On Dec 2, 2009, at 4:48 PM, Jonas Frey wrote:
the DE-CIX pricing is now 500 Euro/month...since 1st october...see end
of that page.
Both DE-CIX and AMS-IX have decreased their pricing this year..almost at
the same time. I guess this is a move to stop company leaving public
exchanges...i have
On Nov 11, 2009, at 3:48 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
Since people need to *explicitly* choose using the OpenDNS servers, I
can hardly see how anybody's wishes are foisted on these people.
If you don't like the answers you get from this (free) service, you
can of course choose to use a
On Nov 9, 2009, at 3:00 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
i loved the henry ford analogy -- but i think henry ford would have
said that
the automatic transmission was a huge step forward since he wanted
everybody
to have a car. i can't think of anything that's happened in the
automobile
market that
Sent from my iPhone, please excuse any errors.
On Nov 9, 2009, at 19:32, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 06:24:52PM -0500, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Nov 9, 2009, at 3:00 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
i loved the henry ford analogy -- but i think henry ford would
As someone just said to me privately: I dislike the pedantic
nerds pull sometimes. (The is mine, not the original quote,
so the Communications Committee doesn't send me a warning.)
On Nov 9, 2009, at 8:10 PM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
good question - does
On Nov 2, 2009, at 6:46 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
But seriously now, the reason we have these squishy things taking up
space between our ears in the first place is so we can come up with
new
ideas and better ways to solve our problems.
and they need not be cute, clever, or complex. unless we
- practice good behaviour (bcp38) and don't preach it
Did you mean preach but don't practice it? While I appreciate
everyone who preaches it, I am not going to complain in the
slightest at any big guy who practices BCP38. Just the opposite,
I'm going to praise them whether they preach
On Nov 1, 2009, at 5:11 AM, Karl Auer wrote:
On Sun, 2009-11-01 at 17:06 +0900, Randy Bush wrote:
The answer is fairly simple. Does your business benefit by having
the
ability to modify routing strategy as you see fit?
hint: we live in a commons
Yes. I was about to ask Tony what if
On Oct 25, 2009, at 2:24 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Oct 24, 2009, at 6:59 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Oct 24, 2009, at 9:55 PM, Israel Lopez-LISTS wrote:
Remember when youtube went down?
Mr. Zittrain briefly mentions nanog during his TED talk in July
2009.
http://www.ted.com/talks
On Oct 24, 2009, at 9:28 AM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
Outside of child pornography there is no content that I would ever
consider
censoring without a court order nor would I ever purchase transit
from a
company that engages in this type of behavior.
A DMCA takedown order has the force of law.
On Oct 23, 2009, at 10:56 PM, Scott Howard wrote:
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/10/23/1715235/Peering-Disputes-Migrate-To-IPv6
I wouldn't bother with the comments unless you really need to know
how the
analogy between IP peering and two gay guys ends up... (hey, it's
Slashdot,
what
On Oct 23, 2009, at 10:54 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Oct 23, 2009, at 3:43 PM, Justin Shore wrote:
Dan White wrote:
On 23/10/09 17:58 -0400, James R. Cutler wrote:
Blocking the well known port 25 does not block sending of mail.
Or the
message content.
It does block incoming SMTP traffic on
On Oct 24, 2009, at 11:20 AM, Brett Frankenberger wrote:
On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 11:06:29AM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Oct 24, 2009, at 10:53 AM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 09:36:05AM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Oct 24, 2009, at 9:28 AM, Jeffrey Lyon
that up.
Try not to be so absolute next time.
--
TTFN,
patrick
On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 9:39 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore
patr...@ianai.net wrote:
On Oct 24, 2009, at 9:36 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Oct 24, 2009, at 9:28 AM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
Outside of child pornography
On Oct 24, 2009, at 2:28 PM, Joe Greco wrote:
Laws frequently have multiple options for compliance. Doesn't mean
you don't have to follow the law.
A DMCA takedown notice isn't law, Patrick, and does not have the
force
of law claimed above.
You say potato, I say whatever. In the field
On Oct 24, 2009, at 9:55 PM, Israel Lopez-LISTS wrote:
Remember when youtube went down?
Mr. Zittrain briefly mentions nanog during his TED talk in July 2009.
http://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_zittrain_the_web_is_a_random_act_of_kindness.html
Been discussed.
He's obviously wrong about some
The original intent of Net Neutrality laws had nothing to do with
blocking or not on random ports. It had to do with giving an unfair
advantage to the provider in question to sell competing services.
Much like anti-trust legislation doesn't stop a company from cornering
a market, just
Lightning talk followup because I want to make sure there was not a
miscommunication. A two sentence comment at the mic while 400+ of
your not-so-close friends are watching does not a rational discussion
make.
The talk in question:
On Oct 14, 2009, at 9:32 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
I think you are stretching things to make a pithy post. More
importantly, you are missing the point.
and hundreds of words do not cover that you accused HE of something
for
which you had no basis in fact. type less, analyse and think more.
...@ianai.net (Patrick W. Gilmore)
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 12:09:58 -0400
Subject: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering
In-Reply-To: a05493650910120441i27550f17qaa7d3377824af...@mail.gmail.com
References: a05493650910120441i27550f17qaa7d3377824af...@mail.gmail.com
Message-ID
On Oct 12, 2009, at 5:23 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
sure would be nice if there was a diagnosis before the lynching
If this happened in v4, would customers care 'why' it happened?
Obviously not.
Why should v6 be any different? It either is or is not production
ready. I'm interested in HE's view
On Oct 12, 2009, at 7:41 AM, Igor Ybema wrote:
I recently noticed that there seems a peering issue on the ipv6
internet.
As we all know hurricane is currently the largest ipv6 carrier.
Other large
carriers are now implementing ipv6 on their networks, like Cogent
and Telia.
However, due
Hogewoning mar...@marcoh.net
To: Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.net
Cc: NANOG list nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Mon Oct 12 12:15:34 2009
Subject: Re: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering
On Oct 12, 2009, at 6:09 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
It is sad to see that networks which used
On Oct 12, 2009, at 12:52 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
sure would be nice if there was a diagnosis before the lynching
If this happened in v4, would customers care 'why' it happened?
Obviously not.
Why should v6 be any different? It either is or is not production
ready. I'm interested in
On Oct 7, 2009, at 9:26 AM, Pierfrancesco Caci wrote:
:- Hank == Hank Nussbacher h...@efes.iucc.ac.il writes:
http://www.wired.com/gadgets/miscellaneous/magazine/17-10/ts_burningquestion
-Hank
There are TXCOs and OXCOs inside equipment for a reason. And rubidium
lamps as well, sometimes.
On Oct 7, 2009, at 10:52 AM, Scott Howard wrote:
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 7:16 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore
patr...@ianai.net wrote:
I read the article and the follow up posts and I wonder if we are
all using the same definition for speed here. The article seems
to imply you don't get 6 Mbps
Everyone,
The NANOG Marketing Working Group has been working hard to help NANOG
find new profitable revenue to ensure the meetings keep getting better
without raising prices. The group's most active members are:
Betty Burke (Merit, SC)
Carol Wadsworth (Merit)
Greg Dendy
Dave Tempkin
Martin
On Oct 5, 2009, at 10:46 AM, Leland Vandervort wrote:
Would anyone happen to have an operations contact at Facebook by
anychance? Our systems are being overwhelmed by a facebook
application
that we were neither aware of nor condoned.
Clearly I do not have all the information, so please
On Sep 13, 2009, at 2:22 AM, William Herrin wrote:
On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 9:35 PM, Francois
Menardfranc...@menards.ca wrote:
I have an opportunity to launch services in a remote marke, where I
cannot
extend my backbone to.
However, this market is big enough that I can afford to put a Cisco
On Aug 30, 2009, at 1:23 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Sun, 30 Aug 2009, William Herrin wrote:
If your 95th percentile utilization is at 80% capacity, it's time
to start planning the upgrade. If your 95th percentile utilization
is at 95% it's time to finish the upgrade.
I now see why
that one provider goes down.
Good idea. Still uses just two prefixes and allows for backup
connectivity.
Just be careful that the internal routing table does not stop the
conditional announcement.
--
TTFN,
patrick
On 8/21/2009 4:08 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Aug 21, 2009, at 3:47
On Aug 21, 2009, at 3:47 PM, Brian Dickson wrote:
My institution has a single /16 spread across 2 sites: the lower /
17 is
used at site A, the upper /17 at site B. Sites A B are connected
internally. Currently both sites have their own ISPs and only
advertise
their own /17's. For
On Aug 14, 2009, at 6:00 PM, cidr-rep...@potaroo.net wrote:
This report has been generated at Fri Aug 14 21:11:44 2009 AEST.
The report analyses the BGP Routing Table of AS2.0 router
and generates a report on aggregation potential within the table.
Check http://www.cidr-report.org for a
On Aug 7, 2009, at 2:13 PM, Routing Analysis Role Account wrote:
BGP routing table entries examined:
293130
By at least one count, we are still below 300K.
--
TTFN,
patrick
There is NO fix. There never will be as the problem is architectural
to the most fundamental operation of DNS. Other than replacing DNS
(not
feasible), the only way to prevent this form of attack is DNSSEC. The
fix only makes it much harder to exploit.
Randomizing source ports and QIDs
On Jul 28, 2009, at 11:36 AM, John van Oppen wrote:
XO has been offering a product lately that is all routes except level3
and sprint which leads me to believe that they pay both of those
peers...
Or there is a settlement in place, which is kinda-sortta the same
thing, only not necessarily.
On Jul 31, 2009, at 11:53 AM, Andy Ringsmuth wrote:
On Jul 31, 2009, at 10:35 AM, J. Oquendo wrote:
Andrew Euell wrote:
Happy Sysadmin Day nanog'ers. Thank you for keeping the internet
running!
http://www.sysadminday.com/
Keeping the Internet running? You mean as in the flakiness of what
On Jul 31, 2009, at 6:00 PM, cidr-rep...@potaroo.net wrote:
Recent Table History
Date PrefixesCIDR Agg
24-07-09298785 182835
25-07-09299168 182751
26-07-09298909 182973
27-07-09299265 183099
28-07-09
On Jul 28, 2009, at 11:18 AM, Pekka Savola wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, Charles Mills wrote:
Is XO Communications a Tier 1 ISP?
...
Any help here? Thanks as always.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tier_1_network
Having written a good portion of that page, in the interest of full
On Jul 27, 2009, at 10:04 AM, John C. A. Bambenek wrote:
Because most of the net libertarians insist that they should do
whatever they want and everyone else should help cater to them.
Liberty for me but not for thee.
I am very much of the my network, my rules camp.
As soon as att pays back
On Jul 27, 2009, at 11:22 AM, Hiers, David wrote:
Im not a lawyer, but I think that the argument goes something like
this...
The common carriers want to be indemnified from the content they
carry. In other words, the phone company doesn't want to be held
liable for the Evil Plot planned
Sent from my iPhone, please excuse any errors.
On Jul 23, 2009, at 4:27, Jim Mercer j...@reptiles.org wrote:
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 08:44:21PM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
My fav part:
quote
That's precisely how packets move around the internet, sometimes
in a
many as 25 or 30 hops
On Jul 22, 2009, at 7:41 PM, Kevin Oberman wrote:
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 21:27:39 +0100
From: andrew.wallace andrew.wall...@rocketmail.com
Big up the Nanog community, you do the net proud...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8163190.stm
First showed up on NANOG 7 hours ago, but it was a
On Jul 16, 2009, at 7:05 PM, Wayne E. Bouchard wrote:
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 06:32:32PM -0400, Deepak Jain wrote:
As for trying to determine where your inbound traffic is coming
from by
looking at natural bgp, this is absolutely impossible to do
correctly.
First off, your inbound is
On Jul 14, 2009, at 5:47 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 14:34:18 -0500
William Pitcock neno...@systeminplace.net wrote:
On Sat, 2009-07-11 at 11:11 -0600, Brielle Bruns wrote:
On 7/11/09 11:05 AM, Ronald Cotoni wrote:
Yes, they are really bad. It is actually quite silly that a
[SNIP]
Everyone,
Please do not CC nanog@nanog.org when replying to one of Dean
Anderson's ... uh ... missives[*]. We do not see the original, so by
replying and CC'ing the list, you are helping him get his ... er ...
message[*] to a wider audience. And if you have actually read any of
On Jul 11, 2009, at 1:11 PM, Brielle Bruns wrote:
On 7/11/09 11:05 AM, Ronald Cotoni wrote:
Yes, they are really bad. It is actually quite silly that a
blacklisting
service is that slow on responding to problems.
I find it unacceptable that people demand instant service from a
company
On Jul 11, 2009, at 5:37 PM, Brielle Bruns wrote:
Further, there is such thing as a local whitelist of IP addresses.
Easier to just not use the BL.
Besides, there are plenty of useful blacklists with very low FP rates
who are responsive. Why use one that has high FP and is
unresponsive?
On Jul 11, 2009, at 4:40 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
Nuno Vieira - nfsi wrote:
That's good to know.
I'll avoid using it.
Holy crap, what's with all the AHBL hate? At the very least they
have a responsive human and - last time I checked - they don't
require an exchange of money to get off the
On Jul 10, 2009, at 12:05 PM, Paul Wall wrote:
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 4:43 PM, tbtbran...@gmail.com wrote:
My name is Todd Braning, I work on the technical side of the BandCon
house. I am afraid Paul's email is inaccurate.
Yo Todd!
It's good to hear that you've listened to feedback and made
On Jul 10, 2009, at 1:48 PM, Jay Nakamura wrote:
We are getting an Ethernet DIA circuit from ATT but they insist that
they can't BGP peer with 2 routers on our side. The WAN circuit can
only have /30 they say. Has anyone been able to successfully talk
them in to bending their rule? If so,
On Jul 9, 2009, at 9:58 AM, michiel.muhlenbau...@atratoip.net wrote:
Hi Jeroen others,
Yep, looks like we are doing a great portion of AMSIX's IPv6 traffic
and
our (free) IPv6 service was affected because of an internal error last
night around 00.30 am.
Michiel,
Thank you for the
On Jul 9, 2009, at 10:40 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
[..]
I ask because the AMS-IX is frequently used as an example that v6 is
being heavily adopted. If it is all one source for one application,
that is important information to the people fighting for v6 adoption.
Going
Sent from my iPhone, please excuse any errors.
On Jun 20, 2009, at 7:47, Neil kngsp...@gmail.com wrote:
Consider the following setup:
internet pipe - wired network - (wireless router) wireless network
-
computer1, computer2
Suppose the signal coming in on the pipe is good, but the
Sent from my iPhone, please excuse any errors.
On Jun 19, 2009, at 8:53, Jeroen Wunnink jer...@easyhosting.nl wrote:
We just open port 2525 for customers from ISP's blocking official
SMTP ports so they can use their dedicated servers/domain mailservers.
Is there any reason you do not use
On Jun 16, 2009, at 2:00 PM, Quinn Mahoney wrote:
Is there a competing droplist, that can be compared against Spamhaus's
droplist? That seems like an extraordinary claim, so I'm not
satisfied
with the evidence provided. Is this not the best droplist?
Extraordinary claims require
they should do is make these rules clear and prominent on their
website so you could know before you use the resource!
Oh, wait, they do
--
TTFN,
patrick
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Jun 16, 2009, at 2:00 PM, Quinn Mahoney wrote:
Is there a competing droplist, that can be compared
On Jun 11, 2009, at 3:56 AM, Michael J McCafferty wrote:
I am interested to hear any experiences with the Any2 Exchange at
One Wilshire Blvd, especially regarding performance and reliability
to the other exchange participants in comparison to routing to the
same networks via Tier 1
On Jun 9, 2009, at 8:58 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
Note: topic in the presentation room, not topic at the hotel bar ;-)
... which clearly means that you've missed where the real discussions
happen.
and only want to discuss what has already been discussed
The original post also said and is
On Jun 9, 2009, at 12:43 PM, Jeff Kell wrote:
Reminds me of the old warning/attention sign over a termination
rack...
WARNING: Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
It will be the last thing you never saw.
--
TTFN,
patrick
On Jun 9, 2009, at 2:06 PM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Tue, Jun 09, 2009 at 12:43:09PM -0400, Jeff Kell wrote:
Reminds me of the old warning/attention sign over a termination
rack...
WARNING: Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
The only problem with those funny signs is they
On May 20, 2009, at 3:18 PM, Mike Lyon wrote:
Does anyone know of a service that you can sign up for to add as a
secondary
MX to act as a mail queue if your primary MX isn't available? I'm
going to
be doing a mail migration and I need a service to point my MX record
to that
isn't my mail
On May 14, 2009, at 8:37 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
[TLB:] I can think of an argument they might make: that it is/could
be
used by bots as a fallback. However, redirecting DNS/UDP fits the
model
of providing a better service for the average user;
blocking/redirecting TCP is more likely to
On May 11, 2009, at 4:29 PM, Chris Meidinger wrote:
This is a pretty moronic question, but I've been searching RFC's on-
and-off for a couple of weeks and can't find an answer. So I'm
hoping someone here will know it offhand.
I've been looking through RFC's trying to find a clear statement
On May 11, 2009, at 5:19 PM, Alex H. Ryu wrote:
Unless you configure Layer 2 for two interfaces, it's not going to
work.
It can work. Of course it _may_ not, depending upon your
implementation, but then some implementations can't get a single
interface to work properly per subnet.
On May 11, 2009, at 4:45 PM, Chris Meidinger wrote:
On 11.05.2009, at 22:34, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On May 11, 2009, at 4:29 PM, Chris Meidinger wrote:
I would be grateful for a pointer to such an RFC statement,
assuming it exists.
Why would an RFC prohibit this?
Most
Of course the GeoIP people are going to vet the submissions, but if
existing entry is Spain or Germany and the traceroute shows that the
previous hop was somewhere in the US midwest, I think they can
figure it
out. =)
The hop before it is not necessarily a good indication these days
with
On Apr 30, 2009, at 11:43 PM, Shane Ronan wrote:
I think it depends on the industry you are in, in the financial
industry, no one uses MPLS clouds or VPN's over the Internet,
everyone uses either 1G or 10G links.
I think Jack's point was that many 1G and 10G links are really just
MPLS
On Apr 27, 2009, at 2:20 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
Jonathan Park wrote:
Hello all,
I was wondering how many of you use route flap dampening in your
network.
If you have it enabled, what is the main reason?
We've been considering it after the last flap around the world;
perhaps with extremely
On Apr 22, 2009, at 5:23 PM, Kevin Loch wrote:
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Apr 22, 2009, at 4:35 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
Zhenkai Zhu wrote:
I just want to make sure if I understand correctly. You mean that
the anycasted address space can be announced in different places
yet with the same
On Apr 22, 2009, at 5:48 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
Joe Provo wrote:
And the overall message is that only the (prefix holder|originating
ASn[s]) can tell you if it is intended or not. Sadly, this is not
a useful metric for a third-party to use to determine prefix
annoucnement legitimacy.
On Apr 10, 2009, at 11:03 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
I work with FEC in various ways, mostly to protect video streams
against packet loss, including as co-chair
of the IETF FECFRAME WG and in the Video Services Forum. Most FEC is
driven by congestion in the edge, RF issues on wireless LANs,
On Apr 10, 2009, at 12:57 PM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
at least this year its been changed from Terrorists to Vandals.
(when most likley, its over-aggressive metals recyclers who have
run out of catalitic converters to steal...)
I didn't see a smiley.
And I seriously doubt metal
On Apr 10, 2009, at 2:00 PM, Steven M. Callahan wrote:
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 1:15 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore
patr...@ianai.netwrote:
I didn't see a smiley.
And I seriously doubt metal recyclers are going 10 feet down into man
holes, breaking into locked cabinets, cutting _fiber_optic_ cables
On Apr 10, 2009, at 3:41 PM, Scott Doty wrote:
George William Herbert wrote:
Scott Doty wrote:
(Personally, I can think of a MAE-Clueless episode that was
worse than this, but that was in the 90's...)
The gas main strike out front of the building in Santa Clara?
Or something else?
On Apr 9, 2009, at 6:04 PM, Charles Wyble wrote:
Seriously though I want to start some discussion around outside
plant protection. This isn't the middle of the ocean or desert after
all.
There were multiple fiber cuts in a major metropolitan area,
resulting in the loss of critical
On Mon, 6 Apr 2009, Joe Abley wrote:
Anybody here have experience shipping pre-built cabinets, with ~20U
of routers and servers installed, connected and tested, to remote
sites for deployment?
How tall are the doors in the destination datacenter?
How much weight can be rolled over the
Everyone,
The NANOG Marketing Working Group (MWG) is looking for a few good
volunteers!
The MWG was created to investigate ways to bring in more sponsor
support without changing the spirit of the NANOG meeting. We are
looking for additional sponsorship opportunities, that will bring
Belive it or not, n...@akamai.com is a real address which is read and
responds 24/7.
Perhaps using the RFC required address would be more productive than e-
mailing 10k strangers?
--
TTFN,
patrick
Sent from my iPhone 3-J, please excuse any errors.
(That's 3-Jezuz for the uninitiated.)
On
On Mar 17, 2009, at 9:38 PM, John Martinez wrote:
Anyone having issues with speakeasy dsl connectivity?
Supposedly they're having a national outage.
--
TTFN,
patrick
On Feb 22, 2009, at 1:26 PM, JC Dill wrote:
Seth Mattinen wrote:
If I give someone money to do something, and they fail to meet the
contracted metrics, what else can they give me except money back?
They can pay a penalty. Simply giving you your money back may not
make you whole. Many
On Feb 22, 2009, at 1:39 AM, Roland Dobbins wrote:
On Feb 22, 2009, at 2:28 PM, neal rauhauser wrote:
Does anyone have the full story on this?
http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/1997-04/msg00444.html
Avi happened to be next to me when I read the first post in this
thread - and
On Feb 22, 2009, at 1:47 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
Does anyone have the full story on this?
http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/1997-04/msg00444.html
bottom line:
o do not redistribute bgp into igp
o do not redistribute dynamic igp into bgp
o filter your peers and customers
And don't
On Feb 19, 2009, at 10:54 AM, Bill Blackford wrote:
In scaling upward. How would a linux router even if a kernel guru
were to tweak and compile an optimized build, compare to a 7600/
RSP720CXL or a Juniper PIC in ASIC? At some point packets/sec
becomes a limitation I would think.
I've
On Feb 14, 2009, at 5:43 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Steven M. Bellovin:
As Randy and Valdis have pointed out, if this isn't done very
carefully
it's an open invitation to a new, very effective DoS technique. You
can't do this without authoritative knowledge of exactly who owns any
prefix;
On Feb 10, 2009, at 5:31 PM, Matthias Leisi wrote:
Mark Andrews schrieb:
I don't see any reason to complain based on those numbers.
It's just a extremely high growth period due to technology
change over bring in new functionality.
OTOH, Verizon is not the only
On Feb 10, 2009, at 5:52 PM, Dave Temkin wrote:
Chuck Anderson wrote:
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 11:31:38PM +0100, Matthias Leisi wrote:
Mark Andrews schrieb:
I don't see any reason to complain based on those numbers.
It's just a extremely high growth period due to technology
On Feb 10, 2009, at 10:16 PM, joe mcguckin wrote:
I'm looking for a couple of pictures of the worst cabling
infrastructure ever seem. One Wilshire meet me room comes to mind.
Anyone got any links to their photo albums, etc?
I've always considered this the worst:
On Feb 7, 2009, at 2:09 AM, Nathan Ward wrote:
On 6/02/2009, at 12:00 PM, Joe Maimon wrote:
This assignment policy is NOT enough for every particle of sand on
earth, which is what I thought we were getting.
There is enough for 3616 /64s, or 14 /56s per square centimetre of
the earth's
On Feb 6, 2009, at 1:43 PM, Deric Kwok wrote:
I would like to ask your professional experience about switch
throughput
I have Gig Switchs eg: H P3400 /3500, cisco c4 948../ dlink
In their spec, they said that it can handles Gig
So far, I couldn't see their ports are used up over 200M in mrtg
On Feb 4, 2009, at 6:56 PM, Scott Howard wrote:
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 9:35 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore
patr...@ianai.netwrote:
Except the RIRs won't give you another /48 when you have only used
one
trillion IP addresses.
Of course they will! A /48 is only the equivalent of 65536
networks
On Feb 4, 2009, at 7:08 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
Second, where did you get 4 users per /64? Are you planning to hand
each cable modem a /64?
That was the generally accepted subnet practice last time I had a
discussion about it on the ipv6-ops list. I'm
On Feb 3, 2009, at 1:01 AM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
Except the RIRs won't give you another /48 when you have only used
one trillion IP addresses.
Are you sure? According to ARIN staff, current implementation of
policy is that all requests are approved since
On Feb 3, 2009, at 12:30 AM, Anthony Roberts wrote:
Let's face it - they're going to have to come up with much more
creative
$200/hour chucklehead consultants to burn through that much anytime
soon.
It has been my experience that when you give someone a huge address
space
to play with
On Jan 21, 2009, at 8:17 AM, Jon Lewis wrote:
As for the you're not allowed to prepend thing, have you
experimented to see what happens if you try? Unless they're giving
you special pricing based on the idea that they're providing you
with strictly backup transit, they shouldn't be doing
On Jan 21, 2009, at 11:07 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
Google is not the only company which will put caches into any
provider
- or school (which is really just a special case provider) - with
enough traffic. A school with 30 machines probably would
On Jan 20, 2009, at 2:58 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Tue, 20 Jan 2009, Paul Vixie wrote:
Cisco VNI projections indicate that IP traffic will increase at a
combined
annual growth rate (CAGR) of 46 percent from 2007 to 2012, nearly
doubling
every two years. This will result in an annual
On Jan 20, 2009, at 6:37 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
to play devils advocate, how much impact does caching have
on the total traffic flow anyway?
Less and less would be my estimate. How much video is cached ? How
much P2P is cached ?
Define cached.
For instance, most of
On Jan 21, 2009, at 12:25 AM, mike wrote:
So I am just wondering what my expecations should be in a bgp
peering scenario where I am multihomed with my own ASN and arin
assigned ip space. At issue is the fact that my backup isp forced me
to use ebgp multihop to peer with a router internal
On Jan 15, 2009, at 3:54 AM, Andy Davidson wrote:
On 14 Jan 2009, at 16:06, Jeroen Massar wrote:
Simon Lockhart wrote:
(Yes, I'm in the minority that thinks that Randy hasn't done
anything bad)
Nah, I agree with Randy's experiment too. People should protect
their networks better and this
501 - 600 of 706 matches
Mail list logo
