> On Aug 4, 2019, at 5:29 PM, Chriztoffer Hansen
> wrote:
>
> The question was simply about if GLBP/HSRP had ever been up in discussions in
> the IETF concerning publishing the protocol specifications as a standard. (As
> pointed out. I totally forgot about the RFC concerning HSRP.)
> On Aug 4, 2019, at 8:41 PM, Mehmet Akcin wrote:
>
> I am sure there are many sites like this out there, but could network
> operators do anything to make these sites “not so easy” to be found, reached,
> and used to end innocent lives?
I''d suggest reducing their reputation rankings, as
Rubens Kuhl wrote:
> I don't think that "companies with tons of lawyers" should be a factor in
> making resource allocation policies. But considering either small or big
> networks, an escalation path would reduce friction and increase overall
> compliance... for instance, failure to have
This is not surprising to me as Dlink was one of my co-authors for RFC8585 ...
and they indicated in v6ops that implementing CLAT was really easy. I guess
they need to improve the GUI, etc.
Note that with 464XLAT, you still need the NAT64 at the ISP side, and also, the
traceroutes will shows
Agree
> On 4 Aug 2019, at 18:50, Fred Baker wrote:
>
> Between overlaid ads and the thing trying to force an account, i’d Describe
> it as a waste of time. Now, a page that delivered the data advertised...
>
> Sent using a machine that autocorrects in interesting ways...
>
>> On Aug 3,
Maybe I made a mistake, let me try again. its
https://www.tombihnn.com, sorry about that.
On Fri, 02 Aug 2019 14:54:49 -0400,
Christopher Morrow wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 2:50 PM John Covici wrote:
> >
> > https://www.tombin.com has some great bags for laptops, etc. Not
>
> 'server
Greetings,
It's August and the SAFNOG-5 countdown has officially begun!
[cid:924e4f24-b227-4750-bee8-fba8c0dd64d9]There's only 2 DAYS left for paper
submissions. If you are keen to present/share your expertise on the relevant
topics
below, submit your paper online at
"I am sure there are many sites like this out there, but could network
operators do anything to make these sites “not so easy” to be found,
reached, and used to end innocent lives?"
As network operators? We shouldn't do anything. The onus falls on the
hosting companies. I do not want to go down
Mel:
My understanding is ISPs are not Common Carriers. Didn’t we just have a big
debate about this w/r/t Network Neutrality? I Am Not A Lawyer (hell, I am not
even an ISP :), but if any legal experts want to chime in, please feel free to
educate us.
Put another way, ISPs are not phone
On Sun, Aug 4, 2019 at 10:41 PM Mehmet Akcin wrote:
> What can we do better as network operators about hate sites like 8Chan?
>
What is a "hate site" and who gets to decide what constitutes a "hate
site"? These are the most dangerous questions of our time, because once we
begin sliding down the
On 8/4/19 11:41 PM, Mehmet Akcin wrote:
> What can we do better as network operators about hate sites like 8Chan?
I actually went and looked at 8chan, it would appear to me they have a bunch
of hate filled people there, 10 yr olds who think saying the n-word makes them
cool, and then other bland
On 8/5/19 11:15 AM, Mel Beckman wrote:
> Keith, what could be more on-topic than an ISP’s status as a common
> carrier? Seems pretty operational to me.
Mel gets to decide what's on topic and off topic for the nanog list?
:D
--
Bryan Fields
727-409-1194 - Voice
http://bryanfields.net
> On Aug 5, 2019, at 10:02 AM, Mel Beckman wrote:
>
> Patrick,
>
> You’re confusing the FCC’s definition of common carrier for telecom
> regulatory purposes, and the DMCA definition, which specifically grants ISPs
> protection from litigation through its Safe Harbor provision, as long as
Are there any good reasons of using proprietary FHRPs like HSRP and GLBP
over VRRP ?
I know that one reason may be interoperability with some vendors
equipment and old gears, but VRRPv3 is now widely used, in particular
for IPv6.
Also VRRP can be easily extended with proprietary extensions and
there is nothing about telecoms in this map, it's all about powerlines.
On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 8:02 AM Tony Finch wrote:
> Fred Baker wrote:
> > > On Aug 3, 2019, at 3:36 PM, Mehmet Akcin wrote:
> > >
> > > Feel free to open live.infrapedia.com on mobile.
>
> > Between overlaid ads and the
On Mon, Aug 05, 2019 at 12:24:55PM -0400, Bryan Fields wrote:
> contract. This scares the shit out of me as a customer; could cloudflare
> decide to give me no notice and shut my services off?
So much for the "free-speech absolutist".
Fred Baker wrote:
> > On Aug 3, 2019, at 3:36 PM, Mehmet Akcin wrote:
> >
> > Feel free to open live.infrapedia.com on mobile.
> Between overlaid ads and the thing trying to force an account, i’d
> Describe it as a waste of time. Now, a page that delivered the data
> advertised...
Well, once they let NetOps fire sales staff we can get some traction going.
--
Joe Hamelin, W7COM, Tulalip, WA, +1 (360) 474-7474
On Sun, Aug 4, 2019 at 8:42 PM Mehmet Akcin wrote:
> Ok, two mass shootings, touchy topic, lots of emotions this weekend. Going
> straight to the point.
>
> Most of
Hi,
> On 2 Aug 2019, at 18:14, Dovid Bender wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Sorry for the OT email. I travel extensively to DC's and my computer bag
> seems to keep collecting more tools which includes your usual console cables,
> spare everything, two laptops etc. My Swissgear has been taking a beating
* bran...@brandonsjames.com (Brandon James) [Mon 05 Aug 2019, 17:17 CEST]:
As a young network engineer (no historic perspective) and only SMB
and enterprise experience. It seems like the intention was to allow
these to be publicly routed, but it would be a nightmare to
implement so it never
Hi Eric, thanks for this info. Very helpful.
Mark/everyone, this is in Morocco specifically. I haven't been given the
exact location but I'm told it's near Dahkla.
On Sat, Aug 3, 2019, 9:36 PM Eric Kuhnke wrote:
> In a remote area in northern africa if there are no terrestrial ISPs, and
>
On Sun, Aug 4, 2019 at 8:41 PM Mehmet Akcin wrote:
> Ok, two mass shootings, touchy topic, lots of emotions this weekend. Going
> straight to the point.
>
> Most of us who operate internet services believe in not being the
> moderator of internet. We provide a service and that’s it. Obviously
On Sunday, 4 August, 2019 21:41, Mehmet Akcin wrote:
>Most of us who operate internet services believe in not being the
>moderator of internet. We provide a service and that’s it. Obviously
>there are some established laws around protecting copyrights, and
>other things which force us to
Good Evening,
I'm looking for some insight into the usage of a few of the blocks defined in
RFC 5771 (and IPv6 Multicast Addressing as described in RFC 4291 and 7346) ,
specifically regarding their use on the public internet. I know multicast isn't
routed on the public internet. However, it
“Now, enough of this off-topic stuff and back to our regularly scheduled
programming.”
Keith, what could be more on-topic than an ISP’s status as a common carrier?
Seems pretty operational to me.
-mel
> On Aug 5, 2019, at 8:06 AM, Keith Medcalf wrote:
>
> Now, enough of this off-topic
On Mon, Aug 5, 2019, at 11:30, Mel Beckman wrote:
> Keith, what could be more on-topic than an ISP’s status as a common
> carrier? Seems pretty operational to me.
American ISPs are not common carriers. When net neutrality was revoked on
December 14, 2017, so was ISP's common carrier status /
On 8/5/19 9:24 AM, Bryan Fields wrote:
On 8/4/19 11:41 PM, Mehmet Akcin wrote:
What can we do better as network operators about hate sites like 8Chan?
I actually went and looked at 8chan, it would appear to me they have a bunch
of hate filled people there, 10 yr olds who think saying the
Peace,
On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 6:42 AM Mehmet Akcin wrote:
> What can we do better as network operators about
> hate sites like 8Chan?
About nothing, because recent IETF developments like QUIC, ESNI, or
MASQUE would completely prohibit you from figuring out what sites you,
as an ISP, are giving
On Monday, 5 August, 2019 09:16, Mel Beckman wrote:
>“Now, enough of this off-topic stuff and back to our regularly
>scheduled programming.”
>Keith, what could be more on-topic than an ISP’s status as a common
>carrier? Seems pretty operational to me.
I think that is closing the barn door
On 8/5/2019 10:24 AM, Bryan Fields wrote:
I'd be more concerned with the lack of notice given to their customer. This
was 24 hours notice, and I'd expect at least 30 days under any hosting
contract. This scares the shit out of me as a customer; could cloudflare
decide to give me no notice and
Mehmet,
I’m not sure if you understand the terms under which ISPs operate as “common
carriers”, and thus enjoy immunity from lawsuits due to the acts of their
customers. ISPs such as Cloudfare can no more disconnect customers for legal,
if offensive, content than the phone company can, without
* m...@beckman.org (Mel Beckman) [Mon 05 Aug 2019, 17:21 CEST]:
Cloudfare is being foolish, and hypocritical. They freely, for
example, carry the equally offensive content of Antifa. Are they
going to cut them off too?
Finally, a centrist to point out the true culprits of all this violence
Patrick,
You’re confusing the FCC’s definition of common carrier for telecom regulatory
purposes, and the DMCA definition, which specifically grants ISPs protection
from litigation through its Safe Harbor provision, as long as they operate as
pure common carriers:
“Section 512(a) provides a
> I’m not sure if you understand the terms under which ISPs operate as “common
> carriers”, and thus enjoy immunity from lawsuits due to the acts of their
> customers. ISPs such as Cloudfare can no more disconnect customers for legal,
> if offensive, content than the phone company can,
Janet,
Did an actual person follow up with you privately after ipv6 got working
on your connection? ... Or was it more like magic silence from their
end. And suddenly it "just" worked?
/Chriztoffer
On 05/08/2019 04:00, Ross Tajvar wrote:
> Did you get in touch with someone? What was the
On Mon, 05 Aug 2019 18:19:06 -, Mel Beckman said:
> I notice you didnât provide any actual data to support your position. What,
> for example, outside of copyright violations, could ISPs conceivably be liable
> for?
You get caught with nuclear weapons data, terrorism-related info, or kiddie
On 8/5/19 10:05 AM, William Herrin wrote:
The best cure for speech is more speech. The President notwithstanding,
hateful behavior has a hard time surviving the light of day. You
shouldn't be the censor but you can shine the light.
That doesn't seem to work on Facebook, where people spew the
> On Aug 5, 2019, at 11:46 AM, b...@theworld.com wrote:
>
> My first suggestion would be to include an indemnification clause in
> your contracts which includes liability for content, if you don't
> already have it (probably most do.)
>
> And a clause which indicates you (need lawyering for
The best cure for speech is more speech.
+1E07
On Aug 5, 2019, at 10:05 AM, William Herrin
mailto:b...@herrin.us>> wrote:
On Sun, Aug 4, 2019 at 8:41 PM Mehmet Akcin
mailto:meh...@akcin.net>> wrote:
Ok, two mass shootings, touchy topic, lots of emotions this weekend. Going
straight to the
Keith,
You’re confusing ISPs that merely provide transport services, such as AT and
Cloudfare, with information services like FaceBook and Twitter. The Common
Carrier status for legal protection of ISPs stems from the 1998 DMCA, which
long preceded the 2015 Network Neutrality act. It provides
Cloudflare is not an ISP. They are a CDN. You cannot ask them for a DSL or
Cable connection, or even DIA.
Not that it matters: ISPs are not “Common Carriers” in statute or Common Law.
The DMCA provides some protections which are similar to Common Carrier status,
but that does not mean they
Valdis,
The key misunderstanding on your part is the phrase “on your servers”. ISPs
acting as conduits do not, by definition (in the DMCA), store anything on
servers. Moreover, the DMCA specifically spells out that safe harbor protection
“covers acts of transmission, routing, or providing
On 8/5/19 4:57 PM, b...@theworld.com wrote:
> TBH some of this is like watching someone try to set up a router using
> only the marketing brochures.
Hey, I got my Network+ too. dafuq is a "BGP"?
--
Bryan Fields
727-409-1194 - Voice
http://bryanfields.net
On 8/5/19 9:19 AM, Nicolas Chabbey wrote:
Are there any good reasons of using proprietary FHRPs like HSRP and
GLBP over VRRP ?
I thought that GLBP had functionality that allowed both participants to
be active/active. I.e. you could cause ⅔ of traffic to go to one GLBP
peer and the remaining
LOL! You mean instead of “Keith gets to decide what’s on topic”?
I didn’t “decide” anything, BTW. I simply pointed out that Common Carrier
operations is within the NANOG mandate to discuss operational issues.
-mel
> On Aug 5, 2019, at 9:30 AM, Bryan Fields wrote:
>
> On 8/5/19 11:15 AM,
On Monday, 5 August, 2019 10:25, Bryan Fields wrote:
>I'd be more concerned with the lack of notice given to their
>customer. This was 24 hours notice, and I'd expect at least
>30 days under any hosting contract. This scares the shit
>out of me as a customer; could cloudflare decide to give
does anyone have any contacts at mitel that they can share or forward me
onto
of our sister company's took over a small customer who has a mitel hx5000
and we are having a devil of a time trying to get support from mitel
as they want us to sign a long term maintenance contract which normally we
Mel, this is to ack your note. "Because I'm a lawyer" isn't an argument at all,
*nor have I made it* - however, that I'm extremely busy, and under no
obligation to provide any of this information here, is. I'm not here for
academic debate. You are also free to bring a lawsuit based on ISP as
Good point. I forgot about this one.
Apparently, you can have four active forwarders per group. The load is
balanced across them via the virtual MAC addresses.
I could implement something similar to my open VRRP implementation (I
wrote about it on the ML recently), but only if it's a wanted
> I thought that GLBP had functionality that allowed both participants to be
> active/active. I.e. you could cause ⅔ of traffic to go to one GLBP peer and
> the remaining ⅓ go to the other GLBP peer.
Yes it’s true. It achieves forwarding active/active situations. One of the GLBP
group members
[Speaking ONLY FOR MYSELF AS AN INDIVIDUAL.]
On Aug 4, 2019, at 8:15 AM, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 4, 2019 at 5:17 AM Scott Christopher wrote:
> John Curran wrote:
>
> ...
>
>> As I have noted previously, I have zero doubt in the enforceability of the
>> ARIN registration services
My first suggestion would be to include an indemnification clause in
your contracts which includes liability for content, if you don't
already have it (probably most do.)
And a clause which indicates you (need lawyering for this) will seek
expenses including but not limited to legal,
Anne of Many Titles,
I notice you didn’t provide any actual data to support your position. What, for
example, outside of copyright violations, could ISPs conceivably be liable for?
Present an argument to make your case. “No, because I’m a lawyer and you’re
not” is not an argument :)
As
One tiny bit of sermonizing not aimed at anyone in particular:
Interested amateurs tend to study the wording of laws.
Lawyers tend to study case law, actual cases and their outcomes.
In part that's because, besides the hazards of interpretation, laws
often conflict, supercede each other,
>Hey, I got my Network+ too. dafuq is a "BGP"?
That's what the British get after too much Beer-o-clock. A Bloody-Good-Puking
...
--
The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven says a
lot about anticipated traffic volume.
Starting around July 28th, I noticed a latency spike (70ms) on some of our
traffic to Apple (mainly api.apple-mapkit.com) coming out of Virginia. This
traffic usually always takes some local peering, and never is higher then
10-15ms.
I checked from AWS backbone, Cogent, Zayo, Level3, all show
On 8/5/19 1:17 PM, Vincentz Petzholtz wrote:
And as far as I remember: If a member fails then another one is taking
over responsibility over the used mac address.
That's my understanding as well.
It surprised me a little bit that this never really taken off (not
even within Cisco folks in
On 2/Aug/19 14:17, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
>
>
> The pricing on IPv4 is now at USD 20/address so I am thinking we are
> forced to go the CGN route going forward. Of all the options, MAP-E
> appears to be the most elegant. Just add/remove some more headers on a
> packet and route it as normal.
Valdis,
A CDN is very much an ISP. It is providing transport for its customers from
arbitrary Internet destinations, to the customer’s content. The caching done by
a CDN is incidental to this transport, in accordance with the DMCA.
The alternative is that you believe CDNs are not protected by
On Mon, 05 Aug 2019 20:40:43 -, Mel Beckman said:
> The key misunderstanding on your part is the phrase âon your serversâ.
> ISPs
> acting as conduits do not, by definition (in the DMCA), store anything on
> servers.
Note that ISPs whose business is 100% "acting as conduits" are in the
> On 6 Aug 2019, at 9:05 am, Mark Tinka wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2/Aug/19 14:17, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> The pricing on IPv4 is now at USD 20/address so I am thinking we are
>> forced to go the CGN route going forward. Of all the options, MAP-E
>> appears to be the most elegant. Just
On Tue, 06 Aug 2019 02:27:30 -, Mel Beckman said:
> A CDN is very much an ISP. It is providing transport for its customers from
> arbitrary Internet destinations, to the customerâs content. The caching
> done by
> a CDN is incidental to this transport, in accordance with the DMCA.
Just
62 matches
Mail list logo
