On 5/9/2011 08:16, Arie Vayner wrote:
Actually, I have just noticed a slightly more disturbing thing on the Yahoo
IPv6 help page...
I have IPv6 connectivity through a HE tunnel, and I can reach IPv6 services
(the only issue is that my ISP's DNS is not IPv6 enabled), but I tried to
run the
On 4/26/2011 09:39, Kate Gerry wrote:
Funny enough, some carriers actually require the 'smallest' as being /32... :(
This is becoming the exception now, not the rule.
Last year I was fighting with Verizon about their refusal to carry /48s.
That, together with the impasse of figuring out how
On 4/8/11 8:31 AM, Job Snijders wrote:
As Seth pointed out SHIM6 is still an academic exercise
Another Locator / ID separator protocol is LISP. The advantage is that you
don't need to
change the host but only the CPE. I've been using it to multi-home my house
and it works
fine. I'm
On 4/7/2011 02:27, Daniel STICKNEY wrote:
Hello all,
I'm investigating how to setup multihoming for IPv6 over two DSL lines
(different ISPs), and I wanted to see if this wheel has already been
invented. Has anyone already set this up or tested it ?
In my research into the proposed
On 3/11/2011 10:29, Michael Thomas wrote:
Is it too soon to start to compare and contrast how voip
held up vs. tdm? Back in the old days circa mid to late
90's, there was a lot of hand wringing about whether
voip would be up to the task of dealing with a massive
emergency. Well, we
On 2/28/2011 15:35, Joe Greco wrote:
There may be no compelling reason to do so, at least. However, digital
gear offers benefits, and some people want them. Others, like me, live
in bad RF environments where POTS picks up too much noise unless you
very carefully select your gear and
On 2/21/2011 13:10, Chris Wallace wrote:
I am looking for some help with an issue we recently had with one of our BGP
peers recently. I currently have two DIA providers each terminated into
their own edge router and I am doing iBGP to exchange routes between the two
edge routers. Last
On 2/21/2011 13:44, Max Pierson wrote:
Save yourself the headache and find a new provider that knows how to
handle BGP
I've had this happen with providers that do know how to handle BGP. Just
because you peer with 3356, 701, etc, doesn't mean operators can't make
a mistake. I've even seen
On 2/12/2011 13:33, Ryan Finnesey wrote:
This is one of the reasons we are starting to look at Juniper for a new
network build. It is my understanding we set software updates for life for
free.
Cheers
Ryan
How does Juniper feel about used hardware?
~Seth
On 2/11/2011 13:49, Andrey Khomyakov wrote:
If only Cisco would sell software only support. 3rd party smartNet
alternatives are nice for parts replacement. They suck for support, imho,
especially, when it comes down to declaring a problem to be a bug.
On quite a few occasions I found bugs in
On 2/9/2011 14:55, Scott Helms wrote:
Absolutely, just as the ISPs didn't see demand, and don't today, from
their users and thus the circle of blame is complete :)
And they never will. Their users demand the internets, not a specific
version of some protocol that users don't care about.
On 2/3/2011 08:38, Josh Smith wrote:
Seth,
What sort of ISP do your not technically inclined parents have that
offers native ipv6? :-)
I'm doing it via fixed wireless. They'll actually be my second access
customer to get native IPv6. My parents are a good test case for the
kind of user who
On 2/6/11 8:21 PM, Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo wrote:
BlueHost, which while maybe not a great quality web host, by all
measures is a big one, not only does not support IPv6 but they denied
my request to create a record pointing to a friend's IPv6 page
for a domain I host there.
BH, are
On 2/4/2011 06:13, Jack Bates wrote:
I waited years and finally turned up a transit to L3 for additional
bandwidth (had to wait for GE support from the other 2, of which 1 still
can't give me a GE) and luckily native v6. Within 30 days I should have
a cogent 10G, and I hear I'll get v6 there
On 2/4/2011 07:05, Scott Helms wrote:
TLDR version, marketing often fails to reflect reality :)
My experience with trying to get a circuit turned up with Verizon boiled
down to two things:
1) Failure to meet the standards of my existing IPv6 connections in
carrying PI /48 (apparently now
On 2/3/11 7:36 AM, Jared Mauch wrote:
(apologies to REM)
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
On 2/2/11 7:23 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 2 feb 2011, at 16:00, Owen DeLong wrote:
SLAAC fails because you can't get information about DNS, NTP, or anything
other than a list of prefixes and a router that MIGHT actually be able to
default-route your packets.
Who ever puts NTP
On 1/31/11 9:13 AM, Blake Hudson wrote:
I setup a p2p /127 link and found that BGP would not peer over the link;
Changing to /126 resolved the problem. I never looked into it further
because I had intended to use /126 from the start. My guess is that
while BGP should be a unicast IP, Cisco's
On 1/25/2011 10:19, Max Pierson wrote:
From the provider perspective, what is the prefix-length that most are
accepting to be injected into your tables?? 2 or so years ago, I read where
someone stated that they were told by ATT that they weren't planning on
accepting anything smaller than a
On 1/24/2011 15:22, Nathan Eisenberg wrote:
You can get a CLEAR WiMAX fixed modem with static IP address for $50
(USD) monthly, or less if you opt for the low-bandwidth plan.
I wouldn't dare rely on something of that nature for a lifeline connection.
I'd spring for the extra $30/mo. It's
On 3/21/07 2:41 AM, Tarig Ahmed wrote:
Is it true that NAT can provide more security?
No.
However, some things like PCI compliance require NAT, likely because of
the NAT = super hacker firewall concept.
~Seth
On 1/12/2011 12:24, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
Cruzio in Santa Cruz recently opened a little co-location facility. That
makes two of such facilities in Santa Cruz (the other being got.net),
which could be a good thing for competition.
Their 1U offer comes with limited access to your server, only
On 1/11/11 6:49 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
To be honest, I use smartnet to upgrade the OS. I quit calling TAC after
they failed to understand, much less help me with my eigrp over frame
relay with automatic ISDN backup on route failure and re-establishment
of eigrp over the ISDN. :)
The
On 1/10/2011 14:32, Jeff Kell wrote:
On 1/10/2011 3:20 PM, Greg Whynott wrote:
HP probably was the most helpful vendor i've dealt with in relation to
solving/providing inter vendor interoperability solutions. they have PDF
booklets on many things we would run into during work. for
On 1/10/2011 14:54, Brandon Kim wrote:
To be fair to Cisco and maybe I'm way off here. But it seems they do come out
with a way to do things first which then become a standard that
they have to follow.
ISL/DOT1Q
HSRP/VRRP
etherchannel/LACP
Just some examples. I'm not aware of too
On 1/5/2011 10:02, TJ wrote:
Many would argue that the version of IP is irrelevant, if you are permitting
external hosts the ability to scan your internal network in an unrestricted
fashion (no stateful filtering or rate limiting) you have already lost, you
just might not know it yet.
On 1/4/11 7:10 AM, William Allen Simpson wrote:
On 1/3/11 6:42 PM, Jay Farrell wrote:
I noticed a substantial drop in spam in my gmail account in recent days,
from several hundred a day to maybe a hundred. Ironically, gmail filtered
this thread to my spam folder.
Yes, I found these messages
On 1/1/11 7:33 PM, Graham Wooden wrote:
So here is the interesting part... Both servers are HP Proliant DL380 G4s,
and both of their NIC1 and NIC2 MACs addresses are exactly the same. Not
spoofd and the OS drivers are not mucking with them ... They¹re burned-in
I triple checked them in
On 12/26/10 4:37 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:
You are likely already at the mercy of some local hut for your dialtone. Very
few things home run to the co these days. It's unlikely any hut has more than
24 hours of battery.
I have talked to local techs that make the same trip each shift to fuel
On 12/21/10 2:18 PM, Frank Bulk wrote:
There are 4,035 routes in the global IPv6 routing table. This is what one
provider passed on to me for routes (/48 or larger prefixes), extracted from
public route-view servers.
ATT AS7018: 2,851 (70.7%)
Cogent AS174: 2,864 (71.0%)
On 12/21/2010 14:18, Frank Bulk wrote:
There are 4,035 routes in the global IPv6 routing table. This is what one
provider passed on to me for routes (/48 or larger prefixes), extracted from
public route-view servers.
ATT AS7018: 2,851 (70.7%)
Cogent AS174: 2,864 (71.0%)
On 12/20/2010 11:44, JC Dill wrote:
On 20/12/10 11:31 AM, Joe Provo wrote:
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 11:16:30AM -0800, Leo Bicknell wrote:
[snip]
And yet, I don't know of any location in the US with two cable
operators.
[snip]
Everywhere that had enough paying-humans-per fiber-mile, so
On 12/20/2010 12:20, Alex Rubenstein wrote:
Amazing how that worked, even spelling fransisco (sic) wrong.
One letter off:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=cable+overbuilder+san+francisco
On 12/20/2010 12:46, JC Dill wrote:
Your lmgtfy link's search finds 5 year old press releases about
discussions to PLAN overbuilding in various locations. What I want are
the Names of Specific Locations (in the SF Bay Area) where such
overbuilds are currently in place and serving customers.
On 12/19/10 6:12 PM, JC Dill wrote:
On 19/12/10 5:48 PM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 08:20:49PM -0500, Bryan Fields wrote:
The government granting a monopoly is the problem, and more lame
government regulation is not the solution. Let everyone compete on a
level
On 12/14/2010 15:23, Douglas Otis wrote:
On 12/14/10 2:38 PM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 03:39:07PM -0600, Aaron Wendel wrote:
To what end? And who's calling the shots there these days? Comcast
has been nothing but shady for the last couple years. Spoofing
On 12/8/2010 11:23, Cameron Byrne wrote:
At the edge, with the down economy, i bet there are plenty of folks
that are only accept /21s and shorter from their upstream ISP so they
can get some more mileage out of their older gear.
Hopefully they have a default route; ARIN now has PI /24
On 12/8/2010 08:06, Jack Bates wrote:
I call BS. Windows has it's problems, but it is the most common
exploited as it holds the largest market share. Many Windows infections
I've seen occur not due to the OS, but due to lack of patching of
applications on the OS. The system does as much as it
On 12/3/2010 14:09, Dustin Swinford wrote:
We have run into an issue with the 107.7.0.0/16 assigned to us several
months ago. It appears that many sites have not yet accepted this space. I
understand this is not a normal type post to NANOG, but hoped to get the
word out to as many operators
On 12/2/10 8:30 AM, Jay Nakamura wrote:
you mean 240V AC 50HZ and move from 120V 60Hz? (or also 50Hz)
In US, I think everything is 60Hz. But I mean 208v single phase.
(Which is what you get when you combine two 120v single phase legs out
of three phase, I believe. I am not an expert on
On 12/2/10 9:20 AM, Mark Kent wrote:
Why do we install 120v instead of 208v? was asked over a year ago
either here or on cisco-nsp. It generated a long discussion, but it
should have been cut short as early in the thread someone said
all that had to be said: because we are idiots.
This
On 12/2/10 8:35 AM, Jameel Akari wrote:
Just be careful on older non-autosensing power supplies where you have
to flip a switch to go from 100-120V to 200-240V input, in that you make
sure to flip them to begin with, and that you flip them back should you
ever mover them back to a 120V
On 12/2/10 12:28 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
You are assuming the absence of any of the following optimizations:
1.Multicast
Multicast is great for simulating old school broadcasting, but I don't
see how it can apply to Netflix/Amazon style demand streaming where
everyone can potentially watch
On 12/2/10 8:02 PM, John van Oppen wrote:
GFCI breakers are very common, the slightly less common version are arc fault
breakers which are starting to show up more as well.
Arc fault breakers are a very new code requirement which I believe is
primarily targeted at sleeping areas. My place
On 11/29/2010 14:40, Rettke, Brian wrote:
Essentially, the question is who has to pay for the infrastructure to support
the bandwidth requirements of all of these new and booming streaming
ventures. I can understand both the side taken by Comcast, and the side of
the content provider, but I
On 11/29/2010 14:49, Aaron Wendel wrote:
A customer pays them for access to the Internet. If that access demands
more infrastructure then Comcast needs to build out the infrastructure and
pass on the costs to the customers demanding it.
But then Comcast might have to raise prices on their
On 11/29/2010 15:24, Phil Bedard wrote:
Is L3 hosting content for Netflix? Netflix has become a large source of
traffic going to end users. L3 likely could have held out on this one if
the content they were hosting is valuable enough to Comcast's customers,
but maybe what Comcast was asking
On 11/29/10 3:59 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
But this isn't a technology problem, or a ratio problem.
Comcast's blog specifically mentions unbalanced ratios as an issue.
~Seth
On 11/29/10 7:51 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.
While this
On 11/26/10 9:58 AM, Lyle Giese wrote:
Let me ask this question from a different angle. Did you NMS notice the
issue? If so, does your software require Internet to notify you?
I use just a simple modem(remember those?GRIN), a pots line and qpage
to send 'out of band' notifications.
Ah
On 11/22/10 9:05 AM, Ken Chase wrote:
That phishers manage to fake sites that look wrong is also beyond me, what's
so hard about 'save page as'?
Probably because there's no need to try that hard - they'll catch enough
people no matter how crappy the phish.
~Seth
On 11/21/10 2:58 AM, Franck Martin wrote:
My understanding was that there was a partial power outage that lasted only a
few minutes for some systems (not the entire facility). Generators kicked in
but a few UPS did not do their job correctly.
There's been some weather activity on this side
On 11/18/2010 11:06, William Herrin wrote:
Hiya folks,
Why are your respective companies treating IPv6 turn ups as a sales
matter instead of a standard technical change request like IP
addresses or BGP? Sprint and Qwest, I know you're guilty. How many of
the rest of you are making IPv6
On 11/18/2010 14:10, Ryan Finnesey wrote:
Sprint keeps telling us they do not yet support IPv6. Is this not the
case?
I'd say that's not completely true. IPv6 is not available everywhere on
the edge of 1239, but it is available. Contact your rep and place an SCA
request for dual stack on
On 11/18/2010 14:39, Pete Lumbis wrote:
This is probably more appropriate for the cisco-nsp list, but what
process is taking up the CPU or is it due to interrupts?
To the best of my knowledge the crypto should be hardware accelerated,
while everything else is going to be done in software on
On 11/18/2010 14:24, George, Wes E [NTK] wrote:
[WES] Bill, I know that you mean well and you're just trying to push IPv6
deployment, and sometimes a little public shame goes a long way, but in the
future, before you call my company out in public with tenuous assertions
like this, please at
On 11/3/10 6:51 PM, Edward A. Trdina III wrote:
Hello-
Would someone with clue within the Verizon team contact me off-list, please?
I'm not seeing rDNS entries for new fios ip addresses.
You should probably start a new thread rather than burying your request
inside a really long one that
On 10/24/2010 09:26, Brandon Kim wrote:
Wow that is amazing and quite impressive that you even run the antenna
linesinteresting..do you have to pay for the GPS service?
Make your own simple GPS NTP clock source:
http://www.satsignal.eu/ntp/FreeBSD-GPS-PPS.htm
~Seth
On 10/18/2010 11:19, Henning Brauer wrote:
* Owen DeLong o...@delong.com [2010-10-18 18:29]:
The good news is that stateful inspection doesn't go away in IPv6.
that is right.
It works just fine. All that goes away is the header mangling.
that is partially true. it can work just fine,
On 10/18/2010 14:39, Doug Barton wrote:
On Mon, 18 Oct 2010, Owen DeLong wrote:
I think it's generally a bad idea. /48 is the design architecture for
IPv6. It allows for significant innovation in the SOHO arena that we
haven't accounted for in some of our current thinking.
Q:Why are
On 10/9/10 5:08 PM, Ryan Finnesey wrote:
We have been looking into Sprint but one issue we are running into is
lack of IPv6 support. So we are looking into Level3 and Global. I
think Equinix may also have its own connectivity they can sell you.
Um, if you order an MPLS connection between
On 10/5/10 10:05 PM, Larry Brower wrote:
James Smith wrote:
At 1:20am here in Canada, NB our networks are showing that facebook is down.
Please confirm in the USA.
~SmithwaySecurity
Sent from my iPhone
We need Alert and ! in the subject? seriously?
Sorry, but I don't see a
On 10/4/2010 10:05, Nathan Eisenberg wrote:
http://kestrel3.netflight.com/2010.10.04-NANOG50-morning-notes.txt
Whois traffic has been going through the roof; they
added more proxies in front to support it.
Apparently, there's IP management packages that do
whois queries. It would be good
On 9/30/2010 15:12, Bret Clark wrote:
If the buildings are a 100ft apart, can't you just go with a wireless
connection? Speeds would probably be better and no monthly fee!
Wireless is not the end all solution for everything.
~Seth
On 9/30/2010 15:34, Jared Mauch wrote:
On Sep 30, 2010, at 6:30 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
On 9/30/2010 15:12, Bret Clark wrote:
If the buildings are a 100ft apart, can't you just go with a wireless
connection? Speeds would probably be better and no monthly fee!
Wireless is not the end
On 9/29/10 6:23 AM, Curtis Maurand wrote:
be even lower power for around $414. Its a nothing box and its not even
breathing hard. its running on a 100mbps fiber. The speed tests that
I've run show it running close to wire speed. It would probably run
even better if I were using real
On 9/29/2010 11:48, Erik L wrote:
Thanks John. This was a common question that was asked off-list. That edge
MTA is not used and has never been used by anything/anyone other than us. No
customer mail flows or has flowed in or out via it ever.
As I mentioned in my follow-up post, the issue
On 9/28/10 7:49 AM, Leo Vegoda wrote:
On 27 Sep 2010, at 8:29, Owen DeLong wrote:
[...]
465 is not an odd-ball port, it's the standard well-known port for STMPS.
It is? That's not what's recorded at:
http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-numbers
urd 465/tcpURL
On 9/25/2010 13:37, Leo Woltz wrote:
I am looking for some guidance from the list. We will soon be deploying
wireless payment devices (CDMA/GSM). We are looking at options on where to
locate the servers that will run the backend payment gateways; we would like
the least amount of latency
On 9/26/10 11:09 AM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
Joel's widget number 2
On Sep 26, 2010, at 10:47, Chris Adams cmad...@hiwaay.net wrote:
Once upon a time, Joel Jaeggli joe...@bogus.com said:
On Sep 26, 2010, at 8:26, Chris Adams cmad...@hiwaay.net wrote:
There are servers and storage arrays
On 9/24/10 5:28 PM, Alex Rubenstein wrote:
While this question has many dimensions and there is no real
definition of either I suspect that what many people mean when they
talk about a DC routers is:
From the datacenter operator prospective, it would be nice if some of these
vendors would
On 9/23/2010 12:43, Justin Horstman wrote:
Via http://downforeveryoneorjustme.com/facebook.com
It's not just you! http://facebook.com looks down from here.
Also down from LA, qwest has been having issues today as well, not sure if
its related.
However, www.v6.facebook.com works
On 9/23/2010 13:04, Cameron Byrne wrote:
IPv6 seems to be working fine for me www.v6.facebook.com :)
Yep, works great. You guys should really upgrade your networks to
something that works. ;)
~Seth
On 9/21/10 5:38 AM, William Herrin wrote:
And, of course, the easy way:
http://bill.herrin.us/pictures/2008/cables-sm.jpg
A similar way would be MRJ21 cables and patch panels or fan out ends,
but Cisco doesn't make any line cards with it.
On 9/21/10 8:23 AM, Matthew Topper wrote:
Maybe I'm thinking about this the wrong way, but it seems to be that
that would be a huge problem when you need to change out a cable or
move something. Do the benefits outweigh the headaches with this kind
of setup?
I can't speak for others, but
On 9/21/2010 10:52, Holmes,David A wrote:
Modern telephone pole aerial fiber uses all dialectric self-supporting
(ADSS) technology, where the self-supporting component consists
primarily of aramid yarn, the same material used for bullet-proof vests.
This makes for an extremely light weight,
On 9/16/10 9:35 AM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
Hopefully they don't treat this the same way they treat their billing,
otherwise you all will be degraded for months or even years. It is
absolutely amazing that this company is still in business.
The big guys will always remain in business, or be
On 9/9/2010 10:59, Alan Bryant wrote:
I did a quick google search for a converter but either I'm not
understanding, or I'm not searching for the right thing.
We currently have a POS OC-3 that I would like to be able to convert
it to Ethernet, if possible.
Do such devices exist?
By
On 9/7/10 10:23 AM, Jon Lewis wrote:
More often than not today the only replies I've been getting back from
the ARIN whois servers is:
ERROR 503: Unable to service request due to high volume.
Is there really high volume today, or is the new restful thing broken
again?
S, it's an
On 9/5/2010 11:17, Joseph C. Bender wrote:
Perhaps economic pressure will be a good enough reason for the
registrars to actually get moving and make progress with better support.
OpenSRS kept my business because they at least have a mechanism for
handling glue, albeit not an automated
On 9/4/10 6:35 AM, Ryan Shea wrote:
Anyone with a contact at Doster with the ability to make things happen?
Apparently they do not support v6 glue records and they have been
unresponsive to my ticket. This seems a kooky reason to change registrars.
The table of registrars over at sixxs who
On 9/4/10 10:30 AM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
On 9/4/10 9:31 AM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
On 9/4/10 6:35 AM, Ryan Shea wrote:
Anyone with a contact at Doster with the ability to make things happen?
Apparently they do not support v6 glue records and they have been
unresponsive to my ticket. This seems
On 9/4/10 6:35 AM, Ryan Shea wrote:
Anyone with a contact at Doster with the ability to make things happen?
Apparently they do not support v6 glue records and they have been
unresponsive to my ticket. This seems a kooky reason to change registrars.
The table of registrars over at sixxs who
On 9/3/2010 17:12, Owen DeLong wrote:
I was not attempting to defend security through obscurity. It doesn't
ultimately help at all.
However, compared to the network and other resource costs of scanning, even
at more than a billion pps, I think there will be more effective vectors of
On 8/26/10 3:26 AM, Daniel Migault wrote:
Currently we are considering the following values. Packet Lost Rate for L2
seems 7% for Wifi and 5% for 3G. We are wondering how L3 is affected?
TCP retransmits. UDP does not.
~Seth
On 8/26/2010 09:20, Seth Mattinen wrote:
On 8/26/10 3:26 AM, Daniel Migault wrote:
Currently we are considering the following values. Packet Lost Rate for L2
seems 7% for Wifi and 5% for 3G. We are wondering how L3 is affected?
TCP retransmits. UDP does not.
Nevermind my response; I've
On 8/13/2010 19:55, Randy Bush wrote:
when the registry work was re-competed and taken from sri to netsol (i
think it was called that at the time), rick adams [0] put in a no cost
bid to do it all with automated scripts. hindsight tells me we should
have supported that much more strongly.
On 8/13/10 10:42 AM, Brandon Galbraith wrote:
Alternate #4: A rents the space to B without ARIN knowing it, while A
continues to claim that the space belongs to them.
This already happens as we speak with IP brokers.
~Seth
On 8/9/2010 17:48, Jason Lixfeld wrote:
I'm researching a list of some colocation providers I have here to find the
most suitable one to provide services for a project I'm working on. My
thought is to send out an informal RFI, which I believe is something others
may have done too. If
On 7/31/10 12:20 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 10:04:16 +0800, Diogo Montagner said:
This was the best compilation that I found before. Unfortunately, this
presentation is a little bit old (2006). I am supposing that most of
commercial tools have improved your IPv6
On 7/27/10 10:32 AM, Schiller, Heather A (HeatherSkanks) wrote:
We do not charge v4 customers anything to turn up an IPv6 tunnel. If
you hear otherwise, please feel free to drop me a line. Native v6 is
available in atleast 31 markets, on over 210 edge devices in 701. There
is a good
On 7/25/10 11:05 AM, Tarig Yassin wrote:
probabaly every web server in USA e.g. Google, Verisign and sourceforge.
Hah, no.
~Seth
On 7/21/2010 12:34, Brandon Kim wrote:
Is dual-stacking with an edge device considered native? Or is true native
when you have
an edge device or any network device for that matter that's v6 only?
Just curious
Dual stack is considered native, i.e. no tunnels.
~Seth
On 7/21/2010 12:08, Zaid Ali wrote:
I currently have a v4 BGP session with AS 701 and recently requested a v6
BGP session to which I was told a tunnel session will be provided (Same
circuit would be better but whatever!). Towards the final stage in
discussions I was told that it will cost
On 7/20/2010 06:11, Brandon Kim wrote:
Interesting question, I'd like to know more about this myself. I'm so used to
monitoring SNMP-based
devices, never really thought about multi-casts and being able to see the
pattern/tree
Is it just me, or is anyone else receiving multiple
On 7/8/2010 18:40, Alan Bryant wrote:
Also, are there any upgrades that can be done to this router to
increase it's processing power? Is there something better for the
7206VXR than the NPE-G1? I see the NPE-G2, but even on ebay it is very
costly.
The NPE-G2 is the next step after the
On 7/3/10 10:43 AM, Alan Bryant wrote:
I haven't seen much traffic on this list about Mikrotik or RouterOS,
but I thought it was worth a shot as a last ditch effort to get this
going.
Does anyone know of a solution to connect a POS OC-3 to a router
running Mikrotik's RouterOS? I have
On 7/3/10 12:22 PM, Mike wrote:
Alan Bryant wrote:
I haven't seen much traffic on this list about Mikrotik or RouterOS,
but I thought it was worth a shot as a last ditch effort to get this
going.
Does anyone know of a solution to connect a POS OC-3 to a router
running Mikrotik's RouterOS? I
On 7/3/2010 17:12, Majdi S. Abbas wrote:
On Sat, Jul 03, 2010 at 07:32:48PM -0400, Scott Berkman wrote:
I really wouldn't use the word legacy to describe SONET and OC-3's.
It's around 25 years old (work started in 1985, first standards
published in 1988) and we now have a ratified 100G
On 7/2/2010 11:46, Crist Clark wrote:
We got a strange and out of the blue inquiry from someone
wishing to pay us for a chunk of our ARIN allocation,
Hello,
According to Whois data, you company owns the following
IP address space:
206.220.220.0/24
We would like to get this block of IP
301 - 400 of 605 matches
Mail list logo
