> -Original Message-
> From: Steve Bertrand [mailto:st...@ibctech.ca]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 8:15 PM
> To: nanog@nanog.org >> nanog list
> Subject: Finding content in your job title
> How does the ops community feel about using this designation? Is it
> intrusive or offensive t
Stefan Fouant (sfouant) writes:
> > I second this. I want this guy gone. (The frog, not Larry)
>
> Hey now, I don't like this guys tactics either, but frog??? ;)
Some foregone conclusion about the Gaullic origins of said
timewasting individual.
Cheers,
Philippe
> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Steve Bertrand wrote:
>
>> On 2010.03.30 23:42, Andrew D Kirch wrote:
>>
>>> I am proposing that the NANOG administration drop everything
>>> originating
>>> from commonly used webmail providers,
>>
>> I oppose this proposal.
>>
>> There are very legitimate (and legal) reason
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 11:14:52PM -0400, Steve Bertrand wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This is perhaps a rather silly question, but one that I'd like to have
> answered.
>
> I'm young in the game, and over the years I've imagined numerous job
> titles that should go on my business card. They went from coo
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010, Seth Mattinen wrote:
That's an exact opposite of silly from the OP's request; my "corporate
account" works just fine.
Well, your corporate account seems to involve less silly (exchange/lotus
notes) than most.
--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
On 3/30/10 10:41 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
>
> I would much prefer if EVERYBODY used freebie email accounts as opposed
> to their corporate ones, as this would make it more likely that they
> would quote "correctly" and we would get less silly legal disclaimers
> and out of office messages.
>
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Steve Bertrand wrote:
On 2010.03.30 23:42, Andrew D Kirch wrote:
I am proposing that the NANOG administration drop everything originating
from commonly used webmail providers,
I oppose this proposal.
There are very legitimate (and legal) reasons why people may want to
p
On Mar 30, 2010, at 9:30 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
> might some of this be that the implementations use router-id to fill in
> an unconfigured rr cluster-id?
Yep! So intermediate nodes in an iBGP topology with varying cluster
IDs per RR with a common client set can certainly result in duplicate
e
What I find most amusing in the field of networking is the terms and titles
various companies place upon them. Titles like "Infrastructure specialist",
"Network analyst", and "Senior Specialist" often have me giggling as to the
real meaning/position in a job posting. I think the funniest postings
Steve Bertrand wrote:
Not acceptable. I do not want this.
I read and review messages and documents from people who have *much*
more experience than I do every single day, and whom I respect to the
n'th degree.
This isn't a vote count. I am _not_ an engineer, and do not need or
desire the title
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 10:20:25PM -0500, Jorge Amodio said:
>I'd say that probably around here for those like me that have been in
>operations/engineering management positions we don't give a squat
>about what title your biz card says you have, your actions and
>performance speak by themse
On 2010.03.30 23:42, Andrew D Kirch wrote:
> I am proposing that the NANOG administration drop everything originating
> from commonly used webmail providers,
I oppose this proposal.
There are very legitimate (and legal) reasons why people may want to
post to an operational list, using an addres
I use gmail for all mailing lists. It's easier for me to organize my
work flow and catch up on threads on my BB when I have a spare idle
moment.
On 3/31/10, neal rauhauser wrote:
>I keep all of my mailing list stuff in gmail. I suppose I could move it,
> but this list has so little trouble (
Andrew D Kirch wrote:
> Is there anyone here who is legitimate using a freebie webmail account?
> I am proposing that the NANOG administration drop everything originating
> from commonly used webmail providers, and add further RHS filters as
> additional providers are identified as problems.
>
> A
On 2010.03.30 23:50, Anton Kapela wrote:
>
> On Mar 30, 2010, at 11:34 PM, Jorge Amodio wrote:
>
>> "The title, Engineer, and its derivatives should be reserved for those
>> individuals whose education and experience qualify them to practice in
>> a manner that protects public safety. Strict use
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 9:00 PM, jim deleskie wrote:
> I'm betting more then a few of use free mail accts to keep this
> separate from our work mail. If your really having that much issue,
> config your mail server to drop it yourself or unsub
>
On 2010.03.30 23:47, Jorge Amodio wrote:
> that's right Steve, as I said before, what you do and how you do it,
> and in particular what do you contribute to the networking community
> will speak much better of yourself than any title you can imagine.
>
> Do you think that folks like Tim Berners-L
I keep all of my mailing list stuff in gmail. I suppose I could move it,
but this list has so little trouble (unless gmail is doing a fantastic job
of shielding me) that I don't see the point.
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 10:42 PM, Andrew D Kirch wrote:
> Is there anyone here who is legitimate u
On Wed, March 31, 2010 4:42 pm, Andrew D Kirch wrote:
> Is there anyone here who is legitimate using a freebie webmail account?
> I am proposing that the NANOG administration drop everything originating
> from commonly used webmail providers, and add further RHS filters as
> additional providers ar
I'm betting more then a few of use free mail accts to keep this
separate from our work mail. If your really having that much issue,
config your mail server to drop it yourself or unsub
Seriously
-jim yes posted from gmail acct.
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 12:42 AM, Andrew D Kirch wrote:
> Is
On 3/30/2010 22:44, Alastair Johnson wrote:
> Steve Bertrand wrote:
>> I did not mean to initiate a thread that turns into a joke. I'm quite
>> serious. I guess I'm curious to get an understanding from others who
>> work in a small environment that have no choice but to 'classify'
>> themselves.
>
On 3/30/2010 22:42, Andrew D Kirch wrote:
> Is there anyone here who is legitimate using a freebie webmail account?
> I am proposing that the NANOG administration drop everything originating
> from commonly used webmail providers, and add further RHS filters as
> additional providers are identifie
On Mar 30, 2010, at 11:42 PM, Andrew D Kirch wrote:
> Is there anyone here who is legitimate using a freebie webmail account?
I'm implicitly legit; further, gmail auto-threads all of the run-on posts
automatically (much unlike mail.app, outlook 2k8, etc). What's the beef?
-Tk
On Mar 30, 2010, at 11:34 PM, Jorge Amodio wrote:
> "The title, Engineer, and its derivatives should be reserved for those
> individuals whose education and experience qualify them to practice in
> a manner that protects public safety. Strict use of the title serves
...fortunately for us (and CC
On 3/30/2010 22:35, Steve Bertrand wrote:
> The feedback that I've received off-list has led me to believe that I
> just need to scratch the title, and have my name and number.
>
> Who cares what I do. Those who want to call/email me will have a purpose
> for doing so anyway ;)
Post University I
that's right Steve, as I said before, what you do and how you do it,
and in particular what do you contribute to the networking community
will speak much better of yourself than any title you can imagine.
Do you think that folks like Tim Berners-Lee, Vint Cerf, Jon Postel,
etc, etc, need a title ?
Steve Bertrand wrote:
I did not mean to initiate a thread that turns into a joke. I'm quite
serious. I guess I'm curious to get an understanding from others who
work in a small environment that have no choice but to 'classify'
themselves.
When I was in a similar role and situation to yourself m
Is there anyone here who is legitimate using a freebie webmail account?
I am proposing that the NANOG administration drop everything originating
from commonly used webmail providers, and add further RHS filters as
additional providers are identified as problems.
Andrew
On Mar 30, 2010, at 11:33 PM, Steve Bertrand wrote:
> I did not mean to initiate a thread that turns into a joke. I'm quite
> serious. I guess I'm curious to get an understanding from others who
> work in a small environment that have no choice but to 'classify'
> themselves.
Unless we're talkin
On 2010.03.30 23:34, Jorge Amodio wrote:
> Ok, let see. In several countries the use of the "title" engineer
> applies to people that achieved a certain technical degree, I'm not
> sure that applies uniformly but in Latin America using the engineer
> title without having achieved that degree is ill
On 2010.03.30 23:30, Larry Sheldon wrote:
> On 3/30/2010 22:14, Steve Bertrand wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> This is perhaps a rather silly question, but one that I'd like to have
>> answered.
>>
>> I'm young in the game, and over the years I've imagined numerous job
>> titles that should go on my busine
Ok, let see. In several countries the use of the "title" engineer
applies to people that achieved a certain technical degree, I'm not
sure that applies uniformly but in Latin America using the engineer
title without having achieved that degree is illegal.
In other places such Italy it does not onl
On 2010.03.30 23:22, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 11:14:52PM -0400, Steve Bertrand wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> This is perhaps a rather silly question, but one that I'd like to have
>> answered.
>>
>> I'm young in the game, and over the years I've imagined numerous job
On 31/03/2010, at 4:26 PM, Steve Bertrand wrote:
> On 2010.03.30 23:20, Jorge Amodio wrote:
>> I'd say that probably around here for those like me that have been in
>> operations/engineering management positions we don't give a squat
>> about what title your biz card says you have, your actions an
> It's not just AS_PATH, a lot of the reason so many duplicate updates
> occur (nearly 50% of all updates at times, and often more during the
> busiest times) is because on the other end implementations don't keep
> egress advertisement state per attribute (e.g., if cluster_list length
> just trigg
On 3/30/2010 22:14, Steve Bertrand wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This is perhaps a rather silly question, but one that I'd like to have
> answered.
>
> I'm young in the game, and over the years I've imagined numerous job
> titles that should go on my business card. They went from cool, to
> high-priority,
On 2010.03.30 23:20, Jorge Amodio wrote:
> I'd say that probably around here for those like me that have been in
> operations/engineering management positions we don't give a squat
> about what title your biz card says you have, your actions and
> performance speak by themselves.
>
> There are no
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 11:14:52PM -0400, Steve Bertrand wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This is perhaps a rather silly question, but one that I'd like to have
> answered.
>
> I'm young in the game, and over the years I've imagined numerous job
> titles that should go on my business card. They went from coo
I'd say that probably around here for those like me that have been in
operations/engineering management positions we don't give a squat
about what title your biz card says you have, your actions and
performance speak by themselves.
There are no kings around here so titles most of the time are wort
> -Original Message-
> From: Andrew D Kirch [mailto:trel...@trelane.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 11:07 PM
> To: Larry Sheldon
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Useful URL for network operators
>
> Larry Sheldon wrote:
> > On 3/27/2010 12:10, Guillaume FORTAINE wrote:
> > nymshif
Hi all,
This is perhaps a rather silly question, but one that I'd like to have
answered.
I'm young in the game, and over the years I've imagined numerous job
titles that should go on my business card. They went from cool, to
high-priority, to plain unimaginable.
Now, after 10 years, I reflect ba
Larry Sheldon wrote:
> On 3/27/2010 12:10, Guillaume FORTAINE wrote:
> nymshifting son of a .
>
> More stringent measures are required.
>
>
I second this. I want this guy gone. (The frog, not Larry)
Andrew
I'm not disagreeing. But see DRC's comment.
Best,
-M<
On 3/30/10, Jared Mauch wrote:
>
> On Mar 30, 2010, at 8:25 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>
>> Eric asked who was invited by a government to join a delegation. I
>> think that the ITU invited the RIR's.
>>
>> Jared. Mailing lists don't count
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010, Jared Mauch wrote:
> You can speak for yourself :)
> Some of us are watching the lists on the appropriate mailing list(s)
hosted by the US State Department. I know I facilitated a few people joining
them.
Yep, I would agree that the "Internet technical communi
On Mar 30, 2010, at 8:25 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
> Eric asked who was invited by a government to join a delegation. I
> think that the ITU invited the RIR's.
>
> Jared. Mailing lists don't count :)
When the invitation goes out to the list membership saying "Who is going to be
at X and needs
Eric asked who was invited by a government to join a delegation. I
think that the ITU invited the RIR's.
Jared. Mailing lists don't count :)
Best,
Marty
On 3/30/10, Richard Barnes wrote:
> There were a few representatives of the Internet community at the
> meeting. All five RIRs were repres
Well, actually, ICANN was in Geneva specifically for the meeting, but we
weren't allowed into the room. Quite annoying, actually.
Regards,
-drc
On Mar 30, 2010, at 2:05 PM, Richard Barnes wrote:
> There were a few representatives of the Internet community at the
> meeting. All five RIRs were r
There were a few representatives of the Internet community at the
meeting. All five RIRs were represented, as was ISOC. The notable
absence was ICANN. Of course, this sample is by no means
representative of the entire community, but it's more than "None."
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 7:50 PM, Mart
You can speak for yourself :)
Some of us are watching the lists on the appropriate mailing list(s) hosted by
the US State Department. I know I facilitated a few people joining them.
- Jared
On Mar 30, 2010, at 7:50 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
> None.
>
>
>
>
> On 3/11/10, Eric Brunner-Will
None.
On 3/11/10, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
> What NANOG contributors, if any, are invited by a government, to join
> their national delegation to the initial meeting of the ITU's IPv6
> Group in Geneva next week?
>
>
--
Sent from my mobile device
Martin Hannigan
> "Kevin Oberman" writes:
> > He said that if the protocols would not handle blocked 53/tcp, the
> > protocols would have to be changed. Opening the port was simply not
> > open to discussion.
>
> Do they also believe that all DNS replies are less than 512 bytes? :-)
Sure, why not.
The phrase "
Jason Lixfeld wrote:
Right now, I've got a pull-out KVM connected to an external KVM
switch that connects to the management ports on our blade centers,
etc. I've also got a separate console server for our network devices
with a modem for out of band.
I'd love to be able to collapse these three
Right now, I've got a pull-out KVM connected to an external KVM switch that
connects to the management ports on our blade centers, etc. I've also got a
separate console server for our network devices with a modem for out of band.
I'd love to be able to collapse these three devices into one. I'
* Phil Regnauld:
> Fair enough. Some simple "check your DNS reply size test
> [what is this ?]" page ought to be set up, with a simple
> explanagtion. "checkmydns.org" is available. If I get 5
> minutes... :)
Reply sizes are a red herring. You need something that look
On 3/30/2010 13:49, Randy Bush wrote:
>>> Sent from my Windows® phone.
>> I keep seeing these. Is there a point?
>
> don't use a windows phone? :)
???
I've got a wall-phone near the sink, but I don't use it to read email.
--
Democracy: Three wolves and a sheep voting on the dinner menu.
R
>> Sent from my Windows® phone.
> I keep seeing these. Is there a point?
don't use a windows phone? :)
On Mar 30, 2010, at 11:04 AM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
> I keep seeing these. Is there a point?
(see sub:)
-Tk
> -Original Message-
> From: asnoka [mailto:asn...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 7:50 PM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Disable IPv4 routing for routing-instance?
>
> Hello list,
> Junos provice a method to disable isis ipv4 routing support like
> this:
>
> isis {
>
As I have not been contacted after filling out the web form and any mail I try
and send to ab...@hotmail.com or postmas...@live.com is being blocked can
someone in the Abuse department contact me at ab...@rhemasound.org Thanks.
Sorry about making noise on the list but all other attempts have f
At 8:24 -0700 3/30/10, Leo Vegoda wrote:
192.0.0.0/24 is used for the IANA IPv4 Special Purpose Address Registry:
For the record, there's an RFC dedicated to that range (which Leo co-edited):
http://www.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc5736.txt
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Hello list,
Junos provice a method to disable isis ipv4 routing support like this:
isis {
no-ipv4-routing;
}
However,we want to disable ipv4 routing for an VRF like that,is there
any method for us to do so?
Thanks a lot.
I had a similar issue in which someone had accidentally looked a Cisco
VoIP phone back into the network. However, I found it strange how often
this would occur and eventually came across this field notice that might
apply to others on the list:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/ts/fn/610/fn61863.html
Pr
The Internet Society is hosting an IPv6 Deployment Day on April 22 in
Seattle, Washington. The meeting is intended for operators who have
deployed, are deploying, or are planning to deploy IPv6 in their
networks. The proposed topics include business related issues for IPv6
deployment, discu
On 29 Mar 2010, at 11:17, Lou Katz wrote:
> We recently were told to contact a client (via ftp) at 192.0.0.201. IANA
> lists this as
> Special Use, but refers to "RFC 3330 for additional information.
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3330.txt";.
> This RFC says that it might be assigned in the
On Tuesday 30 March 2010 05:34:06 am Jim Mercer wrote:
> he is invading other lists as well, looks like he is trying to become a
> net.kook.
Kibo did it with more taste.
On Monday 29 March 2010 07:17:28 pm Doug Barton wrote:
> However, none of that is relevant to the fact that a change IS coming,
> whether you're ready for it or not. The questions are, what will the
> change(s) be, how soon, and how will it/they affect me?
[snip]
> So the question is not, "Can I af
On 3/30/2010 08:09, Stephen Tandy wrote:
>
>
> Sent from my Windows® phone.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: nanog-requ...@nanog.org
> Sent: 30 March 2010 13:00
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: NANOG Digest, Vol 26, Issue 142
>
> Send NANOG mailing list submissions to
> nanog@nan
On 3/30/2010 04:34, Jim Mercer wrote:
> he is invading other lists as well, looks like he is trying to become a
> net.kook.
EXPN 'become'
--
Democracy: Three wolves and a sheep voting on the dinner menu.
Requiescas in pace o email
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio
Eppure si rinfresca
ICBM Targ
Hi all,
What is the bit error rate that can be expected from a modern hi capacity
mostly optical point to point circuits ?
10 E-7 would be too conservative or too agressive?
What if the "circuit" is in fact Ethernet LAN to LAN transport? How many
frames can one expect to be discarded due to lin
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 03:03:48PM +0200, Colin Alston wrote:
> In the real world, the result is more like:
>
> [coffee ~]$ dig +short adsl.fultontelephone.net A
> ;; Truncated, retrying in TCP mode.
> dig: dns_rdata_totext: ran out of space
>
> So yeah... if someone wants to correct that, it wou
people who have more operations clue than
he does. I'd comment, except Woody Allen already did it better:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wWUc8BZgWE
> a) I have never heard of Randy Bush
That's OK, I encoura.. oh nevermind, it's shooting fish in a barrel. ;)
On Mar 30, 2010, at 2:17 AM, Lou Katz wrote:
> We recently were told to contact a client (via ftp) at 192.0.0.201. IANA
> lists this as
> Special Use, but refers to "RFC 3330 for additional information.
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3330.txt";.
> This RFC says that it might be assigned in
Hi
Wondering if anyone has some contact with FTC or Nexband or whoever. I
can't find
Someone without clue has decided it's a good idea to make almost all
of 66.211.112.0/20 share the same PTR record. This has bad
consequences, and is beginning to irritate me.
[coffee ~]$ host 66.211.118.239
239.
people who have more operations clue than
he does. I'd comment, except Woody Allen already did it better:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wWUc8BZgWE
> a) I have never heard of Randy Bush
That's OK, I encoura.. oh nevermind, it's shooting fish in a barrel. ;)
We had a school district that had a large number of "dumb" switches in
each class room hanging off real ones. These would get looped when a
student or staff member plugged a patch cable into two ports on the end
switch, taking down large portions of the network. It seems Cisco
3500's ignore a BPD
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 05:34:06 EDT, Jim Mercer said:
> Once again, please ignore Jim Mercer.
> He should do more homeworks too.
He's said similar about a number of people who have more operations clue than
he does. I'd comment, except Woody Allen already did it better:
http://www.youtube.com/watch
"Kevin Oberman" writes:
> He said that if the protocols would not handle blocked 53/tcp, the
> protocols would have to be changed. Opening the port was simply not
> open to discussion.
Do they also believe that all DNS replies are less than 512 bytes? :-)
Tony.
--
f.anthony.n.finchhttp://d
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 05:43:25PM +0900, Randy Bush wrote:
> >>> I have talked to multiple security officers (who are generally not
> >>> really knowledgeable on networks) who had 53/tcp blocked and none
> >>> have yet agreed to change it.
> >> patience. when things really start to break, and
"Kevin Oberman" writes:
> He said that if the protocols would not handle blocked 53/tcp, the
> protocols would have to be changed. Opening the port was simply not
> open to discussion.
Let me guess: They also completely blocked ICMP. I always tell these
customers to switch to IPv6 real fast and
Robert Kisteleki (robert) writes:
> I must observe that these are not really the links you'd want to
> give your end users to check out. Their audience is very different.
> While the article on RIPE Labs comes close, they don't really answer
> the "does it work or does it not?" question with a gree
I must observe that these are not really the links you'd want to give your
end users to check out. Their audience is very different. While the article
on RIPE Labs comes close, they don't really answer the "does it work or does
it not?" question with a green/red light, and they don't provide a g
On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 11:36:52AM -0700, Randy Bush wrote:
> could you please keep a constant email address so we don't have to keep
> adding to our mail filters? thanks.
he is invading other lists as well, looks like he is trying to become a
net.kook.
--
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 08:10:32 +0200
Randy Bush (randy) writes:
>
> i.e. what can we do to maximize the odds that the victim will quickly
> find the perp, as opposed to calling our our tech support lines?
Ah yes, there was the second good reason for actually helping netops
and security officers :)
Tools:
Randy Bush (randy) writes:
> patience. when things really start to break, and the finger of fate
> points at them, clue may arise.
>
When this issue was brought up on the OARC dns-operations list,
and it was suggested to make some simply factsheets (a bit like
ICANN's IPv
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 05:28:40 -, Michael Sokolov said:
> Kevin Oberman wrote:
>
> > And, if you are using a 1988 TCP stack on a 4.3 system, you are not
> > likely to ever efficiently utilize a higher speed link
>
> What higher speed link? I'm very happy with 384 kbps symmetric, using
> SDSL
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 15:59:08 +0900, Randy Bush said:
> > I have talked to multiple security officers (who are generally not
> > really knowledgeable on networks) who had 53/tcp blocked and none have
> > yet agreed to change it.
>
> patience. when things really start to break, and the finger of fa
>>> I have talked to multiple security officers (who are generally not
>>> really knowledgeable on networks) who had 53/tcp blocked and none
>>> have yet agreed to change it.
>> patience. when things really start to break, and the finger of fate
>> points at them, clue may arise.
> 36 days u
On 30 Mar 2010, at 07:59, Randy Bush wrote:
I have talked to multiple security officers (who are generally not
really knowledgeable on networks) who had 53/tcp blocked and none
have yet agreed to change it.
patience. when things really start to break, and the finger of fate
points at th
88 matches
Mail list logo
