:36 PM, Sule, Mohammed wrote:
Have anyone seen or feel any effect of this on their network?
Yes.
Users going to twitter, IRC, Facebook, Google+, etc., are WAY WAY WAY up.
Ditto news sources.
Oh, and of course, XKCD. :)
--
TTFN,
patrick
On Aug 19, 2011, at 4:51 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
In a message written on Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 04:29:05PM -0400, Adam
Rothschild wrote:
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7021703819
I like to see Level 3 arguing this with the regulators. AboveNet
persued this line of thinking
On behalf of the community, if I may be so bold (and I'm sure others will speak
up if they disagree), thank you for the notice of this experiment.
Also, thank you for doing the research.
--
TTFN,
patrick
On Aug 18, 2011, at 19:32, Ethan Katz-Bassett et...@cs.washington.edu wrote:
Hi NANOG,
On Aug 13, 2011, at 10:44 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:
On Aug 13, 2011, at 1:12 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
charles skipped what i see as a highly critical question, personal
backup.
I've been wondering this as well.
My home backups are somewhat large and not yet offsite due to their size.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jul 15, 2011, at 1:31 AM, Cody Rose wrote:
Is anyone else seeing that Googles DNS records just disappeared?
I just lost all connectivity to Google services including google.com,
plus.google.com, Public dns, etc.
Weird, works fine from here
On Jun 19, 2011, at 5:47 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jun 2011 03:15:09 CDT, Robert Bonomi said:
Anybody got draft language for a SLA clause that requires routing 'at least
one hop _past_ the provider's network edge' for every AS visible at major
public peering points and/or
On Jun 17, 2011, at 5:44 PM, Paul Graydon wrote:
On 06/17/2011 11:33 AM, David Conrad wrote:
On Jun 17, 2011, at 11:23 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/06/17/202245/
You just learned about this now?
In fact I did. I certainly haven't seen it mentioned on NANOG in the
On Jun 15, 2011, at 12:47 PM, 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?
Horrific? How about: Most peers won't bring up a session.
What
Composed on a virtual keyboard, please forgive typos.
On Jun 9, 2011, at 17:39, Saku Ytti s...@ytti.fi wrote:
On (2011-06-09 00:55 -0700), Owen DeLong wrote:
To be an IPv6 TIer 1, one has to peer with other IPv6 Tier 1s. HE has
aggressively tried to improve the situation through
On Jun 8, 2011, at 12:49 PM, George B. wrote:
Was participating until we hit a rather nasty load balancer bug that
took out the entire unit if clients with a short MTU connected and it
needed to fragment packets (Citrix Netscaler running latest code). No
fix is available for it yet, so we
On Jun 8, 2011, at 4:05 PM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 07:48:42PM +, Brielle Bruns wrote:
Has been going on for a long while now. HE even made a cake for
Cogent (IIRC), to no avail.
But, this is not surprising. A lot of public/major peering issues
with v4
On Jun 8, 2011, at 7:05 PM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 06:39:02PM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
Yes, both refuse to buy transit, yes. But HE is able, willing, and
even begging to peer; Cogent is not. These are not the same thing.
I'm ready, willing, and lets
On Jun 8, 2011, at 9:18 PM, Kevin Loch wrote:
Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 06:39:02PM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
Yes, both refuse to buy transit, yes. But HE is able, willing, and even
begging to peer; Cogent is not. These are not the same thing.
I'm ready
On Jun 7, 2011, at 2:13 AM, Scott Weeks wrote:
Based on recent conversations, I hope everyone got their feelings
expressed... :-)
I would like to ask politely that we stop those conversations (and the other
ones we all have fun with (or plonk)) and let the IPv6 day
On May 24, 2011, at 12:02 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 11:34 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
I don't think they have to hijack space from DoD. I think there are a
number of other options available to them. They might cost more, but,
they also come with
On May 24, 2011, at 12:36 AM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 11:09 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.net
wrote:
If they do, any Rogers customer who wants to talk to it is screwed. Whether
they have a 7 addy or not, Rogers' routers will not let the packet leave
Rogers
On May 9, 2011, at 4:26 PM, Jeff Wheeler wrote:
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 3:58 PM, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote:
I do agree with you that pointing fingers at this stage is really not
helpful. I continue to maintain that being supportive of those content
networks that are willing to wade
On Apr 29, 2011, at 8:46 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:
I think this is sadly the truth. There are some problems that can be solved
by multicast, but I've seen the number of customer requests for v4 multicast
go by the wayside over the years. The only people that are generally
interested are the
On Apr 26, 2011, at 12:39 PM, Kate Gerry wrote:
Funny enough, some carriers actually require the 'smallest' as being /32... :(
Vote with your wallet.
Some carriers would prefer if only transit free networks were allowed to
originate routes. Doesn't mean you should follow their lead.
--
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 months than in previous periods. Any graphs or otherwise would be
greatly
On Apr 11, 2011, at 4:25 PM, Scott Morris wrote:
Aren't they already confused enough when any time I use my EVDO or 3G
Tether that someone believes I've been magically transported to New
Jersey or wherever the handoff is? ;)
Understand the logic behind it, but you probably
On Apr 5, 2011, at 4:12 PM, George Herbert wrote:
I've seen that with clients. It seems like there's a promised anycast
land, out where Akamai is (where you really do have local nearly
everywhere globally, so even strange routing foo doesn't mismatch the
path too badly).
No Akamai traffic
On Mar 28, 2011, at 5:40 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Mar 28, 2011, at 2:13 PM, Dave Temkin wrote:
On 3/27/11 2:53 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Mar 25, 2011, at 3:33 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Single AS worldwide is fine with or without a backbone.
Only if you want to make use of ugly ugly
On Mar 25, 2011, at 3:33 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Single AS worldwide is fine with or without a backbone.
Only if you want to make use of ugly ugly BGP hacks on your routers, or, you
don't care about Site A being
able to hear announcements from Site B.
You are highly confused.
Accepting
On Mar 25, 2011, at 1:44 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
On Mar 24, 2011, at 4:27 PM, Ravi Ramaswamy wrote:
I am using 2.5 Tbps as the peak volume of peering traffic over all peering
points for a Tier 1 ISP, for some modeling purposes. Is that a reasonable
estimate?
That's actually a very
On Mar 24, 2011, at 3:40 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Mar 24, 2011, at 12:42 PM, Zaid Ali z...@zaidali.com wrote:
I have seen age old discussions on single AS vs multiple AS for backbone and
datacenter design. I am particularly interested in operational challenges
for running AS per region
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mar 20, 2011, at 6:29 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 08:44:50 +1100, Skeeve Stevens said:
http://www.eintellego.net/public/CSINY.s07e17-fakev6.jpg
Promoting IPv6 = Win!
On Mar 15, 2011, at 10:02 AM, Jon Lewis wrote:
On Tue, 15 Mar 2011, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Mar 15, 2011, at 9:11 AM, Andrew Elliott wrote:
Looking for information on the current standard practices for charging
customers
for larger than default v4 assignments.
Especially
On Mar 14, 2011, at 12:15 PM, Masato YAMANISHI wrote:
About half of the existing cables running across the Pacific
are damaged ...
It that realistic ? That seems like much more damage than
anything I have heard or seen.
Yes, it's definetely true.
I'd like to see a list of damaged
On Mar 11, 2011, at 8:50 AM, Daniel Belin wrote:
Are we aware of how much the infrastructure has been damaged yet? Are
aftershocks still going?
Subway bus lines are still down. Fire at the nuke plant has been put out, no
radiation detected, but they still evacuated a couple thousand
On Mar 8, 2011, at 8:52 AM, Greg Ihnen wrote:
On Mar 7, 2011, at 10:19 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Mar 7, 2011, at 14:27, Greg Ihnen os10ru...@gmail.com wrote:
I run a small network on a mission base in the Amazon jungle which is fed
by a satellite internet connection. We had an outage
On Mar 7, 2011, at 14:27, Greg Ihnen os10ru...@gmail.com wrote:
I run a small network on a mission base in the Amazon jungle which is fed by
a satellite internet connection. We had an outage from Feb 25th to the 28th
where we had no connectivity with email, http/s, ftp, Skype would indicate
On Mar 3, 2011, at 9:34 AM, Alfa Telecom wrote:
On 03/03/2011 03:25 PM, Brandon Ross wrote:
On Thu, 3 Mar 2011, Alfa Telecom wrote:
Both ranges are from RIPE region and couldn't be announced from ARIN ASN at
all.
Your premise is incorrect. Any block from any RIR can be announced by any
On Feb 27, 2011, at 1:30, Phil Regnauld regna...@nsrc.org wrote:
Joel Jaeggli (joelja) writes:
You're going to have to perform stateless autconfiguration in ipv6 and
provide an ipv4 nameserver at the very minimum for a long time, if you
don't do it for macos you'll have to do it for windows
On Feb 24, 2011, at 18:43, Thomas Magill tmag...@providecommerce.com wrote:
Does anyone know if there is a route-server for AS 20001 available? All I
can find is TW (4323).
I believe as20001 is a stub AS behind as7843.
Of course, I do not think as7843 has a looking glass.
--
TTFN,
patrick
On Feb 21, 2011, at 8:58 PM, Javier Godinez wrote:
Does anyone know where I can get real/raw BGP traffic, maybe in pcap
format? I just need maybe a few days of raw data for an inline
analysis tool I am developing.
I believe http://www.routeviews.org/ has some info, but I don't know if it is
On Feb 18, 2011, at 5:54 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 17 feb 2011, at 18:57, John Curran wrote:
Actually, as I have noted before, the US DoD has contractually
agreed to return to ARIN unneeded IPv4 address space if/when
such becomes available, so that it may be used by the Internet
On Feb 18, 2011, at 6:16 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 18 feb 2011, at 12:00, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
How can they return stuff to ARIN that they got from IANA in the first
place?
ARIN seems to be getting the very long end of the legacy stick.
But last time I checked, the United
On Feb 5, 2011, at 12:24 PM, John Curran wrote:
On Feb 5, 2011, at 11:22 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
as you pointed out back in oh, IETF-29, actual network operators
don't participate much in the standards setting process so its
no wonder RFC 2050 has (several)
On Feb 4, 2011, at 3:39 PM, Daniel Seagraves wrote:
On Feb 4, 2011, at 1:11 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
No, and in fact, I believe all the RIRs will probably do a reasonably brisk
business in reclamation and reallocation, albeit in ever smaller blocks.
As holder of a small block, this
On Feb 4, 2011, at 4:45 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:
On Feb 4, 2011, at 3:41 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Feb 4, 2011, at 3:39 PM, Daniel Seagraves wrote:
On Feb 4, 2011, at 1:11 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
No, and in fact, I believe all the RIRs will probably do a reasonably
brisk business
On Feb 3, 2011, at 10:35 AM, laperriere.syl...@gmail.com wrote:
We will keep using NewNOG as a legal entity to do the contracting, so that
name will not be really prominent. Changing legal names is expensive and our
mission is to be frugal.
Nanog remains the brand known to the community
On Feb 3, 2011, at 9:58 AM, Antonio Querubin wrote:
On Thu, 3 Feb 2011, Randy Carpenter wrote:
It didn't work too bad. Does anyone know why it was pretty much over at
9:30, when they said it would start? Did they start a half-hour early or
something?
I think that was just the ceremony
On Feb 3, 2011, at 10:11 AM, Jon Lewis wrote:
The real fun's going to be over the next several years as the RIR's become
irrelevant in the acquisition of scarce IPv4 resources...and things become
less stable as lots of orgs rush to implement a strange new IP version.
Supposedly[*] transfers
On Feb 3, 2011, at 11:22 AM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
On Feb 3, 2011, at 9:30 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Feb 3, 2011, at 10:11 AM, Jon Lewis wrote:
The real fun's going to be over the next several years as the RIR's become
irrelevant in the acquisition of scarce IPv4 resources
On Jan 28, 2011, at 8:41 PM, Matthew Palmer wrote:
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 12:35:43PM -0800, Jacob Broussard wrote:
Static bogons are the bane of my existence... The pain of trying to explain
to someone for MONTHS that they haven't updated their reference, with
traceroutes to back it up, and
I think the big deal here is the 100% thing. If Speedtest is one of many
tests, then I don't particularly see the problem.
It shouldn't be any more difficult to convince politicians that any system
(testing or otherwise) can have problems than it is to convince them of any
other hard fact.
On Jan 28, 2011, at 10:23 AM, Patrik Wallström wrote:
On Jan 28, 2011, at 4:15 PM, 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.
I have
On Jan 28, 2011, at 11:24 AM, Jared Mauch wrote:
I have seen nation state disconnects where light is lost.
The question is not whether that would it (it obviously would). The question
is whether it is important if the laser stops blinking or just blinks in ways
that end users can't see all
The issue has been reported to the proper people inside Akamai. They are
investigating, we are not ignoring the issue.
If any network with on-net Akamai servers has an issue, including this or any
other, please e-mail netsupport-...@akamai.com and that will open a ticket with
our Network
On Jan 17, 2011, at 12:32 AM, Michel de Nostredame wrote:
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 12:30 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.net
wrote:
On Jan 14, 2011, at 11:03 AM, Michel de Nostredame wrote:
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 3:33 AM, Bogdan shos...@shoshon.ro wrote:
allowas-in will do the trick
301 - 400 of 706 matches
Mail list logo
