Hello,
I am in load d' to study the establishment in North America a company
specialized in:
Mpls Networks
Internet Access
Housing/Colloc
This establishment must this make is by a creation of a new structure at New
York or Washington and at Montreal, or by the acquisition of a
So, why do I have a creeping feeling that google is just running
software on level3's servers? Isn't 8.0.0.0/8 announced by level3.
Wouldn't that suck up 8.8.8.0/24 and 8.8.4.0/24?
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 3:09 PM, Scott Berkman sc...@sberkman.net wrote:
Also reminds me of the Level 3 DNS servers
On 11/12/2009, at 4:58 AM, Jared Mauch wrote:
You can reach much further on this, but the optics tend to be more expensive.
If you are going a short distance (eg: 2km or less) multi-mode is the way.
I can buy LH GigE SFPs for AU$67 each, MM GigE SFPs for AU$61.AU$6
difference is
John R. Levine wrote:
So write to her from a gmail account. APEWS is pretty kooky, and I'm
kind of surprised if SORBS is using it.
We use ASPEWS not APEWS (there is a vast cookiness difference).
Shells
Seth Mattinen wrote:
You should still be able to submit a ticket to SORBS, no? I was always
under the impression that it was open a ticket and wait or you are
moved to the back of the line with SORBS.
That is correct on all counts. The ticket engine is web based and has
an interface to
John Levine wrote:
ASPEWS is listing 216.83.32.0/20 as being associated with the whole
Atrivo incident of 2008. My memory does not recall 216.83.32.0/20 being
involved, nor the provider that belongs to.
Since nobody but the occasional highly vocal GWL uses ASPEWS,
Guess I'm a
1) Define tier one.
NTT got some IDC in China (Beijing, Guangzhou, Hong Kong, Shanghai,
Suzhou), but not in Shenzhen.
Chinanetcenter would be there:
http://www.chinanetcenter.com/wangsu/english/co/Shenzhen_Banxuegang_IDC.htm
Remember Hong Kong is well served in Datacenters and upstream
On Fri, 2009-12-11 at 21:45 -0800, Roger Marquis wrote:
If you're going to implement
statefulness there is no technical downside to implementing NAT as well.
No downside, plenty of upsides, no brainer...
Of course there are downsides to implementing NAT - adding any feature
to a device
On 12/12/2009 01:55 AM, Mark Newton wrote:
Would you be using Consumer Grade - IPV6 Enabled Router Firewalls in the
enterprise? 'cos if you would, I think I might have entered the wrong
thread :)
Yeah, I think I did. Sorry for the noise.
Simon
--
DNS64 open-source --
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 4:39 AM, Andrew Euell andyz...@gmail.com wrote:
So, why do I have a creeping feeling that google is just running
software on level3's servers? Isn't 8.0.0.0/8 announced by level3.
Wouldn't that suck up 8.8.8.0/24 and 8.8.4.0/24?
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 3:09 PM, Scott
Frank Bulk a écrit :
I think they're (all) listed here:
http://www.getipv6.info/index.php/Broadband_CPE
And from an operators perspective (not manufacturer):
Free ISP ADSL (and fiber) operator in France does IPv6 natively to the
end user with Router Advertisement since 2 years now. I think
Mohacsi Janos a écrit :
On Thu, 3 Dec 2009, Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
Mohacsi Janos wrote:
According to Apple the latest Apple Airport Extreme does support
DHCPv6 prefix delegation and native IPv6 uplink not only 6to4.
Airports don't support DHCPv6 PD yet. I'm led to believe that
Michelle Sullivan wrote:
Seth Mattinen wrote:
You should still be able to submit a ticket to SORBS, no? I was
always under the impression that it was open a ticket and wait or
you are moved to the back of the line with SORBS.
That is correct on all counts.
Oh and to re-iterate a point
You're correct, out of the box there aren't many. The first couple that
come to mind are the Apple Airport Express and Airport Extreme, but I don't
believe Linksys/Netgear/etc. have support out of the box.
The Apple products do 6to4 out of the box, but don't support v6 natively.
Apple
I challenge the usual suspects to deliver actual working dual stack IPv6 ADSL
CPE rather than feigning interest. None of the major CPE vendors appear to
have a v6 plan despite your claims. We have an IPv6 dual stack trial for
ADSL going on and not a single CPE from the _major consumer
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 3:35 PM, William Pitcock
neno...@systeminplace.net wrote:
Name: www.googleadservices.com
Address: 67.210.14.113
That is Cernal, and it is hosted in Russia now.
not unless 'russia' moved a whole lot closer to 'ashburn,va' in the
last little while (or wormhole network
Hi,
On Sat, 2009-12-12 at 18:02 +0100, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
Michelle Sullivan wrote:
Seth Mattinen wrote:
You should still be able to submit a ticket to SORBS, no? I was
always under the impression that it was open a ticket and wait or
you are moved to the back of the line with
Unless I haven't put the full picture together, yet, but for my PPPoA/E
environment I would like a DSL CPE that:
- on the WAN interface does IPv4 (with NAT support) and IPv6 over PPPoE
combined with DHCP-PD (with a stateful firewall).
- on the LAN interface does the regular IPv4 stuff,
18 matches
Mail list logo
