I've been using Site24x7 for some time now and am very pleased with them,
plus their pricing is very reasonable.
Siggi Bjarnason
si...@bjarnason.us
In free countries, every man is entitled to express his opinions and every
other man is entitled not to listen.
- G. Norman Collie
On Thu, Feb 3,
On 2/5/2011 1:37 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Not sure how I feel about a more adaptive version. Sounds like it would be
better
than the current state, but, I vastly prefer I pay, you route. If I want
filtration, I'll
tell you.
I generally agree with you. However, I also believe that every network
Le 05/02/2011 08:59, Siggi Bjarnason a écrit :
I've been using Site24x7 for some time now and am very pleased with them,
plus their pricing is very reasonable.
i am very pleased by serverguard24.com services.
--
Cordialement,
Ghislain
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
In article alpine.bsf.2.00.1102041723070.54...@murf.icantclick.org,
david raistrick dr...@icantclick.org 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
But (what I keep being told) you
In article 20110204225150.6fac49b2...@drugs.dv.isc.org, Mark Andrews
ma...@isc.org 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
In article f432e474-9725-4159-870a-d5432fe6e...@delong.com, Owen
DeLong o...@delong.com writes
What is important with IPv6 is to teach the generation of hammer-wielding
mechanics who have grown up rarely seeing a screw and never knowing
that there were wrenches that there are new tools
On Thu, Feb 03, 2011 at 04:54:42PM +, John Curran wrote:
On Feb 3, 2011, at 11:32 AM, Jon Lewis wrote:
My point being, the leasing of IP space to non-connectivity customers is
already well established, whether it's technically permitted by the
[ir]relevant RIRs. I fully expect this
On Feb 5, 2011, at 1:54 AM, Roland Perry wrote:
In article alpine.bsf.2.00.1102041723070.54...@murf.icantclick.org, david
raistrick dr...@icantclick.org 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 -
Hi,
If you are using your block, why would you worry?
If not are not using your block, why would you need it?
You may define using
Hint: even IPs not pingable from the Internet are being used. Not
everyone is an ISP/Webhoster ... with public services.
--
Viele Grüße / Kind Regards /
On Feb 5, 2011, at 5:57 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
For the ARIN region, it would be nice to know how you'd like ARIN perform
in the presence of such activity (leasing IP addresses by ISP not providing
connectivity). It's possible that such is perfectly reasonable and to simply
In message 4d4ca1b1.5060...@brightok.net, Jack Bates writes:
On 2/4/2011 6:45 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
I used to work for CSIRO. Their /16's which were got back in the
late 80's will now be /48's.
That's why I didn't try doing any adjustments of X is the new /32. The
whole paradigm
In message xq1vy4e3bstnf...@perry.co.uk, Roland Perry writes:
In article 20110204225150.6fac49b2...@drugs.dv.isc.org, Mark Andrews
ma...@isc.org 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
In message eqde49gvpstnf...@perry.co.uk, Roland Perry writes:
In article f432e474-9725-4159-870a-d5432fe6e...@delong.com, Owen
DeLong o...@delong.com writes
What is important with IPv6 is to teach the generation of hammer-wielding
mechanics who have grown up rarely seeing a screw and never
If they don't document partial internet access blockage in the
contract and the contract says they are providing internet access,
then, they are in breach and you are free to depart without a
termination fee and in most cases, demand a refund for service to
date.
(Yes, I have successfully
On 2/5/2011 6:47 AM, Mark Andrews wrote:
So why the ~!#! are you insisting on comparing IPv4 allocations with IPv6
alocations.
Because that is where the comparison must be made, at the RIR allocation
size/rate level.
There are two sizes. Those that fit into a /32 and those that don't.
The
and saying by God, this Owen character is right, we're in breach of
contract and his definition of the purity of Internet ports has so
stunned us with its symmetry and loveliness that we shall bow down and
sin no more! Thank you Mr. DeLong from making the blind see again!
More likely uh, oh,
On Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 11:47:10PM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
In message 4d4ca1b1.5060...@brightok.net, Jack Bates writes:
On 2/4/2011 6:45 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
I used to work for CSIRO. Their /16's which were got back in the
late 80's will now be /48's.
That's why I didn't
On Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 12:40:44PM +, John Curran wrote:
On Feb 5, 2011, at 5:57 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
For the ARIN region, it would be nice to know how you'd like ARIN perform
in the presence of such activity (leasing IP addresses by ISP not
providing
On Feb 5, 2011, at 11:22 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
as you pointed out back in oh, IETF-29, actual network operators
don't participate much in the standards setting process so its
no wonder RFC 2050 has (several) blind-spots when it comes to
operational reality.
On Feb 5, 2011, at 12:24 PM, John Curran wrote:
On Feb 5, 2011, at 11:22 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
as you pointed out back in oh, IETF-29, actual network operators
don't participate much in the standards setting process so its
no wonder RFC 2050 has (several)
the practice predates ARIN by many years... FWIW...
No reason to play coy... (ep.net)
--bill
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Feb 5, 2011, at 11:22 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
ARIN's community certinly is dominated by a particular type of network
operator.
It's dominated by the type of network operator who shows up and participates.
Generally, I hear
On Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 12:24:01PM -0500, John Curran wrote:
On Feb 5, 2011, at 11:22 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
as you pointed out back in oh, IETF-29, actual network operators
don't participate much in the standards setting process so its
no wonder RFC 2050 has
On Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 10:17:29AM -0800, Bill Woodcock wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Feb 5, 2011, at 11:22 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
ARIN's community certinly is dominated by a particular type of network
operator.
It's dominated by the type of
On Feb 5, 2011, at 1:18 PM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
this report suggests that the question is not RIR specific.
http://ciara.fiu.edu/publications/Rubi%20-%20Property%20Rights%20in%20IP%20Numbers.pdf
but thats just me.
FYI - Also remember to consider the
On Feb 5, 2011, at 1:27 PM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
On Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 10:17:29AM -0800, Bill Woodcock wrote:
...
It's dominated by the type of network operator who shows up and participates.
Generally, I hear what you're saying and don't disagree, but this is one of
John,
It seams that by stating Note that ARIN can't allow transfers contrary to the
community-developed policy that you intend to say that ARIN, based on your
current policies and processes, will not actively update whois information for
legacy block holders that either sub-assign or Transfer
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Feb 5, 2011, at 10:27 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
If I justified an allocation 20 years ago, under the then current policy,
it's presumptuous to presume the power of expropriation.
No one presumes it, and a lot of us are in the
James -
ARIN allows legacy holders to update their registration information, in
fact, we even allow such via ARIN Online. No agreement is required with ARIN;
we provide this service as well as WHOIS and reverse DNS without charge.
If you no longer want to use your address space, you
On Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 11:01:00AM -0800, Bill Woodcock wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Feb 5, 2011, at 10:27 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
If I justified an allocation 20 years ago, under the then current policy,
it's presumptuous to presume the
On Feb 5, 2011, at 10:27 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
On Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 10:17:29AM -0800, Bill Woodcock wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Feb 5, 2011, at 11:22 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
ARIN's community certinly is dominated by a
On 2/5/2011 2:25 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Your right to use a particular set of addresses on a particular network is
not granted by any RIR. It is granted by the people who run the routers
on that network. It is up to the operators of each individual network to
choose which network numbers they
On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 1:24 PM, John Curran jcur...@arin.net wrote:
ARIN allows legacy holders to update their registration information, in
fact, we even allow such via ARIN Online. No agreement is required with
ARIN; we provide this service as well as WHOIS and reverse DNS without
Your right to use a particular set of addresses on a particular
network is not granted by any RIR.
As far as I know, there's no case law about address space assignments.
There's been a bunch of cases where someone stole address space by
pretending to be the original assignee, like the SF Bay
On 2/5/2011 4:53 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
*Since ARIN policy at the current time requires specified transfers be
made through ARIN,
and the recipient of address has to meet a utilization criterion.
No ad-hoc transfers would seem to be allowed by current ARIN policies,
except non-permanent
On 2/5/2011 5:06 PM, John Levine wrote:
If there have been cases with a willing seller and a willing buyer
where ARIN has refused to update WHOIS or rDNS, I'd be interested to
hear about them.
Isn't it moot when you can reallocate the entire block to the other
party? Contractual agreements of
How can someone steal something from you that you don’t own?
From: John Levine [mailto:jo...@iecc.com]
Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2011 5:06 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Leasing of space via non-connectivity providers
Your right to use a particular set of addresses on a
If there have been cases with a willing seller and a willing buyer
where ARIN has refused to update WHOIS or rDNS, I'd be interested to
hear about them.
Isn't it moot when you can reallocate the entire block to the other party?
Contractual agreements of the sale would enforce the inability to
In article 0d7e01cbc58a$340347a0$9c09d6e0$@net you write:
How can someone steal something from you that you don’t own?
Here in the US, until there is statutory or case law, the question of
whether the people with legacy IP space assignments own that space is
entirely a matter of opinion. I
On 2/5/2011 5:25 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
Isn't it moot when you can reallocate the entire block to the other
party? Contractual agreements of the sale would enforce the inability
to reclaim or remove the reallocation.
If the user doesn't match what's in WHOIS, a lot of people will assume
Hi,
On Sat, 5 Feb 2011 17:12:40 -0600
Aaron Wendel aa...@wholesaleinternet.net wrote:
How can someone steal something from you that you don’t own?
Legacy space. The best example I can think of was Choopa's hijacking
of Erie Forge and Steel's legacy space. In this case, it was theft as
it
Good question:
Depends on what kind of address space assignment - if you mean legacy IP space,
then no there is no case law.
Kremen v. ARIN (Northern District of CA) is the only case law out there, but it
is on point only as to 'current' IP space. In Kremen, the district court went
only
On Feb 4, 2011, at 1:36 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Paul Graydon p...@paulgraydon.co.uk
To: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Friday, 4 February, 2011 8:39:09 AM
Subject: Re: External sanity checks
On 02/03/2011 08:04 AM, Philip Lavine wrote:
To all,
Does any one
On Sat, 5 Feb 2011, Jack Bates wrote:
That's my point. If a legacy holder can update WHOIS, I presume they can also
just allocate the entire block to someone else. It would reflect that in
WHOIS, no one would consider it hijacked.
Does ARIN accept SWIP requests for IPs within legacy space
In message 4d4d5ffc.6020...@brightok.net, Jack Bates writes:
On 2/5/2011 6:47 AM, Mark Andrews wrote:
So why the ~!#! are you insisting on comparing IPv4 allocations with IPv6
alocations.
Because that is where the comparison must be made, at the RIR allocation
size/rate level.
There
In message 20110205150005.40621.qm...@joyce.lan, John Levine writes:
and saying by God, this Owen character is right, we're in breach of
contract and his definition of the purity of Internet ports has so
stunned us with its symmetry and loveliness that we shall bow down and
sin no more!
On Feb 4, 2011, at 9:49 PM, Hayden Katzenellenbogen 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. (strategic
nuclear strikes)
On Feb 5, 2011, at 8:14 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
I have told a hotel they need to install equipment that supports RA
guard as I've checked out. This was a hotel that only offered IPv4.
Wow... Could that be any more of a waste of yours and their time?
This is like telling the cashier at the
On Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 09:12:53PM +, John Curran wrote:
On Feb 5, 2011, at 2:33 PM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
decides current policy. when current policy directly contridicts the
policies
under which old address space was allocated, which policy trumps?
Bill -
I have told a hotel they need to install equipment that supports RA
guard as I've checked out. This was a hotel that only offered IPv4.
Hotels ask for feedback on their services. If you see a fault report
it in writing.
Sure. Bet you ten bucks that no hotel in North America offers IPv6 this
On 2/5/2011 6:43 AM, Fred Baker wrote:
On Feb 4, 2011, at 9:49 PM, Hayden Katzenellenbogen 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
Still, that is a considerable number of bits we'll have left when the dust
settles and the RIR allocation rate drastically slows.
Like it did for IPv4? ;)
-Nathan
In message 4d4df75e.1040...@brightok.net, Jack Bates writes:
On 2/5/2011 7:01 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
And did you change the amount of growth space you allowed for each pop?
Were you already constrained in your IPv4 growth space and just restored
your desired growth margins?
Growth rate
Sure. Bet you ten bucks that no hotel in North America offers IPv6 this year
in the wifi they provide to customers. (Conference networks don't
count.)
John -
I happen to know with absolute certainty that the above statement is false.
But I'd be happy to take your money! :-)
Nathan
In message alpine.bsf.2.00.1102052106001.53...@joyce.lan, John R. Levine wr
ites:
I have told a hotel they need to install equipment that supports RA
guard as I've checked out. This was a hotel that only offered IPv4.
Hotels ask for feedback on their services. If you see a fault report
In message bc81acea-8dea-4380-8a57-a4f570e3c...@megacity.org, Derek J. Balli
ng writes:
On Feb 5, 2011, at 8:14 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
I have told a hotel they need to install equipment that supports RA
guard as I've checked out. This was a hotel that only offered IPv4.
Wow... Could
On 2/5/2011 8:06 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
Sure. Bet you ten bucks that no hotel in North America offers IPv6 this
year in the wifi they provide to customers. (Conference networks don't
count.)
http://twitter.com/unquietwiki/status/449593712050176 springs to mind --
it was even *last* year.
On Feb 5, 2011, at 5:14 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
In message 20110205150005.40621.qm...@joyce.lan, John Levine writes:
and saying by God, this Owen character is right, we're in breach of
contract and his definition of the purity of Internet ports has so
stunned us with its symmetry and
On Feb 5, 2011, at 5:20 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
On 2/5/2011 7:01 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
And did you change the amount of growth space you allowed for each pop?
Were you already constrained in your IPv4 growth space and just restored
your desired growth margins?
Growth rate has nothing to
On Feb 5, 2011, at 6:38 PM, Nathan Eisenberg wrote:
Still, that is a considerable number of bits we'll have left when the dust
settles and the RIR allocation rate drastically slows.
Like it did for IPv4? ;)
-Nathan
It long since would have if ISPs didn't have to come back annually (or
On 2/5/2011 8:40 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
A IPv4 /16 supports 64000 potential customers. A IPv6 /32 supports
64000 potential customers. Either you have changed the customer
estimates or changed the growth space allowances or were using NAT
or
You don't suddenly need 256 times the amount of
On 2/5/2011 9:44 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
In IPv6, we should be looking to do 5 or 10 year allocations. We can
afford to be fairly speculative in
our allocations in order to preserve greater aggregation.
And even if networks were only getting an 8 bit slide, that's 256 trips
back to the RIR
John R. Levine wrote:
I have told a hotel they need to install equipment that supports RA
guard as I've checked out. This was a hotel that only offered IPv4.
Hotels ask for feedback on their services. If you see a fault report
it in writing.
Sure. Bet you ten bucks that no hotel in North
On Feb 5, 2011, at 6:11 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 2/5/2011 6:43 AM, Fred Baker wrote:
On Feb 4, 2011, at 9:49 PM, Hayden Katzenellenbogen 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
On 2/5/2011 8:15 PM, Paul Timmins wrote:
OR just upgrade your gear, and while you're at it, you can now safely
enable IPv6 anyway.
Well, enable IPv6. Safely? I don't see how upgrading your gear magically
makes the various security threats -- including the current topic of
rogue RAs -- go
On Feb 5, 2011, at 1:01 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
On Feb 5, 2011, at 10:27 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
If I justified an allocation 20 years ago, under the then current policy,
it's presumptuous to presume the power of expropriation.
No one presumes it, and a lot of us are in
Matthew Kaufman wrote:
On 2/5/2011 8:15 PM, Paul Timmins wrote:
OR just upgrade your gear, and while you're at it, you can now safely
enable IPv6 anyway.
Well, enable IPv6. Safely? I don't see how upgrading your gear
magically makes the various security threats -- including the current
On Feb 5, 2011, at 7:00 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Fred Baker f...@cisco.com
You mean, like drop a couple of trade towers and take out three class
five switches, causing communication outages throughout New England
and New Jersey, and affecting places as
On Feb 5, 2011, at 11:15 PM, Paul Timmins wrote:
I know a hospital in Metro Detroit that was offering it on their patient and
guest WiFi in 2009. Of course, neither they, nor the individual running the
rogue IPv6 router knew that, but as a person running an IPv6 enabled OS, it
was really
On Feb 5, 2011, at 8:30 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
On 2/5/2011 8:15 PM, Paul Timmins wrote:
OR just upgrade your gear, and while you're at it, you can now safely enable
IPv6 anyway.
Well, enable IPv6. Safely? I don't see how upgrading your gear magically
makes the various security
Derek J. Balling wrote:
On Feb 5, 2011, at 11:15 PM, Paul Timmins wrote:
I know a hospital in Metro Detroit that was offering it on their patient and
guest WiFi in 2009. Of course, neither they, nor the individual running the
rogue IPv6 router knew that, but as a person running an IPv6
On Feb 5, 2011, at 11:31 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
...
The ARIN community decides ARIN policy. That policy doesn't inherently
reflect community standards in the broader sense, or inherently align with
the law for that matter. If the ARIN community were to instruct ARIN to
operate in
On Feb 5, 2011, at 8:31 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
On Feb 5, 2011, at 1:01 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
On Feb 5, 2011, at 10:27 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
If I justified an allocation 20 years ago, under the then current policy,
it's presumptuous to presume the power of
Back in the '70s, I always heard survive hostile battlefield
conditions and never heard anyone talk about comms survival of a
nuclear event, but I wasn't in any interesting conversations, such as
in front of funding agencies...
To survive an EMP, electronics needs some fancy circuitry.
On Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 08:29:44PM -0800, Fred Baker wrote:
On Feb 5, 2011, at 6:11 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 2/5/2011 6:43 AM, Fred Baker wrote:
On Feb 4, 2011, at 9:49 PM, Hayden Katzenellenbogen wrote:
Not sure if it has been said already but wasn't one of the key point for
Lebanon's Telecom minister is claiming that US Navy radar is blocking the
country's Internet..
http://www.naharnet.com/domino/tn/NewsDesk.nsf/0/93A95CA1A4E42178C225782E007371AF
The problem, however, is due to a coordination error related to waves,
Nahhas told OTV, adding that an investigation
On 2/5/11 9:00 PM, Joly MacFie wrote:
Lebanon's Telecom minister is claiming that US Navy radar is blocking the
country's Internet..
http://www.naharnet.com/domino/tn/NewsDesk.nsf/0/93A95CA1A4E42178C225782E007371AF
Those repeaterless submarine optical systems are really impacted by
On Feb 5, 2011, at 2:25 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
The fact that a very large number of network operators use the data
contained in the RIR system in a cooperative manner is convenient
and makes the internet substantially more useful than I can imagine
it would be under alternative scenarios.
On Feb 5, 2011, at 10:48 PM, John Curran wrote:
You are correct that consensus doesn't assure legality; hence
all draft policies receive a specific staff and legal review
during the development process.
Thanks, John. I'm aware of the legal review, as well as the AC and board
gateways
On Feb 5, 2011, at 8:40 PM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
On Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 09:12:53PM +, John Curran wrote:
RFC 2050 is the document which provides the registry system framework.
Jon Postel is an author of same, as well as a founder of ARIN.
yup.. i was there when
Hi,
Could an nLayer network engineer contact me offlist regarding a service
or core router at I'm guessing One Wilshire that is having serious
problems?
Thanks.
William
On Feb 5, 2011, at 9:24 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
On Feb 5, 2011, at 2:25 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
The fact that a very large number of network operators use the data
contained in the RIR system in a cooperative manner is convenient
and makes the internet substantially more useful than
In message 4d4e1c5d.20...@brightok.net, Jack Bates writes:
On 2/5/2011 8:40 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
A IPv4 /16 supports 64000 potential customers. A IPv6 /32 supports
64000 potential customers. Either you have changed the customer
estimates or changed the growth space allowances or were
John,
On Feb 5, 2011, at 7:33 PM, John Curran wrote:
It does not talk to address space allocated to entities from the IANA or
other
registries prior to the RIRs existance.
Is it your belief that Jon did not intend RFC 2050 to apply to the existing
allocations maintained by the three
On 2/6/2011 12:00 AM, Joly MacFie wrote:
Lebanon's Telecom minister is claiming that US Navy radar is blocking the
country's Internet..
http://www.naharnet.com/domino/tn/NewsDesk.nsf/0/93A95CA1A4E42178C225782E007371AF
The problem, however, is due to a coordination error related to waves,
Here's a chart:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_IPv6_support_by_major_transit_providers
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Seth Mattinen [mailto:se...@rollernet.us]
Sent: Friday, February 04, 2011 12:16 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: My upstream ISP does not support IPv6
On
No, it's those Radar Sharks with Frickin' lasers on their heads:
http://pokerterms.com/images/sharks-with-lasers-2.jpg
-Mike
On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 10:33 PM, Andrew Kirch trel...@trelane.net wrote:
On 2/6/2011 12:00 AM, Joly MacFie wrote:
Lebanon's Telecom minister is claiming that US Navy
On Feb 6, 2011, at 1:25 AM, David Conrad wrote:
Last I checked, the other four authors of RFC 2050 are still alive. Why not
ask them?
Bill indicated he was there when it was written in reference to Jon being an
author, and I was inquiring to whether he had any knowledge of Jon's intent
On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 12:00 AM, Joly MacFie j...@punkcast.com wrote:
Lebanon's Telecom minister is claiming that US Navy radar is blocking the
country's Internet..
http://www.naharnet.com/domino/tn/NewsDesk.nsf/0/93A95CA1A4E42178C225782E007371AF
The problem, however, is due to a
I used to work on some of this gear. The transmitters do indeed go to 11.
If they want to talk, you won't.
On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 1:20 AM, Martin Millnert milln...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 12:00 AM, Joly MacFie j...@punkcast.com wrote:
Lebanon's Telecom minister is claiming
Martin Millnert wrote:
On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 12:00 AM, Joly MacFie j...@punkcast.com wrote:
Lebanon's Telecom minister is claiming that US Navy radar is blocking the
country's Internet..
http://www.naharnet.com/domino/tn/NewsDesk.nsf/0/93A95CA1A4E42178C225782E007371AF
The problem, however,
Does anyone know when they took down connectivity in Egypt did they also
bring down the MPLS networks global companies use?
Cheers
Ryan
-Original Message-
From: Fred Baker [mailto:f...@cisco.com]
Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2011 9:43 AM
To: Hayden Katzenellenbogen
Cc: NANOG list
92 matches
Mail list logo
