On Mon, 28 Apr 2014, Hugo Slabbert wrote:
Comcast is the destination network for the traffic; they're not providing
transit services to Netflix. Comcast needs to accept the Netflix traffic
that Comcast's customers are requesting *somehow*; I don't see why they get
to charge Netflix for a
On Sun, 27 Apr 2014, Rick Astley wrote:
That amount of data is massive scale. I don't see it as double dipping
because each party is buying the pipe they are using. I am buying a 15Mbps
pipe to my home but just because we are communicating over the Internet
doesn't mean the money I am paying
On Thu, 24 Apr 2014, Bryan Socha wrote:
Whats the big deal If your just arin, dont panic. Akamai and
digitalocean has been the only people aquire fair priced v4 putside
arin.So arin is ending. It doesnt stop anything. be smart 3 usd
per ip is fair if dirty. F the
On Wed, 23 Apr 2014, John Jackson wrote:
I have a customer who previously didn't have any IPv4 address space. They
recently acquired a competitor that has a /24.
Are there any special ARIN rules for this type of transfer?
Any pointers, or 'gotchas'?
I'm pretty sure ARIN has the transfer
On Wed, 2 Apr 2014, Laszlo Hanyecz wrote:
They're just leaking every route right?
Is it possible to poison the AS paths you announce with their own AS to get
them to let go of your prefixes until it's fixed?
Would that work, or some other trick that can be done without their cooperation?
On Thu, 3 Apr 2014, Adrian Minta wrote:
Already too late :(
*Delivery has failed to these recipients or groups:*
indriana.triyunianingt...@indosat.com
mailto:indriana.triyunianingt...@indosat.com
The recipient's mailbox is full and can't accept messages now. Please try
resending this
These also get posted to other mailing lists, such as cisco-nsp.
jms
On Wed, 26 Mar 2014, rw...@ropeguru.com wrote:
Thanks everyone for the replies. I guess since they are done so infrequently,
I was not a list member the last go around.
Robert
On Wed, 26 Mar 2014 12:58:44 -0400
Andrew
On Wed, 26 Mar 2014, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Wed, 26 Mar 2014 09:19:14 -0400, rw...@ropeguru.com said:
Again comparing something like factual numbers of IPv6 addresses the
the very fuzzy math of guessing how many atoms there are is very silly
indeed.
A bit of thought will show
On Sat, 22 Mar 2014, Bryan Socha wrote:
Oh btw, how many ipv4s are you hording with zero justification to keep
them? I was unpopular during apricot for not liking the idea of no
liability leasing of v4. I don't like this artificial v4 situation
every eyeball network created.Why is
On Sat, 22 Mar 2014, Cb B wrote:
You can pay $3 per ipv4, that is your business. But, it may be worth noting
that ATT, Verizon, Comcast, T-Mobile, TWT, Google Fiber all have have
double digit ipv6 penetration today.
To be fair:
Verizon Wireless, if you're referring to 4G LTE? Agreed.
I don't
On Sat, 22 Mar 2014, William Herrin wrote:
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Justin M. Streiner
strei...@cluebyfour.org wrote:
All of these 'Hail Mary' options for 'saving' IPv4 really are pointless.
IPv4 is like the U.S. Penny. It'll be useless long before it goes
away. And right now it's
On Sat, 22 Mar 2014, William Herrin wrote:
That's what I hear. Interesting thing though: it hasn't happened yet.
IANA ran out of /8's and it didn't happen. The RIRs dropped to
high-conservation mode on their final allocations and it didn't
happen. How could that be?
I never said that things
On Sat, 22 Mar 2014, Nick Hilliard wrote:
FB, T-mobile and you are all using ipv6-ipv4 protocol translators because
ipv6-only services are not a viable alternative at the moment.
Using IPv6 internally is different from being able to use IPv6 end-to-end.
6-4 translators will be needed to
On Sat, 22 Mar 2014, Nick Hilliard wrote:
On 22/03/2014 19:35, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
CGN also comes with lots of downside that customers are likely to find
unpleasant. For some operators, customer (dis)satisfaction might be the
driver that ultimately forces them to deploy IPv6.
don't
On Tue, 18 Mar 2014, Randy wrote:
I have a situation where a 208v/20A PDU (L6-20P) is supposedly hooked to a
208v/30A circuit (L6-30R). Before I order the correct PDU's and whip
cords...sanity check...are connectors 'similar' enough that this is possible
(with force) or am I going to find
On Mon, 3 Mar 2014, Eric A Louie wrote:
Are there any other solutions, short of using BGP multihoming and
having them try to get their own ASN and IPv4 /24 block?
For what it sounds like the customer wants to do, this really is the right
solution. Most everything else has some level of
On Mon, 3 Mar 2014, Eric A Louie wrote:
Honestly? Because the end-customers are not technically competent
enough to run dual-homed BGP, and we don't want to be their managed
service providers on the IT side. And announcing the ATT space is fine
until something goes wrong, and I have to
On Thu, 27 Feb 2014, Bryan Seitz wrote:
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 09:18:08PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
I echo the 'good luck' and ditto on the experience.
There's a lot of people anxious to get IPv6 on FIOS, but there seems to
be precious little movement over there.
I've been fighting this
On Thu, 27 Feb 2014, Tristan Lear wrote:
We have a business-class FIOS connection where I work and a static
IP as well. At least three people who work here have FIOS at home.
I've read rumors about business class customers who really work their
phone sex getting native ipv6, and I also heard
Anyone have a contact for ATT security? I have a Denial of service attack
going on for a customer with an ATT Fiber Circuit. I called ATT and they
gave me an 888 number which is some security contractor.
Justin
--
Justin Wilson j...@mtin.net
MTCNA CCNA MTCRE MTCWE - COMTRAIN
Aol Yahoo IM
On Thu, 30 Jan 2014, Mark Andrews wrote:
Or you could just accept that there needs to be more routing slots
as the number of businesses on the net increases. I can see some
interesting anti-cartel law suits happening if ISP's refuse to
accept /28's from this block.
In the worst case, this
On Thu, 30 Jan 2014, Tore Anderson wrote:
I wouldn't worry if I were you. I'll wager you $100 that pretty much all
of the people requesting a block from ARIN under this policy (or any
other) is going to go for a /24 (or larger). There is some precedent;
RIPE policy has not mandated a minimum
On Fri, 31 Jan 2014, Mark Andrews wrote:
In Australia I would sue Telstra, Optus, ... if their customers
couldn't reach me due to routes being filtered. I would take this
to the ACCC (Australian Competition and Consumer Commission) as a
restraint of trade issue.
And if the provider doing the
On Wed, 29 Jan 2014, Nick Hilliard wrote:
On 29/01/2014 17:35, Philip Lavine wrote:
Is it best practice to have the internet facing BGP router's peering ip
(or for that matter any key gateway or security appliance) use a
statically configured address or use EUI-64 auto config?
how are you
On Wed, 29 Jan 2014, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
I had a customer ask if we could provide him with BGP such that he could be
multihomed. He already has 128 IP addresses from another ISP. Obviously a
/25 is a non go for multihoming as everyone are going to ignore his route.
Not necessarily
On Sat, 25 Jan 2014, Drew Linsalata wrote:
Yeah, its been a while since I had to get involved in this. We have a
customer with their own IPv4 allocation that wants us to announce a /27 for
them. Back in the day, it was /24 or larger or all bets were off. Is
that still the case now?
Things
On Wed, 8 Jan 2014, George, Wes wrote:
Interestingly, I have one of the later-generation ActionTecs, and VZ
pushed a software update to it at some point and it sprouted IPv6 config.
I noticed the same thing on my router several months ago, but when I
called to see if I could get IPv6 turned
On Wed, 8 Jan 2014, Ian Bowers wrote:
So I rock HE like many of you. It works pretty well, and I'm, guessing
I get a lot more address space via HE than VZ would give me.
I have a tunnel through HE and it is solid.
Verizon states on their What is IPv6? page that they will provide a /56
to
On Tue, 7 Jan 2014, Paul B. Henson wrote:
So I was curious, has anyone managed to penetrate the black hole that
appears to be surrounding any actual details on Verizon FIOS IPv6
deployment?
If you find the answer, you win the prize.
I've tried shaking numerous trees (front-line customer
If it were me I would pickup a SupIII or SupIV off ebay. They are
pretty cheap.
Justin
---
Justin Wilson j...@mtin.net
MTIN Consulting
Mikrotik UBNT Climbing Network Design
http://www.mtin.net/ http://www.mtin.net
http://www.thebrotherswisp.com
-Original Message
The biggest problem with Mikrotik is you just can¹t call them up for
support on buggy code. In a critical network this can be a major problem.
Justin
---
Justin Wilson j...@mtin.net
MTIN Consulting
Mikrotik UBNT Climbing Network Design
http://www.mtin.net/ http
On Tue, 31 Dec 2013, David Hubbard wrote:
My guess would be it's due to existing cable plants. I've worked at a
number of places that have tons of multimode fiber run everywhere. If
you can re-terminate and re-use, even if inefficiently, it often beats
the time and expense required to run new
On Tue, 31 Dec 2013, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
The problem is markedly worse at 100G. DPO-24 is just evil, but the cost
difference between 100G SR10, LR4, and ER4 optics is still ridiculous.
Er... MPO-24. Sorry :)
jms
On Tue, 24 Dec 2013, Lee Howard wrote:
I used to run an enterprise network. It was very different from an ISP
network. I didn't say, You're wrong! I said, What's missing?
default route information via DHCPv6. That's what I'm still waiting for.
Why?
You say, The protocol suite doesn't meet
MPLS has been one of Mikrotiks “selling points”. MPLS has been pretty
stable for at least a year or more now. Their documentation has been
kinda weak, but the implementation has been good.
Justin
--
Justin Wilson j...@mtin.net
MTCNA CCNA MTCRE MTCWE - COMTRAIN
Aol Yahoo IM: j2sw
On Thu, 26 Dec 2013, Andrew D Kirch wrote:
If he can afford a 10G link... he should be buying real gear... I mean,
look, I've got plenty of infrastructure horror stories, but lets not cobble
together our own 10gbit solutions, please? At least get one of the new
microtik CCR's with a 10gig
addresses issues with the cloud core. The cloud cores only run Version 6.
We did se BGP issues early on accepting more than one full routing
table.
We saw other issues but they were fixed with subsequent OS software
releases.
Justin
--
Justin Wilson j...@mtin.net
MTCNA CCNA
On Fri, 27 Dec 2013, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
Everybody have critical services running on servers. DHCP, DNS, Radius and
so on are all on servers and you will be down if these services are down.
What is with the knee jerk reaction for suggesting that the BGP daemon
could also be run on a server?
On Fri, 27 Dec 2013, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:
Most 'DYI' solutions, make the non-techy bean counters very nervous,
and seeing a major 'name brand' label for some odd reason makes them
real comfortable, ir-respective of the capabilities or function of
either solution.
For a lot of organizations,
On Sat, 28 Dec 2013, William Waites wrote:
On Fri, 27 Dec 2013 07:23:36 -0500 (EST), Justin M. Streiner
strei...@cluebyfour.org said:
You end up combining some of the downsides of a hardware-based
router with some of the downsides of a server (new attack
vectors, another device
On Wed, 18 Dec 2013, Cliff Bowles wrote:
Question: will carriers accept IPv6 advertisements smaller than /48?
Most of the carriers I've seen won't accept anything smaller than /48.
You have 4096 /48s to use in your /36. The bigger concern for carriers/ISPs
is IPv6 routing table bloat from
On Thu, 12 Dec 2013, Keith wrote:
Fixed optics, there are no transponders, just a passive mux. No filters,
though there is a pad on our side.
Light levels on our side are good and within spec. I have been trying to find
out from the SP what theirs
are at presently, but when the circuit was
On Mon, 9 Dec 2013, Stefan wrote:
As $subj may infer, do you guys follow any type of network lifecycle in
your environment? If so - what would be some criteria you would consider
critical:
You'll probably get lots of different answers to this question depending
on where people are working.
First of all, why are you allowing or disallowing split tunnel networks ?
There is always the risk that he/she may get infected with some malware
that your antivirus does not recognize and it spreads through the internet
network when the user VPNs to the corporate network.
From what I've seen,
On Mon, 2 Dec 2013, Ricky Beam wrote:
On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 17:59:51 -0500, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
... A simple RA/DHCP option could do this.
Great. Now I have to go upgrade every g** d*** device in the network to
support yet another alteration to the standards.
The standards
On Tue, 19 Nov 2013, Ian Smith wrote:
It depends on what direction your are translating to:
IPv6-only host to IPv4 Internet: This isn't a problem if you are
dual-stack at the host, but if you really do have ip6 only hosts, you
aren't looking at any requirement that is different than LSN44
It's looking more and more like NAT64 will be in our future. One of the
valid concerns for NAT64 - much like NAT44 - is being able to determine
the identity of a given user through the NAT at a given point in time.
How feasible this is depends on how robust/scalable $XYZ's translation
logging
On Wed, 13 Nov 2013, Roy hockett wrote:
Has anyone ever used a below grade vault for housing fiber cross connects?
We have to move a fiber interconnect facility due to the current
building being demolished. If you have I would be interested in talking
to you. If there are more appropriate
On Wed, 13 Nov 2013, Roy Hockett wrote:
Thank you for comments. Let me clarify the situation. We have a building that
has been fiber cross connect
location and is being demolished. This location has about 20 fiber cable
entering where we patch between
fiber paths. If we relocated these
I have several clients who have cisco Metro Ethernet switches on Fiber
circuits. The provider just provided the switch and expects the client to
deal with the power. The rational is if the switch is not up it's not our
fault.
Justin
--
Justin Wilson j...@mtin.net
MTCNA CCNA
On Sun, 20 Oct 2013, joel jaeggli wrote:
It's a pretty normal situation. even with a 1-2m jumper I see light levels
that are well below the maximum rx levels for 10km optics. e.g. the max might
be .5 and the actual readings are -1.4 - -2.7. our WDM terminals sit in the the
adjacent racks to
On Sat, 19 Oct 2013, Chris Costa wrote:
What are the opinions/views on attenuating short, 1310nm LR cross-connects.
Assume 20m cable length and utilizing the same vendor optics on each
side of the link. Considering the LR transmit spec doesn't exceed the
receiver's high threshold value do you
On Fri, 4 Oct 2013, Joly MacFie wrote:
http://www.downforeveryoneorjustme.com/floksociety.org says it's up. My VZ
dsl says no.
I'm guessing either VZ is not carrying a default inside their network, or
they are propagating whatever blackhole might exist.
From my FIOS connection at home, I
On Tue, 1 Oct 2013, Daniel Hood wrote:
Having some issues with traffic to Facebook.
Is there anyone here from Facebook lurking on the list? Or does anyone have
a better contact then their help form?
Try o...@facebook.com
jms
On Thu, 26 Sep 2013, Blake Pfankuch - Mailing List wrote:
To follow up, all of this fiber is mm and all light is sx to sfp.
Currently all 1gbit, but it will be repulled as 10gbit capable soon... I
guess I'm going to have to be a little less cheap and shoot for
something under $1000. I had an
On Thu, 19 Sep 2013, Paul Ferguson wrote:
Can someone please explain to a non-Apple person what the hell happened
that started generating so much traffic? Perhaps I missed it in this
thread, but I would be curious to know what iOS 7 implemented that
caused this...
I think this was just the
On Thu, 19 Sep 2013, Warren Bailey wrote:
I don't see how operators could tolerate this, honestly. I can't think
of a single provider who does not oversubscribe their access platform...
Which leads me to this question :
The vast majority of the traffic I saw was served from the Akamai farm
On Thu, 19 Sep 2013, Warren Bailey wrote:
I'm trying to highlight a point that not
all of us have studly 1gbps connections to Akamai. Some of us have to
move data into orbit and back.. Some of us are not like the rest of you.
These types of situations should not happen in general.. We live in
On Wed, 18 Sep 2013, Tassos Chatzithomaoglou wrote:
We also noticed an interesting spike (+ ~40%), mostly in akamai.
The same happened on previous iOS too.
I see it here, too. At its peak, our traffic levels were roughly double
what we would see on a normal weekday.
jms
Zachary McGibbon
On Tue, 27 Aug 2013, Eric Louie wrote:
Based on various conversation threads on Nanog I've come up with a few
criteria for evaluating Tier 1 providers. I'm open to add other criteria -
what would you add to this list? And how would I get a quantitative or
qualitative measure of it?
Define
On Tue, 27 Aug 2013, Eric Louie wrote:
Good stuff Justin - Any other criteria that you would use?
Joe covered a lot of good stuff in his response.
A few providers call themselves Tier 1, though the accuracy of those
assertions is often suspect. The truth can be somewhat more
complicated
On Tue, 27 Aug 2013, Eric Louie wrote:
Tier 1 = Internet backbone providers (United States - ATT, UUNET, Sprint,
AboveNet/Zayo, Cogent, Qwest/CenturyLink, L3/GBLX). However, I might be
better served with a Tier 2 for reachability as pointed out in another
response.
Some of those providers
On Tue, 27 Aug 2013, Ben Hatton wrote:
- time taken to turn around BGP import filter changes
So much This... You don't realize how important this is until your
nationwide provider takes 8 WEEKS to add one network to your (already set
up and working for 20 other networks) peering. Then
The gotcha with that is then you need a switch in front of the routers. I'd
just setup a carrier on each router and run ibgp between.
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 16, 2013, at 3:35 PM, Adam Greene maill...@webjogger.net wrote:
Hi guys,
I have a customer who peers via eBGP with Lightpath
the short straw?
Best,
Justin
I'm pretty sure you have to sign a AUP or something to get access to the
mass whois tool with ARIN, I'm just not sure of how they enforce what
people are actually doing with the list.
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 6:30 PM, Warren Bailey
wbai...@satelliteintelligencegroup.com wrote:
I read your
On Sun, 21 Jul 2013, Kasper Adel wrote:
My vendor is giving me speeches on how they are improving their
product Serviceability, Usability and Manageability. They told me they
are adding a lot of new way of doing things, introducing more Unix-like
utilities and over all making CLI smarter by
On Sun, 14 Jul 2013, Aaron Wendel wrote:
We (ISPs) are all compelled to provide information from time to time under a
court order. The PRISM program is voluntary. These companies gave the NSA
access to their systems voluntarily. To me there is a big difference. I
would be interested to
On Fri, 12 Jul 2013, Tom Morris wrote:
We use Office 365 here at work, but I'd definitely be interested in looking
into alternate solutions --- at the very least I am going to be sure to
inform our staff that there is to be no expectation of privacy when using
your Office365 account. Gross.
On Wed, 3 Jul 2013, Jensen Tyler wrote:
My Google fu is failing. Can anybody point me to a script that will
create DNS entries from router snmp info?
I don't recall ever having seen anything like that as a pre-built package
or Perl module. If I understand what you're trying to do, that
We have a customer who was assigned some PI IPv4 space by Paetec back in
mid-90's and who has continued to announce the blocks, even though their
relationship with Paetec ended a long time ago.
Is this a common situation? Does the customer risk having that space
reclaimed by Paetec at some
On Tue, 11 Jun 2013, Vlad Grigorescu wrote:
We got hit with this in September. UDP/19 became our most busiest port
overnight. Most of the systems participating were printers. We dropped
it at the border, and had no complaints or ill effects.
Dropping the TCP and UDP small services like echo
On Sat, 8 Jun 2013, Doug Porter wrote:
We're actively investigating the v6 issues. We need more data
though. If you're experiencing problems, please email me a
tcpdump/pcap or any other debug data you think will help.
I'll see what I can grab. I've noticed the issue intermittently both at
On Thu, 6 Jun 2013, James Smith wrote:
Anyone know if Verizon/Alter.net is experiencing some issues? We're
seeing some big latency issues to one of our sites in the Pacific.
416-345-2609-gw.customer.alter.net (157.130.180.90) 420
msec *
12 ge3-4.hcap8-tor.bb.allstream.net (199.212.168.86)
On Thu, 30 May 2013, Christopher Morrow wrote:
http://www.cidr-report.org/cgi-bin/as-report?as=AS19262view=2.0
note the list of 'withdrawn' ... err, 19262 is no more? now it's
borged into the 701 confed?
Yay! Now if I can just get VZ to light up native v6 on my fios
connection... ;)
jms
On Fri, 31 May 2013, David Hubbard wrote:
Not holding my breath on that; been complaining to my VZ
rep for v6 on fios for two years now since we have it in
several remote locations and the most he could find for
me as of last month was:
Verizon's First Office Application (FOA) is planned for
.
As far as I can tell, this never occurred so we seem to
be a year late.
David
-Original Message-
From: Ryan Shea [mailto:ryans...@google.com]
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 8:55 AM
To: Justin M. Streiner
Cc: nanog list
Subject: Re: A bit of historical news
+1 to v6 on FiOS, I'd also add
On Fri, 31 May 2013, Patrick wrote:
On 2013-05-30 21:43, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
May not be workable without a sufficiently high call rate 24/7. If you're a
small call center that usually has 3-4 calls per hour at 2AM, now long is too
long without a call, time to get suspicious?
On Mon, 20 May 2013, Phil Fagan wrote:
Just curious and perhaps off topic a tad but; is the stateful filtering of
sessions on a router to replace a firewall? Or is there another reason to
do it? I could see a benefit of creating blacklists, however,
I'm struggling with what other benefits it
On Tue, 21 May 2013, Morgan Miskell wrote:
I realize this topic is semi off point so feel free to reply to the list
or to me personally. I am wondering if anyone has any experience using
the APC In-row cooling units in their data centers. I am specifically
looking at the ACRD501.
Do they
On Tue, 21 May 2013, Joe Abley wrote:
The last time we had to ship a number of (Dell, actually) boxes from
ICANN in LA we bought some flight cases that we could rack the servers
into. Our thought was to go for reusable, rather than one-off (and we
had doubts about the state of the boxes upon
On Sun, 19 May 2013, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 1:21 PM, vijay gill vg...@vijaygill.com wrote:
Resurrecting this thread. Anyone?
What software solution do people use for inventory management for things
like riser/conduit drawdown, fiber inventory, physical topology
On Mon, 20 May 2013, Christopher Morrow wrote:
I haven't looked lately to see what's out there, but I'd imagine there *has*
to be something.
I bet this is a market/cost thing... there are ~100 people who want
this? it's going to take a few million in SWE resources to build, and
probably
On Fri, 17 May 2013, Aaron C. de Bruyn wrote:
I recall a message a while back about a company that offered remote hands
nation-wide, but my Google-Fu is failing me.
I seem to recall discussion of someone running something like a remote
hands have/need blog/message board, but my Google-fu is
On Mon, 29 Apr 2013, Derek Ivey wrote:
Thanks for all the hard work getting IPv6 deployed! I signed my company up
for the trials. Can't wait to test it out :).
I agree, I wish Verizon would wake up and announce something. It's pretty sad
that their IPv6 support page still says 3Q12 and
On Wed, 24 Apr 2013, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
http://www22.verizon.com/Support/Residential/Internet/HighSpeed/General+Support/Top+Questions/QuestionsOne/ATLAS8742.htm
One minor typo in this one, that I've emailed Verizon's webmasters about
in the past.
A /56 does not give you 56 LANs...
On Sat, 6 Apr 2013, Derek Ivey wrote:
It would be nice to get an update from them regarding their IPv6 plans. Their
IPv6 support page still says they will start deploying 3Q12 :(.
I've been trying to get some information from internal contacts, but so
far, no go.
jms
On Mon, 1 Apr 2013, Lorell Hathcock wrote:
I am having some speedtest results that are difficult to interpret.
Some of my customers have begun complaining that they are not getting the
proper speeds. They are using speedtest.net and/or speakeasy.net to test
the results.
Take the speedtest
I don't mean to hijack the thread so if someone wants to open a new one
that¹s cool. But my question is what dial-up hardware supports v6? I am
*assuming* Cisco does.
Justin
--
Justin Wilson j...@mtin.net
Aol Yahoo IM: j2sw
http://www.mtin.net/blog xISP News
http://www.zigwireless.com
On Mon, 25 Feb 2013, George Herbert wrote:
Our Visio guy's opinion concurred with mine; it's custom drawing, not
off-the-shelf capability, and would most likely have been in a
graphics program (though he thinks it might have been possible with
Visio, it would have been much easier in for
On Mon, 25 Feb 2013, Jean-Francois Mezei wrote:
Would it be the ONT ? (since beyond the ONT, the end user has no ability
to test the line).
I would tend to think the ONT is treated as the demarc point. Most
carriers I've seen treat them as the optical equivalent of copper NIDs or
On Wed, 6 Feb 2013, Ray Wong wrote:
My impression is mostly that people are left feeling uncomfortable by
a massive upgrade of this sort with so little communication about why
and so on. Emergency work for five hours and 30 minutes
disconnection that turns out to take longer than 30 minutes of
attacks.
Thanks.
Justin
On Mon, 28 Jan 2013, Doug Barton wrote:
On 1/28/2013 7:27 AM, Eugeniu Patrascu wrote:
- configure IPv6 firewall rules (mostly a mirror of the IPv4 rulesets)
Hopefully that did not included filtering ICMPv6? :)
The level of IPv6 support in firewalls has been all over the place, even
from
On Wed, 30 Jan 2013, Christopher Rogers wrote:
Does anyone have any sort of performance numbers for the jnpr MX10 series
running dual stack ipv4/ipv6? I'm specifically interested in how many BGP
prefixes it can handle in dual stacked mode. I've got an environment
currently taking 4 full ipv4
On Wed, 30 Jan 2013, David Barak wrote:
Comcast removed the no IPv6 excuse? That removal somehow skipped my
house in Washington DC where they installed (last October) a router
which does not even support it (an Arrus voice gateway- the one where
you can#39;t turn of the crummy 2.4g wireless
On Wed, 30 Jan 2013, David Barak wrote:
On Jan 30, 2013, at 7:52 PM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
The update you sent is lovely, except I can tell you that the one (also
an Arris, running DOCSIS 3.0) which was installed in late October in my
house in Washington simply does not run v6
Are you looking at a Mediation box because you are doing VOIP?
Other than Cisco I am familiar with DeepSweep.
I have heard of Verint, Utimaco, and Pine Digital. However, no 1st hand
knowledge or anything other than passing. :-)
Justin
--
Justin Wilson j
I don't see any mention of CALEA. A traffic dump won't satisfy a CALEA
warrant.
Justin
-Original Message-
From: Frank Bulk frnk...@iname.com
Date: Sunday, January 20, 2013 10:31 PM
To: 'Warren Bailey' wbai...@satelliteintelligencegroup.com, Byron Hooper
bhoo
I agree with the TTP taking the IP traffic. They simply re-package it
for the LEA.
It's up to the LEA to take the traffic flow or not. If it's a true CALEA
warrant, not a normal wire tap, the defense could argue they did not
follow protocol.
Justin
-Original
301 - 400 of 792 matches
Mail list logo
