On Jan 16, 2011, at 1:57 PM, Daniel Golding wrote:
Congrats to Betty! i think NANOG really prospered as a Merit program with
Betty as program manager.
BTW...what does interim mean in this context?
The job which was posted posted (publicly, in multiple places, including this
list) was
On Jan 14, 2011, at 4:58 AM, Harris Hui wrote:
We have an AS Number AS2 and have 2 /24 subnets belongs to this AS
Number. It is using in US and peering with US Service Providers now.
We are going to deploy another site in Asia, can we use the same AS Number
AS2 and have 2 other /24
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
Provided your uplink ISP does not filter out that.
Why would your upstream filter that out?
I would get a new upstream if they do.
--
On Jan 6, 2011, at 8:01 PM, Paul Scanlon wrote:
NANOG 51 in Miami is rapidly approaching, January 30 - February 2, and we are
looking for topics for the ISP Security BOF. Eric Osterweil and I are going
to be moderating this year with the assistance of Danny McPherson. We would
very much
On Dec 7, 2010, at 11:26 PM, Sean Donelan wrote:
On Mon, 6 Dec 2010, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
But as you and others have pointed out, not a lot of defense against
DDoS these days besides horsepower and anycast. :-)
Not just anycast. I said distributed architecture. There are more ways
On Dec 6, 2010, at 10:34 AM, David Ulevitch da...@ulevitch.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 6:10 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.net wrote:
On Dec 6, 2010, at 4:07 AM, Jonas Frey (Probe Networks) wrote:
Besides having *alot* of bandwidth theres not really much you can do to
mitigate
On Dec 4, 2010, at 5:28 PM, Bill Stewart wrote:
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 9:35 AM, Leo Bicknell bickn...@ufp.org wrote:
- Ratio needs to be dropped from all peering policies. It made sense
back when the traffic was two people e-mailing each other. It was
a measure of equal value. However
On Dec 4, 2010, at 10:32 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
Nothing to see here
except the chill of repression. thanks for helping the silence.
While I can see your PoV, and even agree with it (especially the ridiculously
egregious abuses you list below), Jared posted to an _operational_ list.
On Dec 3, 2010, at 1:34 PM, christian koch wrote:
my guess is the info for that was pulled off comcast's route server, where
only tata is seen
Asymmetric routing on the Internet? What will they think of next?!
That said, does changing the name of the middle network change the substance of
On Dec 3, 2010, at 1:20 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
and this is based on what facts?
Instead of tweeting about how to reach their content, or their IP
addresses to bypass DNS, they are sending repetedly via twitter the
following URL http://collateralmurder.com/en/support.html
coincidence !=
On Dec 1, 2010, at 4:30 PM, Michael Hallgren wrote:
Le mercredi 01 décembre 2010 à 17:31 +, deles...@gmail.com a écrit :
You can use one AS and communities to seperate your traffic/policies.
Or other iBGP means of internal separation, like BGP confederations (in
order to avoid iBGP
On Dec 1, 2010, at 4:43 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
On 12/1/2010 3:37 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
Or just have disparate networks using the same ASN. Works fine.
Why waste ASNs and try to explain to others how asX,Y,Z, etc., are all the
same company?
I dislike the problem of routes
On Dec 1, 2010, at 5:05 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
On 12/1/2010 3:56 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
Having islands which point default is not ugly. They are probably pointing
default anyway.
If all sites strictly do default, fine. However, one could say static routing
would work fine there too
On Nov 29, 2010, at 2:54 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
On Nov 29, 2010, at 11:44 AM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 04:09:55PM -0600, Aaron Wendel wrote:
According to pch they don't run most of them. I would say they run
very few compared to how many there actually are.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/level-3-communications-issues-statement-concerning-comcasts-actions-2010-11-29?reflink=MW_news_stmp
I understand that politics is off-topic, but this policy affects operational
aspects of the 'Net.
Just to be clear, L3 is saying content providers should not have
On Nov 29, 2010, at 10:51 PM, Ben Butler wrote:
In the Uk, we used to have 2MB DSL, and business providers like myself would
happily provide it on the basis of CBR 2Mbit and we did'nt care what you did
with it. 2Mbit is more than enough for streaming and I challenge anyone
otherwise.
I
On Nov 28, 2010, at 4:46 PM, Andrew Kirch wrote:
On 11/28/2010 4:34 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
anyone know why https://www.wikileaks.org/ is not reachable? nations
state level censors trying to close the barn door after the horse has
left?
Good riddance. The sooner someone gives Julian Assange
On Nov 14, 2010, at 2:28 PM, Brandon Kim wrote:
Isn't using register.com considered outsourcing?
In fact, I'd probably feel better not outsourcing to a big shop who is such a
big target.a little security through obscurity doesn't hurt =)
All you have done is trade one hope (big
On Nov 4, 2010, at 10:52 AM, Curtis Maurand wrote:
On 11/2/2010 3:49 PM, Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote:
Are there still any commercial X.25 nets in operation? I had some
peripheral involvement with Tymnet in the MCI/Concert conversion, and hear
it shut down sometime in 2003-4.
On Nov 4, 2010, at 3:28 PM, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 8:15 AM, Gary Baribault g...@baribault.net wrote:
OK, I haven't taken it back out of the box, but anyone still have 8
bit ISA Arcnet with thin coax?
Sorry no, but I have a Commodore 64 1200/75 baud modem, real
On Oct 18, 2010, at 9:39 AM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
My clients can't use IPv6 when my infrastructure and carriers don't support
it.
Smells like a business opportunity to steal your customers.
Thanx!
--
TTFN,
patrick
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 5:52 PM, Franck Martin fra...@genius.com wrote:
On Oct 12, 2010, at 12:25 PM, Scott Howard wrote:
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 5:35 AM, iHate SORBS ihateso...@gmail.com wrote:
I am calling on all Network Operators to stand up and stop routing
dnsbl.sorbs.net until that time they can commit to making real changes.
What sort of changes are
On Oct 4, 2010, at 3:50 PM, Scott, Robert D. wrote:
We were trying to diagnose an issue we had around 1 PM EDST, and were looking
at net flow data. The data indicated a significant change in our traffic
patterns, all coming from Akamai address space. The Akamai utilization graphs
show a
On Sep 29, 2010, at 4:20 PM, Jesse Loggins wrote:
A group of engineers and I were having a design discussion about routing
protocols including RIP and static routing and the justifications of use for
each protocol. One very interesting discussion was surrounding RIP and its
use versus a
This should probably be on outages@, but XO is definitely having problems to
places like speedtest.com RCN from Boston.
--
TTFN,
patrick
On Sep 16, 2010, at 11:59 AM, Charles Mills wrote:
The internet health report is showing high latency to most of their peers.
Chuck.
On Sep 16,
that they are aware of packet loss across their
network and are looking into it. We're experiencing slow/degraded
connectivity out of St. Louis and Nashville but Atlanta and Dallas are
problem free.
William Collier-Byrd
w...@collier-byrd.net
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 12:04 PM, Patrick W
On Sep 6, 2010, at 9:22 AM, Brett Frankenberger wrote:
On Sun, Sep 05, 2010 at 09:18:54PM -0400, Jon Lewis wrote:
Getting rid of the vast majority of open relays and open proxies didn't
solve the spam problem, but there'd be more ways to send spam if those
methods were still generally
Composed on a virtual keyboard, please forgive typos.
On Sep 6, 2010, at 1:36, Claudio Lapidus clapi...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello all,
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 11:30 PM, Ricky Beam jfb...@gmail.com wrote:
If I block port 25 on my network, no spam will originate from it.
(probablly) The
On Sep 3, 2010, at 8:12 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Sep 2, 2010, at 8:54 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Sep 2, 2010, at 11:48 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
We should be seeking to stop damaging the network for ineffective anti spam
measures (blocking outbound 25 for example) rather than to expand
On Sep 3, 2010, at 8:22 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Sep 2, 2010, at 10:41 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
Have you heard of the submission port?
Yes... Many of the idiots that block outbound 25 also block outbound 587 and
sometimes 465.
Could you point to more than one instance? I've not yet
Composed on a virtual keyboard, please forgive typos.
On Sep 3, 2010, at 23:50, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
I think you overestimate the efficacy of this.
First, why
[snip]
I think I see the problem here. You are using logic though experiments,
while others have this thing
On Sep 2, 2010, at 11:48 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
We should be seeking to stop damaging the network for ineffective anti spam
measures (blocking outbound 25 for example) rather than to expand this
practice to bidirectional brokenness.
Since at least part of your premise ('ineffective
Composed on a virtual keyboard, please forgive typos.
On Aug 16, 2010, at 7:49, Mike mike-na...@tiedyenetworks.com wrote:
Hi Folks,
I am needing to renumber some core infrastructure - namely, my nameservers
and my resolvers - and I was wondering if the collective wisdom still says
On Aug 16, 2010, at 9:03 AM, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.net said:
1) Use different prefixes. A single prefix going down should not kill
your entire network. (Nameservers and resolvers being unreachable
breaks the whole Internet as far as users
Watching people snark on mailing lists is occasionally entertaining. Watching
them snark on the wrong mailing lists is usually less entertaining. Watching
them snark on the wrong mailing list for 100+ posts when the things they are
snarking about were voted on by themselves is getting a
On Aug 11, 2010, at 10:01 PM, Matthew Palmer wrote:
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 12:53:18PM -0700, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
On 8/11/10 12:29 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
Nice to see this change
APAC has been obliged to pay the cost to peer with the US (long
distance links are expensive). Now that US
On Aug 6, 2010, at 12:13 PM, Roland Perry wrote:
In article 5ac3e79a-392b-4d1b-bfc7-2700942fd...@ianai.net, Patrick W.
Gilmore patr...@ianai.net writes
Although, as someone active in 2000, I can tell you that traffic did
not grow 12.55 times per year (doubling every 100 days), or anything
Ask on the Internet History list.
http://www.postel.org/internet-history/
Although, as someone active in 2000, I can tell you that traffic did not grow
12.55 times per year (doubling every 100 days), or anything even close to that.
--
TTFN,
patrick
On Aug 5, 2010, at 2:38 PM, Andrew
On Jul 25, 2010, at 11:41 PM, Robert West wrote:
Each individual government seems to control the information the enters or
leaves their borders.
No, each individual government can have laws restricting information entering
and leaving their borders.
Few gov'ts actually control said info.
On Jul 25, 2010, at 13:24, Tarig Yassin tariq198...@hotmail.com wrote:
I want to show you some obstacles that some countries face them every day.
For example when users from Sudan trying to access some web site they will
get a *Forbidden Access Error* message.
And some messages say: you
On Jul 2, 2010, at 10:59 AM, Sean Figgins wrote:
Andy Davidson wrote:
A good quality meeting 'Fringe' is a defining characteristic of a mature
community. Let it happen. The fringe is the test-bed for stuff too crazy
or early for the formal agenda. Promote this ad-hoc stuff on the nanog
On Jul 1, 2010, at 9:03 AM, Franck Martin wrote:
The question is because gTLDs operations are in the USA, does it mean that
the USA have control over all those domain names?
Can we trust solely the USA for such control?
This will come back with a vengeance in the JPA negotiations, ICANN,
On Jul 1, 2010, at 1:41 AM, Michael Painter wrote:
As randy said not too long ago, First they came for...
The felons?
Strangely, I am not moved to defend them.
According to the article, they didn't even take the physical computers running
the sites, meaning not even other users on that
On Jun 14, 2010, at 6:12 PM, Joe Provo wrote:
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 09:39:51AM -0700, Steve Feldman wrote:
On Jun 14, 2010, at 9:16 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
For those interested, the NANOG Transition Plan session, scheduled
for 4:30-6:00pm Monday, will be webcast.
ahem. i presume this
On Jun 9, 2010, at 12:26 AM, Steven Bellovin wrote:
Problem is there's no financial liability for producing massively
exploitable software.
No financial penalty for operating a compromised system.
No penalty for ignoring abuse complaints.
Etc.
Imagine how fast things would change in
On May 26, 2010, at 2:53 PM, Joe Abley wrote:
On 2010-05-25, at 17:40, Martin List-Petersen wrote:
On 24/05/10 19:21, Thomas Magill wrote:
From the provider side, are most of you who are implementing IP6
peerings running BGP over IP4 and just using IP6 address families to
exchange routes or
On May 10, 2010, at 3:20 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
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 quickly.
how soon we forget 7007, 128/8, ... over a day each, and global, and
very big netowrks.
On May 11, 2010, at 1:55 PM, Vitto Capabianco wrote:
Is there a TTL value enforcment on EBGP session establishment
No.
--
TTFN,
patrick
For some
reason I thought that both peers have to have the SAMe value? Is that
true? For example:
default EBGP = TTL = 1 (if one end sends
On May 3, 2010, at 10:43 AM, Will Hargrave wrote:
On 3 May 2010, at 05:27, Matthew Petach wrote:
In Asia, there is a popular, but incorrectly named product offering
that many ISPs sell called domestic transit which they sell
for price $X; for full routes you often pay $2X-$3X. I grind my
On May 1, 2010, at 5:42 PM, 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
On Apr 19, 2010, at 6:54 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Patrick W. Gilmore:
Reality is that as soon as SSL web servers and SSL-capable web
browsers have support for name-based virtual hosts, the number of
IPv4 addresses required will drop. Right now, you need 1 IP
address for 1 SSL site; SNI
On Apr 19, 2010, at 10:14 AM, Patrick Giagnocavo wrote:
Owen DeLong wrote:
I had an interesting discussion with someone from Registration Services at
ARIN today.
The big requests for IP space (the 11 organizations that hold 75% of all
ARIN issued
space) do not come from the server
Sent from my iPhone, please excuse any errors.
On Apr 18, 2010, at 21:28, Patrick Giagnocavo patr...@zill.net wrote:
Franck Martin wrote:
Sure the internet will not die...
But by the time we run out of IPv4 to allocate, the IPv6 network
will not have completed to dual stack the current
On Apr 15, 2010, at 4:26 PM, Jeremy Parr wrote:
[SNIP - stuff from d...@av8.com]
Can someone remove this guy form the Nanog list please?
He cannot post. The only reason you see his drivel is because people who are
not banned reply-all and CC the list.
Which I have posted asking people to
[SNIP]
Richard, and anyone else who missed the last dozen or more times this has been
discussed:
The NANOG list would appreciate if people who are sent Dean's private missives
do not reply all and CC the list. Those who were not CC'ed personally (and
do not filter Dean) do not see his posts.
On Apr 9, 2010, at 7:04 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:
I believe you are doing a disservice to the FCC by making these inflammatory
statements.
And here I thought I was defending them for being different better than the
last group.
The point is, joe asked about the FCC that made a ruling. The
: Tue 4/6/2010 7:40 PM
To: Patrick W. Gilmore
Cc: NANOG list
Subject: Re: FCC dealt major blow in net neutrality ruling favoring Comcast
http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/90747-fcc-dealt-major-blow-in-net-neutrality-ruling-favoring-comcast
Seems on-topic, even though
On Apr 8, 2010, at 2:08 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
3a) If no: Do participants typically preference exchange-learned
routes over other sources?
Yes. As far as I know all our members set routes learned through the
exchange fabric higher than anything else. That's kind of the point as
On Apr 8, 2010, at 5:03 PM, Michael Dillon wrote:
and what makes you think that there is anyone looking after the
mailing lists any more. There have been few network operational
threads in recent months, and the Jim Fleming IPv3 bot is given free
rein on the NANOG lists.
[snip]
I guarantee
[Reply-to set.]
On Apr 8, 2010, at 6:39 PM, Michael Dillon wrote:
I guarantee you the Communications Committee is on the job. What's more,
they are doing a GREAT job - for no money and apparently no gratitude. It
is worse than thankless, no matter what they do they will be derided.
http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/90747-fcc-dealt-major-blow-in-net-neutrality-ruling-favoring-comcast
Seems on-topic, even though policy related.
--
TTFN,
patrick
On Apr 5, 2010, at 5:08 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 16:36:26 EDT, Jon Lewis said:
Since they only really need to be unique per broadcast domain, it doesn't
really matter. You can I could use the same MAC addresses on all our home
gear, and never know it. For
On Apr 4, 2010, at 6:40 AM, Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
On 04/04/2010, at 7:54 PM, IPv3.com wrote:
As the NANOG Community Moves to IPv6...
...
it might be a Public Service to post the IPv4 /8s made available.
...
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/
Please don't feed the
On Mar 31, 2010, at 12:43 PM, Daniel Staal wrote:
On Wed, March 31, 2010 12:14 pm, Leigh Porter wrote:
Until somebody does 'view headers' and sees
/X/-/Sender/-/IP
/
and oh look, it was sent from 'foobarco' ;-)
That depends on how they are sending it, of course. Webmail usually just
On Mar 21, 2010, at 9:52 PM, Alex Lanstein wrote:
There is, by the way, no relief from this due to events like the
recent bust of the Mariposa botnet (13M systems);
The public numbers advertised were 13M _IPs_ connecting to a sinkhole over
more than a month's time. When I've had
On Mar 19, 2010, at 9:56 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 08:44:29AM -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
On Fri, 2010-03-19 at 08:31 -0500, John Kristoff wrote:
An ongoing area of work is to build better closed,
trusted communities without leaks.
Have you ever
On Mar 18, 2010, at 11:46 PM, William Pitcock wrote:
Few people actually care about nsp-sec so what exactly are you getting at?
I might argue the few comment, but I think it's better not to reply to
Guillaume so people who are smart enough to not see his posts (which would be
quite a bit more
Sub-atomic particles.
Some people say there are not enough, but they just don't realize how many
there are. Plus you can expand into elements, then compounds.
--
TTFN,
patrick
On Mar 12, 2010, at 1:52 AM, Nathan wrote:
I'm hoping to alleviate the what's going on!? type messages here this time.
:)
Oh, I understand what's going on exactly. YouTube is trying to balance their
ratios. :)
--
TTFN,
patrick
Here's an except from the APNIC provided LOA I provided to
On Mar 9, 2010, at 3:23 PM, Brandon Kim wrote:
LOL! Wow that is a pretty sad comment..
But back to the CRS-3, just wow!!!
Wow what?
Is there anything in the CRS-3 that competitors are not shipping _today_?
If you look at some startups, they are doing 4-5 times as many Gbps per slot,
On Mar 9, 2010, at 3:36 PM, Jake Khuon wrote:
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 15:29 -0500, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
The only wow here is wow, why did cisco hype how far behind they
are?
Because in some organisations, the only vendor that matters is Cisco.
Then why bother hyping at all?
Anyone who
On Feb 25, 2010, at 9:39 PM, Daniel Senie wrote:
Better than western Massachusetts, where there's just no connectivity at all.
Even dialup fails to function over crappy lines. I'd take monopoly pricing
over no connectivity, I guess.
Oh, plz, if you were willing to pay $2K/Mbps, they'd
On Feb 21, 2010, at 1:01 PM, William Herrin wrote:
On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 9:10 AM, Rich Kulawiec r...@gsp.org wrote:
Hint: nothing stops the spammers from pointing the MX records for their
throwaway domains at somebody else's mail servers. Among other things.
MANY other things,
On Feb 20, 2010, at 10:01 AM, Marc Powell wrote:
On Feb 19, 2010, at 12:53 PM, Dean Anderson wrote:
So you should think that its ok for blacklists to charge money for
things they got for free?
In the case of Spamhaus, yes, I find it acceptable to pay them for the
service they are
On Feb 18, 2010, at 3:15 PM, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
Dean Anderson wrote:
[Damn. spit out my coffee on keyboard.]
Levine and Vixie are partners in Whitehat. Whitehat is a commercial bulk
mailer that offers listwashing services (removing spam-traps). MAPS
employees were involved in
On Feb 17, 2010, at 3:51 PM, Tomas L. Byrnes wrote:
In summary, could someone educate me on the benefits of having RNSes
outside your network?
[Tomas L. Byrnes] We were a small regional ISP with only one main POP at
the time.
If you are single homed, you -are- your upstream's network, er,
On Feb 17, 2010, at 5:32 PM, Laczo, Louis wrote:
I'm looking for comments / suggestions / opinions from any providers that
have been contacted by spamhaus about excessive queries originating from
their DNS resolvers, typically, as a proxy for customers. I know that certain
large DNS
On Feb 16, 2010, at 10:24 PM, Frank Bulk wrote:
We do. It's at our upstream provider, just in case we had an upstream
connectivity issue or some internal meltdown that prevented those in the
outside world to hit our (authoritative) DNS servers. Of course, that's
most helpful for DNS records
On Feb 14, 2010, at 12:37 PM, Jason Frisvold wrote:
On Feb 13, 2010, at 4:58 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
i am often on funky networks in funky places. e.g. the wireless in
changi really sucked friday night. if i ssh tunneled, it would multiply
the suckiness as tcp would have puked at the loss
On Feb 14, 2010, at 12:53 PM, Jason Frisvold wrote:
On Feb 14, 2010, at 12:42 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
How does that help? It still sends port 53 requests to the authorities,
which will be intercepted.
Hrm.. Maybe I misunderstood. Are the packets being intercepted
On Feb 14, 2010, at 5:17 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
In message 182e6e76-f12a-41d9-800a-e5e40f3c3...@direwolf.com, John
Orthoefer
writes:
Genuity/GTEI/Planet/BBN owned 4/8. Brett went looking for an IP that =
was simple to remember, I think 4.4.4.4 was in use by neteng already. =
But it was
On Feb 14, 2010, at 5:43 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
In message 10be7b64-46ff-46d8-a428-268897413...@hopcount.ca, Joe Abley
writes
:
On 2010-02-14, at 17:17, Mark Andrews wrote:
I don't care what internal routing tricks are used, they are still
under the *one* external route and as such
solution for DNS.
johno
On Feb 14, 2010, at 5:20 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
It's an open recursive name server, it is free, has no SLA, and is not
critical infrastructure.
On Feb 10, 2010, at 3:55 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Wed, 10 Feb 2010, Jake Khuon wrote:
Excellent production.
... but still an advertisement for use of IXPs instead of private peering or
alike. I'd say it contains several factual errors or at least omittance of
important factors
On Feb 10, 2010, at 9:46 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Wed, 10 Feb 2010, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
And no, omittance of important factors is not a factual error in a 5
minute video of a wide and amazingly complex topic.
I guess we can agree to disagree then. I think it's highly biased
On Feb 10, 2010, at 10:29 AM, Jay Ess wrote:
I think I am probably a member of the target audience, and I though it
was great (and recommended it to other folk).
I like it for what it was. But i agree with Mike's points.
This video is something i could show my mother when she asks how the
On Feb 10, 2010, at 11:50 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Wed, 10 Feb 2010, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
Agree to disagree is right. The film is called The Internet Revealed:
_A_film_about_IXPs_. You find it strange that the film would actually
focus on IXPs. I find it strange that you
On Feb 4, 2010, at 3:14 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
I know someone who'd happily sink both the /24's in question.. if apnic's
interested.
Given that it is not in the table today, just announcing it would yield both
interesting traffic, and interesting data on who is filtering it.
--
TTFN,
On Jan 18, 2010, at 8:38 PM, Steven Bellovin wrote:
On Jan 18, 2010, at 8:22 PM, Warren Kumari wrote:
Something that I have often wondered is how folks would feel about
publishing some sort of geo information in reverse DNS (something like LOC
records, with whatever precision you like) --
On Jan 15, 2010, at 12:08 PM, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
2) SORBS robot reponds with you must change your rDNS.
... or respond to indicate why you think the robot is wrong...
This does not work. Our provider has been told that unless the in-addr was
changed to include the word static, the
On Jan 13, 2010, at 2:18 AM, Benjamin Billon wrote:
Seems logical, after all.
Considering the (bad) performances of Google search engine in China compared
to Chinese competitors, and considering the fact that wouldn't change a bit
in the future, closing offices wouldn't be a bad thing.
On Jan 13, 2010, at 2:05 AM, Stefan Fouant wrote:
I for one would be really happy to see them follow through with this. I was
very disappointed when they agreed to censor search results, although I can
understand why they did so from a business standpoint... it seemed to go
against the
On Jan 12, 2010, at 2:11 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
On 01/12/2010 10:48 AM, Dave Martin wrote:
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 11:51:47AM -0500, Jed Smith wrote:
On Jan 11, 2010, at 11:11 AM, Jon Lewis wrote:
The vibe I got from a number of administrators I talked to about it was why
would a standards
On Jan 11, 2010, at 11:15 AM, telmn...@757.org wrote:
Anyone got some pointers on how to get off SORBS' Dynamic IP lists?
Our solution was to find new IP space. It was hopeless.
Did SORBS really cause you that much pain?
I ask because the other possible solution is enough people do not
On Dec 30, 2009, at 1:04 PM, Jerry Pasker wrote:
I got this email inquiring about data center space, from the most honest
scumbag, *EVER* today. Operational relevance? Well, if everyone would turn
these people down, we'd have a lot less problems to deal with. Sadly,
requests like these
On Dec 21, 2009, at 3:34 PM, Corey Travioli wrote:
Another one from the Evil Doer
http://www.google.com/advertising/holiday2009/
Wish the guys from Redmond and others copy this action too ...
So what they are saying is because we as individuals are too cheep
to give to charity they are
On Dec 21, 2009, at 4:48 PM, Ken Chase wrote:
CSR isnt $0 ROI. Unless they're doing it wrong.
I said essentially. If you think they're making even 1% of $20M, one of us
confused. I'll admit I do not do marketing, so maybe it's me.
Which they aren't. You're not paid by them and you're
On Dec 15, 2009, at 10:17 AM, Eric J Esslinger wrote:
I have a domain that exists solely to cname A records to another domain's
websites. There is no MX server for that domain, there is no valid mail sent
as from that domain. However when I hooked it up I immediately started
getting
On Dec 15, 2009, at 3:53 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
Babak Pasdar wrote:
Dear List,
I am getting a big push from Cogent on their full GigE for $1.50 per
circuit. What are your experiences with Cogent in general? If on the
fence, how would you use their service for this deal to make sense?
On Dec 2, 2009, at 3:46 PM, Lasher, Donn wrote:
This year I've been seeing what appears to be an increasing trend among
service providers.. making the decision to leave public peering. I'm
sure others on this list as seeing that trend as well. I have a couple
of guesses, but I'm curious , and
401 - 500 of 706 matches
Mail list logo
