Hi,
We would also be happy to sink the traffic and provide captures and statistics
for general consumption.
Pete
On Feb 4, 2010, at 9:30 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:
On Feb 4, 2010, at 1:27 PM, Kevin Loch wrote:
Mirjam Kuehne wrote:
Hello,
After 1/8 was allocated to APNIC last week, the
Hi Jared,
Merit would be happy to sink and collected this traffic. Perhaps even the
entire /8
depending on the traffic level. Ideally we would want to do the entire /8.
We have disk and bandwidth in place for our other research activities and this
would
fit in nicely. We could probably do
On Thu, 4 Feb 2010, Nathan Ward wrote:
On 4/02/2010, at 9:19 AM, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
I would hope that the APNIC would opt not to assign networks that
would contain 1.1.1.1 or 1.2.3.4 to customers for exactly that reason.
The signal-to-noise ratio for those addresses is likely pretty
Mirjam Kuehne wrote:
Hello,
After 1/8 was allocated to APNIC last week, the RIPE NCC did some
measurements to find out how polluted this block really is.
See some surprising results on RIPE Labs:
http://labs.ripe.net/content/pollution-18
Please also note the call for feedback at the
On Feb 4, 2010, at 1:27 PM, Kevin Loch wrote:
Mirjam Kuehne wrote:
Hello,
After 1/8 was allocated to APNIC last week, the RIPE NCC did some
measurements to find out how polluted this block really is.
See some surprising results on RIPE Labs:
http://labs.ripe.net/content/pollution-18
I know someone who'd happily sink both the /24's in question.. if apnic's
interested.
On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 2:30 PM, Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net wrote:
On Feb 4, 2010, at 1:27 PM, Kevin Loch wrote:
Mirjam Kuehne wrote:
Hello,
After 1/8 was allocated to APNIC last week, the RIPE
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 2/4/10 2:14 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
I know someone who'd happily sink both the /24's in question.. if apnic's
interested.
Ditto.
On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 2:30 PM, Jared Mauchja...@puck.nether.net wrote:
On Feb 4, 2010, at 1:27 PM, Kevin Loch wrote:
Mirjam Kuehne
volunteering to sink traffic for 1.1.1.0/24
--heather
-Original Message-
From: Joel Jaeggli [mailto:joe...@bogus.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 11:09 AM
To: Mirjam Kuehne
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: How polluted is 1/8?
It should be of no surprise to anyone that a number
If it's not obvious, I've thoguht about this and made some offers to the people
at APNIC/RIPE.
Hoping someone moves forward with this.
The note was on the apops list (iirc).
- jared
On Feb 4, 2010, at 3:18 PM, Tico wrote:
On 2/4/10 2:14 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
I know someone who'd
volunteering to sink traffic for 1.1.1.0/24
--heather
-Original Message-
From: Joel Jaeggli [mailto:joe...@bogus.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 11:09 AM
To: Mirjam Kuehne
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: How polluted is 1/8?
It should be of no surprise to anyone
Hello,
After 1/8 was allocated to APNIC last week, the RIPE NCC did some
measurements to find out how polluted this block really is.
See some surprising results on RIPE Labs:
http://labs.ripe.net/content/pollution-18
Please also note the call for feedback at the bottom of the article.
On Wed, Feb 03, 2010 at 04:49:00PM +0100,
Mirjam Kuehne m...@ripe.net wrote
a message of 15 lines which said:
After 1/8 was allocated to APNIC last week, the RIPE NCC did some
measurements to find out how polluted this block really is.
See some surprising results on RIPE Labs:
It should be of no surprise to anyone that a number of the remaining
prefixes are something of a mess(somebody ask t-mobile how they're using
14/8 internally for example). One's new ipv4 assignments are going to
be of significantly lower quality than the one received a decade ago,
The property is
In a message written on Wed, Feb 03, 2010 at 04:49:00PM +0100, Mirjam Kuehne
wrote:
After 1/8 was allocated to APNIC last week, the RIPE NCC did some
measurements to find out how polluted this block really is.
Having this data is useful, but I can't help to think it would be
more useful if it
Having this data is useful, but I can't help to think it would be
more useful if it were compared with 27/8, or other networks. Is
this slightly worse, or significantly worse than other networks?
I have only anecdotal information regarding 45/8.
45/8 is assigned to Interop, and as such it
On Wed, 3 Feb 2010, Joel M Snyder wrote:
This information is very different from the RIPE Labs experiment which I
think showed that certain obvious addresses (1.1.1.1 seemed to be the
kicker in my short reading of their report) were being mis-used heavily.
But I suspect that 27/8 would have
On 2/3/2010 2:19 PM, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
I could see holding those prefixes aside for research purposes (spam
traps, honey pots, etc...).
I think it is too bad that we didn't have the forethought to route all
of those networks to 100-watt resistors some years ago.
When I last was
On Wed, 3 Feb 2010, Larry Sheldon wrote:
On 2/3/2010 2:19 PM, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
I could see holding those prefixes aside for research purposes (spam
traps, honey pots, etc...).
I think it is too bad that we didn't have the forethought to route all of
those networks to 100-watt
If some unfortunate soul does get 1.1.1.1, 1.2.3.4, 1.3.3.7, etc, they
would also likely experience significant global reachability problems
in
addition to all of the unintended noise that gets sent their way.
There are many sites that specifically filter those addresses, in
addition to
On Feb 3, 2010, at 3:10 PM, Joel M Snyder wrote:
Having this data is useful, but I can't help to think it would be
more useful if it were compared with 27/8, or other networks. Is
this slightly worse, or significantly worse than other networks?
I have only anecdotal information
On 4/02/2010, at 9:19 AM, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
I would hope that the APNIC would opt not to assign networks that would
contain 1.1.1.1 or 1.2.3.4 to customers for exactly that reason. The
signal-to-noise ratio for those addresses is likely pretty high. The noise
is likely contained
22 matches
Mail list logo
