3. Website: as above, keep a duplicate copy of your basic HTML pages
on
some DoK that you can take with you. Have the user+pswd to your
registrar so you can repoint your DNS to some new site you now
setup up
with the new updated info about your downtime.
-Hank
Having a
An armed FBI special agent shows up at your facility and tells your ranking
manager to shut down the Internet.
a) you give them the crystals and warn that in isolation they can
be unstable so drive slow
or
b) you give them the internet to take away
Hi Franck,
On 2/4/11 4:04 AM, Franck Martin wrote:
The biggest complaint that I hear from ISPs, is that their upstream
ISP does not support IPv6 or will not provide them with a native IPv6
circuit.
Is that bull?
I thought the whole backbone is IPv6 now, and it is only the
residential ISPs
On Thu, Feb 03, 2011 at 08:17:11PM -0300, Fernando Gont wrote:
I'm mildly surprised if you think we're going to be done with *this*
mess in a few decades.
I fully agree. But planning/expecting to go through this mess *again* is
insane. -- I hope the lesson has been learned, and we won't
In article 20110204000954.a64c79a9...@drugs.dv.isc.org, Mark Andrews
ma...@isc.org writes
These are just my straw poll of what may be difficult for small
enterprises in a change to IPv6.
It isn't change to, its add IPv6.
I expect to see IPv4 used for years inside homes and enterprises
where
On Feb 4, 2011, at 7:30 AM, Roland Perry wrote:
It isn't change to, its add IPv6.
I expect to see IPv4 used for years inside homes and enterprises
where there is enough IPv4 addresses to meet the internal needs.
It's external communication which needs to switch to IPv6. Internal
On 2/3/2011 9:54 PM, Randy Carpenter wrote:
The major national provider is supposed to be swapping out equipment
any day now in order to support IPv6. The regional is claiming that
their upstreams do not have IPv6 support yet. Their upstream
providers certainly do have IPv6, but I do not know
On 2/3/2011 10:20 PM, Joly MacFie wrote:
What might be a possibility is that YouTube is actually choking under the
demand for Egypt related footage, nearly all of which is hosted on the site.
The overall bandwith utilization from Oklahoma has spiked due to the
snow. I'm sure other ISPs are
The Internet is not immune to the law, as you should well know. In fact,
the Internet seems to be a legal proving ground these days, so word to
the wise.
And, the US National Communication Service (http://www.ncs.gov/index.html)
technically has the ability to order all US telecommunications
On 2/4/2011 5:03 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
Given http://weblog.chrisgrundemann.com/index.php/2009/how-much-ipv6-is-there/
it is pretty clear the allocation algorithms have to change, or the resource
is just as finite as the one we ran out yesterday.
That's not what the author says. It says,
On Friday, February 04, 2011 09:05:09 am Derek J. Balling wrote:
I think they'll eventually notice a difference. How will an IPv4-only
internal host know what to do with an IPv6 record it gets from a DNS
lookup?
If the CPE is doing DNS proxy (most do) then it can map the record to
On Fri, Feb 04, 2011 at 08:28:53AM -0600, Jack Bates wrote:
On 2/4/2011 5:03 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
Given
http://weblog.chrisgrundemann.com/index.php/2009/how-much-ipv6-is-there/
it is pretty clear the allocation algorithms have to change, or the
resource
is just as finite as the one
On 2/4/2011 10:50 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
I suspect that many people will do stupid things in managing their
bits - presuming that there is virtually infinate 'greenfield' and
when they have pissed in the pool they can just move on to a new
Robert,
On Feb 3, 2011, at 8:53 PM, Robert Bonomi wrote:
As far as I am aware, the USG contract is with ICANN, not ARIN (see
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/iana/ianacontract_081406.pdf,
section C.2.2.1.3).
Correct. _They_ can can delegate as they see fit, with no
On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 18:14:00 EST, david raistrick said:
Er. That's not news. That's been the state of the art for what, 15+
years or so now? SIP (because it's peer to peer) and P2P are really the
only things that actually give a damn about it.
It's client/server unless it's peer-to-peer
Justin Horstman wrote:
+1 vote for Gomez, they are the most advanced and most capable in
this space. They are also not very cheap...
And Gomez' service contracts include automatic rollover. -1 on Gomez
R
--
R A Lichtensteiger r...@tifosi.com
Dual [IS-IS] is intended to be more of a
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 11:38, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 18:14:00 EST, david raistrick said:
Er. That's not news. That's been the state of the art for what, 15+
years or so now? SIP (because it's peer to peer) and P2P are really the
only things that actually
On Thu, 3 Feb 2011, Owen DeLong wrote:
Er. That's not news. That's been the state of the art for
what, 15+ years or so now? SIP (because it's peer to peer) and
P2P are really the only things that actually give a damn about
it.
Largely because we've been living with
On Feb 4, 2011, at 11:40 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
On Friday, February 04, 2011 09:05:09 am Derek J. Balling wrote:
I think they'll eventually notice a difference. How will an IPv4-only
internal host know what to do with an IPv6 record it gets from a DNS
lookup?
If the CPE is doing DNS
snip
Was TCP/IP this bad back in 1983, folks?
Cheers,
-- jra
In different ways, yes, it was.
Owen
This is exactly the problem we have. Some people have no perspective on what
the Internet is and it's real power. I've met too many people who claim to be
in the know on these topics that
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
This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet
Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan.
The posting is sent to APOPS, NANOG, AfNOG, AusNOG, SANOG, PacNOG, LacNOG,
CaribNOG and the RIPE Routing Working Group.
Daily listings are sent to
Hi, NANOG.
Something's just struck me: every IPv4 allocation over a certain
threshold has a monetary cost (sometimes in the tens of thousands of
USD) and according to our RIR, the first equivalent IPv6 allocation is
given as a freebie (to encourage migration). (Disclaimer: I'm on the
Dark
On Feb 4, 2011, at 6:47 PM, Heinrich Strauss wrote:
So once the early adopters migrate their networks to IPv6, there is no
business need to maintain the IPv4 allocation and that will be returned to
the free pool, since Business would see it as an unnecessary cost.
Interesting reasoning. I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Feb 4, 2011, at 10:47 AM, Heinrich Strauss wrote:
So once the early adopters migrate their networks to IPv6, there is no
business need to maintain the IPv4 allocation and that will be returned to
the free pool, since Business would see it as
On Feb 4, 2011, at 1:08 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
On Feb 4, 2011, at 6:47 PM, Heinrich Strauss wrote:
So once the early adopters migrate their networks to IPv6, there is no
business need to maintain the IPv4 allocation and that will be returned to
the free pool, since Business would see it as
IPv6 from both of my upstream providers has been coming soon for about a
year and a half.
I'm getting ready to try to enable IPv6 natively with Above.net in the Chicago
area. Has anyone had any experience with them?
Thanks,
Ryan Wilkins
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 2:23 PM, Ryan Wilkins r...@deadfrog.net wrote:
IPv6 from both of my upstream providers has been coming soon for about a
year and a half.
I'm getting ready to try to enable IPv6 natively with Above.net in the
Chicago area. Has anyone had any experience with them?
On Feb 4, 2011, at 1:11 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
No, and in fact, I believe all the RIRs will probably do a reasonably brisk
business in reclamation and reallocation, albeit in ever smaller blocks.
As holder of a small block, this scares and irritates me. It scares me that I
might lose my
On Feb 4, 2011, at 3:39 PM, Daniel Seagraves wrote:
On Feb 4, 2011, at 1:11 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
No, and in fact, I believe all the RIRs will probably do a reasonably brisk
business in reclamation and reallocation, albeit in ever smaller blocks.
As holder of a small block, this
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Feb 4, 2011, at 1:11 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
No, and in fact, I believe all the RIRs will probably do a reasonably brisk
business in reclamation and reallocation, albeit in ever smaller blocks.
On Feb 4, 2011, at 12:39 PM, Daniel
In message WQE8G0a2F$snf...@perry.co.uk, Roland Perry writes:
In article 20110204000954.a64c79a9...@drugs.dv.isc.org, Mark Andrews
ma...@isc.org writes
These are just my straw poll of what may be difficult for small
enterprises in a change to IPv6.
It isn't change to, its add IPv6.
I
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 2:23 PM, Ryan Wilkins r...@deadfrog.net
wrote:
IPv6 from both of my upstream providers has been coming soon for
about a year and a half.
I'm getting ready to try to enable IPv6 natively with Above.net in
the Chicago area. Has anyone had any experience with them?
On Feb 4, 2011, at 4:32 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
In message 201102041140.42719.lo...@pari.edu, Lamar Owen writes:
On Friday, February 04, 2011 09:05:09 am Derek J. Balling wrote:
I think they'll eventually notice a difference. How will an IPv4-only inter
nal host know what to do with an
On Feb 4, 2011, at 4:29 PM, Randy Carpenter wrote:
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 2:23 PM, Ryan Wilkins r...@deadfrog.net
wrote:
IPv6 from both of my upstream providers has been coming soon for
about a year and a half.
I'm getting ready to try to enable IPv6 natively with Above.net in
the
Semi-OT:
You are now what we need you to be. A beaten, resentful people who
will have to rebuild, who will have to rely on our.. good graces. Who
can be used and.. guided as we wish to guide you. Perfect ground for
us to do our work.. Quietly, quietly.
Sorry.
On Feb 4, 2011, at 4:45 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:
On Feb 4, 2011, at 3:41 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Feb 4, 2011, at 3:39 PM, Daniel Seagraves wrote:
On Feb 4, 2011, at 1:11 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
No, and in fact, I believe all the RIRs will probably do a reasonably
brisk business in
Not sure if it has been said already but wasn't one of the key point for
the creation of the internet to create and infrastructure that would
survive in the case of all out war and massive destruction. (strategic
nuclear strikes)
Does it not bode ill for national security if any party could take
In message alpine.bsf.2.00.1102041250570.54...@murf.icantclick.org, david rai
strick writes:
On Thu, 3 Feb 2011, Owen DeLong wrote:
Er. That's not news. That's been the state of the art for
what, 15+ years or so now? SIP (because it's peer to peer) and
P2P are
In article f05d77a9631cae4097f7b69095f1b06f039...@ex02.drtel.lan,
Brian Johnson bjohn...@drtel.com writes
Some people have no perspective on what the Internet is and it's real
power. I've met too many people who claim to be in the know on these
topics that don't understand that NAT was
BGP Update Report
Interval: 27-Jan-11 -to- 03-Feb-11 (7 days)
Observation Point: BGP Peering with AS131072
TOP 20 Unstable Origin AS
Rank ASNUpds % Upds/PfxAS-Name
1 - AS178520007 1.2% 11.5 -- AS-PAETEC-NET - PaeTec
Communications, Inc.
2 - AS32528
This report has been generated at Fri Feb 4 21:11:48 2011 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 current version of this report.
Recent Table History
Date
Everyone doesn't suddenly get owned because there isn't a external
firewall. Modern OS's default to secure.
We clearly live and work in different worlds. Not to mention that we
are not the average consumers anymore. We were, in the days before NAT
(and SPI).
--
david raistrick
the protocols ability to route around failures is an attribute of packet
based protocols. it has little to do with legal compliance of an order to
cease and desist forwarding packets. end of the day, i guess it boils
down to the question of -civil disobedience-
if the law is unjust, do you
On Fri, 4 Feb 2011, Roland Perry wrote:
But NAT does have the useful (I think) side effect that I don't have to
renumber my network when I change upstream providers - whether that's once
But (what I keep being told) you should never have to renumber! Get PI
space and insert magic here!
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Hayden Katzenellenbogen
hay...@nextlevelinternet.com wrote:
Not sure if it has been said already but wasn't one of the key point for
the creation of the internet to create and infrastructure that would
survive in the case of all out war and massive destruction.
On Feb 4, 2011, at 3:51 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
I'm a little confused. Sounds like the things you are talking about all fall
into the if you are using your block category, so he shouldn't worry.
ARIN should not reclaim a block that is in use. Unless I am confused?
(Happens a
david raistrick wrote:
Everyone doesn't suddenly get owned because there isn't a external
firewall. Modern OS's default to secure.
We clearly live and work in different worlds. Not to mention that
we are not the average consumers anymore. We were, in the days
before NAT (and SPI).
A
In message fe7943df-6a3a-478f-af40-de4d3592f...@puck.nether.net, Jared Mauch
writes:
On Feb 4, 2011, at 4:32 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
=20
In message 201102041140.42719.lo...@pari.edu, Lamar Owen writes:
On Friday, February 04, 2011 09:05:09 am Derek J. Balling wrote:
I think they'll
In message clgjgqw4yhtnf...@perry.co.uk, Roland Perry writes:
But NAT does have the useful (I think) side effect that I don't have to
renumber my network when I change upstream providers - whether that's
once every five years like I just did with my ADSL, or once every time
the new ADSL
On 2/4/11 2:34 PM, R A Lichtensteiger wrote:
david raistrick wrote:
Everyone doesn't suddenly get owned because there isn't a external
firewall. Modern OS's default to secure.
We clearly live and work in different worlds. Not to mention that
we are not the average consumers anymore.
In message 4d4c0d25.70...@brightok.net, Jack Bates writes:
On 2/4/2011 5:03 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
Given http://weblog.chrisgrundemann.com/index.php/2009/how-much-ipv6-is-the
re/
it is pretty clear the allocation algorithms have to change, or the resourc
e
is just as finite as the
On Fri, 2011-02-04 at 14:27 -0800, Matthew Petach wrote:
As has been noted previously, it's all about your frame of
reference. If the US is removed from the Internet, it does not
mean the Internet stops working; from the perspective of the
rest of the world, the Internet is still there.
Many
On 2/4/2011 5:11 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
No, a /48 is equivalent to a single IP.
You loose a little bit with small ISPs as their minimum is a /32
and supports up to 64000 customers. The bigger ISPs don't get to
waste addresses space. And if a small ISP is getting space from
a big ISP it also
Not sure if it has been said already but wasn't one of the key point for
the creation of the internet to create and infrastructure that would
survive in the case of all out war and massive destruction.
no. fable
ARIN might decide that since we're ineligible for an allocation under
the current rules, we're no longer eligible to maintain the space we
have, and take it away from us.
ARIN don't know that
As the remaining space gets smaller, I expect that the number needed
to justify keeping my
On Feb 4, 2011, at 8:50 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 04, 2011 at 08:28:53AM -0600, Jack Bates wrote:
On 2/4/2011 5:03 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
Given
http://weblog.chrisgrundemann.com/index.php/2009/how-much-ipv6-is-there/
it is pretty clear the allocation
On 05/02/2011, at 8:57 AM, Matthew Petach wrote:
As has been noted previously, it's all about your frame of
reference. If the US is removed from the Internet, it does not
mean the Internet stops working; from the perspective of the
rest of the world, the Internet is still there.
I suspect
On Feb 4, 2011, at 10:04 AM, david raistrick wrote:
On Thu, 3 Feb 2011, Owen DeLong wrote:
Er. That's not news. That's been the state of the art for
what, 15+ years or so now? SIP (because it's peer to peer) and
P2P are really the only things that actually give a damn
I'll start..
Hurricane Electric Happily and readily provided me IPv6 Transit on request.
Layer42 Happily and readily provided me IPv6 Transit on
request.
Owen
Disclaimer: While I work at HE, I'm speaking for my house, AS1734 in this case.
On Feb 4, 2011, at 10:15
On Feb 4, 2011, at 10:47 AM, Heinrich Strauss wrote:
Hi, NANOG.
Something's just struck me: every IPv4 allocation over a certain threshold
has a monetary cost (sometimes in the tens of thousands of USD) and according
to our RIR, the first equivalent IPv6 allocation is given as a freebie
In message 4d4c8af8.1030...@brightok.net, Jack Bates writes:
On 2/4/2011 5:11 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
No, a /48 is equivalent to a single IP.
You loose a little bit with small ISPs as their minimum is a /32
and supports up to 64000 customers. The bigger ISPs don't get to
waste
how do the routes they offer compare?
On Feb 4, 2011 2:38 PM, chip chip.g...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 2:23 PM, Ryan Wilkins r...@deadfrog.net wrote:
IPv6 from both of my upstream providers has been coming soon for
about a year and a half.
I'm getting ready to try to enable IPv6
On 2/4/2011 6:27 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Hell, even without CPE doing it, many residential ISPs (regardless of NAT)
block inbound traffic to consumers.
Really? And they have subscribers? Surprising.
Mark Andrews wrote:
I run machines all the time that don't have firewall to protect
them
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 4:28 PM, Daniel Seagraves
dseag...@humancapitaldev.com wrote:
On Feb 4, 2011, at 3:51 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
How many addresses do I have to be using for it to count as in use? How high
will that number go in the next few months/years?
The most important thing
On 2/4/2011 7:17 PM, Anthony Pardini wrote:
how do the routes they offer compare?
Speaking generically, everyone's routes suck. It's also not a fully fair
comparison of reachability. You can see my network from HE and Level3,
but if see me through Level3 without the use of a tunnel, it is
On Feb 4, 2011, at 2:28 PM, Daniel Seagraves wrote:
On Feb 4, 2011, at 3:51 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
I'm a little confused. Sounds like the things you are talking about all
fall into the if you are using your block category, so he shouldn't worry.
ARIN should not reclaim a block
Original Message -
From: Brian Johnson bjohn...@drtel.com
This is exactly the problem we have. Some people have no perspective
on what the Internet is and it's real power. I've met too many people
who claim to be in the know on these topics that don't understand
that NAT was
- Original Message -
From: bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com
if the law is unjust, do you comply because it is the law, or do you
protest, at the risk of punishment/death? hardly a wire-protocol question -
no?
Correct: a decision each person must make for themselves...
which is why it
- Original Message -
From: Ken Chase k...@sizone.org
However, shutting the internet down (you know, when they press the
magic button that makes my telebit trailblazer no longer able to do
UUCP) would instantly create a market for services more robust/localized/
culturally-customized
- Original Message -
From: Jimmy Hess mysi...@gmail.com
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 4:28 PM, Daniel Seagraves
dseag...@humancapitaldev.com wrote:
On Feb 4, 2011, at 3:51 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
How many addresses do I have to be using for it to count as in use?
How high will
On Feb 4, 2011, at 6:23 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
Original Message -
From: Brian Johnson bjohn...@drtel.com
This is exactly the problem we have. Some people have no perspective
on what the Internet is and it's real power. I've met too many people
who claim to be in the know on
On 2/4/2011 8:25 PM, Ken Chase wrote:
However, shutting the internet down (you know, when they press the
magic button that makes my telebit trailblazer no longer able to do
UUCP) would instantly create a market for services more robust/localized/
culturally-customized than those that suddenly go
On 2/4/2011 8:05 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
True... If you review the NANOG archives you'll find that at least in the case
of the port 25 absurdity, I have noticed and have railed against it.
Yeah, I threw it in as an afterthought. ISP firewalls do exist and not
just small isolated incidents. I
Yeah, I threw it in as an afterthought. ISP firewalls do exist and not
just small isolated incidents. I wish more money had gone into making
them much more adaptive, then you could enjoy your tcp/25 and possibly
not have a problem unless your traffic patterns drew concerns and
caused
an
On Fri, Feb 04, 2011 at 09:34:09PM -0500, Jay Ashworth said:
Where *is* your Trailblazer? Is it hooked up? Have you tested it
lately?
Do you have Taylor UUCP installed? Configured? Have peers?
No, but i have old drives full of uucp maps around. I'd start with those. And
I'd use the
Dang nabbit. Stupid advancing technology. (During an internet outtage
I
wonder
if new orders for POTS phone service would be quashed in the interest
of
'public safety'... :)
/kc
--
UUCP works just fine over TCP/IP and works with Exim and Postfix (I have
used both with UUCP over TCP/IP)
On 2/3/2011 7:43 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
An armed FBI special agent shows up at your facility and tells your ranking
manager to shut down the Internet.
Let's look at this from a different perspective. What level of
impairment would the feds face if they ordered wide spread
net shut downs. Do
On 2/4/2011 11:13 AM, Charles N Wyble wrote:
How much phone service would still work, if the feds hit all the major
IX points and terminate
connectivity? I seem to recall much discussion about the all IP back
bone of the various large
carriers (Qwest/ATT). I guess calls in the same CO and
On 2/4/2011 9:25 PM, George Bonser wrote:
Maybe because it is just easier to do a transparent redirect to the ISPs
mail server and look for patterns there.
Analyzing flows generally isn't any more difficult than analyzing mail
log patterns. It doesn't have the queue and check mechanism of a
On Feb 4, 2011, at 6:53 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
On 2/4/2011 8:05 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
True... If you review the NANOG archives you'll find that at least in the
case
of the port 25 absurdity, I have noticed and have railed against it.
Yeah, I threw it in as an afterthought. ISP
On Feb 4, 2011, at 7:25 PM, George Bonser wrote:
Yeah, I threw it in as an afterthought. ISP firewalls do exist and not
just small isolated incidents. I wish more money had gone into making
them much more adaptive, then you could enjoy your tcp/25 and possibly
not have a problem unless
83 matches
Mail list logo
