Re: BGP FlowSpec

On 27/04/2016 18:58, John Kristoff wrote: > On Thu, 21 Apr 2016 09:46:13 +0200 > Martin Bacher wrote: > >> - Intra-AS BGP FlowSpec deployment: Who is running it? For which kind >> of attacks are you using it? Are you only dropping or rate-limiting >> certain traffic or

RE: phone fun, was GeoIP database issues and the real world consequences

One toll defeat trick that worked in GTE land in Southern California was to call the operator, then silently wait for them to hang up. Rattle the receiver hook several times for them to come back on the line and they would not know the caller's telephone number. -Original Message-

IPv6 prefix from T-Mobile USA used but not announced in BGP (2607:7700::/32)

Hi, While doing statistics on the participants of a public DHT, I was surprised to see some IP addresses that are not present in the DFZ: 2607:7700:0:25::4e00:605b 2607:7700:0:25::4e25:8ce8 2607:7700:0:25::c808:db2c 2607:7700:0:4::3294:6683 2607:7700:0:4::4c09:4d39 2607:7700:0:4::5985:87d1

Re: IPv6 prefix from T-Mobile USA used but not announced in BGP (2607:7700::/32)

On Wednesday, April 27, 2016, Baptiste Jonglez wrote: > Hi, > > While doing statistics on the participants of a public DHT, I was > surprised to see some IP addresses that are not present in the DFZ: > > 2607:7700:0:25::4e00:605b > 2607:7700:0:25::4e25:8ce8 >

Re: IPv6 prefix from T-Mobile USA used but not announced in BGP (2607:7700::/32)

On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 01:16:28PM -0700, Aaron Hopkins wrote: > On Wed, 27 Apr 2016, Baptiste Jonglez wrote: > > >While doing statistics on the participants of a public DHT, I was > >surprised to see some IP addresses that are not present in the DFZ: > > I believe those are used by T-mobile's

Re: BGP FlowSpec

On Thu, 21 Apr 2016 09:46:13 +0200 Martin Bacher wrote: > - Intra-AS BGP FlowSpec deployment: Who is running it? For which kind > of attacks are you using it? Are you only dropping or rate-limiting > certain traffic or are you also using the redirect/remark >

Re: IPv6 prefix from T-Mobile USA used but not announced in BGP (2607:7700::/32)

On Wednesday, April 27, 2016, Aaron Hopkins wrote: > On Wed, 27 Apr 2016, Baptiste Jonglez wrote: > > While doing statistics on the participants of a public DHT, I was >> surprised to see some IP addresses that are not present in the DFZ: >> > > I believe those are used by

Re: IPv6 prefix from T-Mobile USA used but not announced in BGP (2607:7700::/32)

On Wed, 27 Apr 2016, Baptiste Jonglez wrote: While doing statistics on the participants of a public DHT, I was surprised to see some IP addresses that are not present in the DFZ: I believe those are used by T-mobile's 464XLAT (RFC 6877) implementation. Recent Android on T-mobile is IPv6-only

carrier grade fax boards?

I was wondering if anyone had any recommendations on carrier grade fax boards that are SIP based? Cheers Ryan

Re: IPv6 prefix from T-Mobile USA used but not announced in BGP (2607:7700::/32)

On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 02:38:41PM -0700, Ca By wrote: > What behavior do you expect when an ipv6only node connects to an ipv4only > node , which is the tmobile case? How is that address of the address > report? As far as I know, IPv4-only DHT nodes do not directly communicate with IPv6-only DHT

Re: IPv6 prefix from T-Mobile USA used but not announced in BGP (2607:7700::/32)

On Wed, 27 Apr 2016, Baptiste Jonglez wrote: So, if this is basically DNS64/NAT64, these IP addresses should not be seen as source or destination address outside of T-Mobile's network, and are not attached to the interface of any device. Based on http://dan.drown.org/android/clat/, it looks

RE: Arista Routing Solutions

Ryan, Curious if you have any thoughts on the longevity of the 7500R and 7280R survival's with IPv4 full tables? How full are you seeing the TCAM getting today (I'm assuming they are doing some form of selective download)? And if we are currently adding 100k/routes a year, how much

Re: Arista Routing Solutions

On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 4:41 PM, Peter Kranz wrote: > Curious if you have any thoughts on the longevity of the 7500R and > 7280R survival's with IPv4 full tables? How full are you seeing the TCAM > getting today (I'm assuming they are doing some form of selective >

Re: phone fun, was GeoIP database issues and the real world consequences

On 27/04/16 09:16, Owen DeLong wrote: > One thing I always found particularly amusing was that it used to be a toll > call to call from San Jose East (408238) to Sunnyvale (I forget the NPA/NXX), > but that there were several prefixes in San Jose West (e.g. 408360 IIRC) > where it was free to

Re: trout views

> That's the normal Monday morning maint window > for UO, when they all too frequently make us > disappear... :( as there, barbers here are also closed on mondays. thanks for clue

Re: phone fun, was GeoIP database issues and the real world consequences

>> On our VOIP service we include US, Canada and Puerto Rico as "local" >> calling. >I would imagine for VOIP that's because all three are country code 1 :) If you know a VoIP carrier that offers flat rates to 1-473, 1-664, and 1-767, I know some people who'd like to talk to you. At great