Daniela Moloney
daniela.molo...@rci.rogers.com
Cheers
Ryan
-Original Message-
From: Mike [mailto:ispbuil...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 11:20 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Clueful Rogers sales rep?
I need to find a clueful Rogers sales rep, if anyone has suggestions,
ple
Hi Janne,
Any thoughts about Malaysia? The outfit I am working for on this right now
already has manufacturing facilities there and it would be easier for them to
do it in-country.
I would guess that probably everything from Kuala Lampur area is trunked via
Singapore anyway?
- mike
On Jun 1
I wouldn't recommend malaysia when singapore is available next door
with excellent connectivity region wide
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 5:13 AM, Michael DeMan wrote:
>
>
> I wanted to thank everybody for their feedback. Everything seems to
> correlate with what I have heard - generally Hong Kong an
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 6/15/11 5:47 PM, James Grace wrote:
> So we're running out of peering space in our /24 and we were
> considering using private /30's for new peerings. Are there any
> horrific consequences to picking up this practice?
This might summarize it nicel
In message , Owen DeLong write
s:
>
> On Jun 15, 2011, at 9:39 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
>
> > In a message written on Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 10:22:12AM -0500, Jima wrote:
> >> Oh, oops; you did touch upon this. You might want to let the people
> >> who've implemented RDNSS in software know that t
Hi,
I wanted to thank everybody for their feedback. Everything seems to correlate
with what I have heard - generally Hong Kong and Singapore are the major hubs,
with Tokyo even being an option even though it is not 'geographically' close
and also possibly there are options in Malaysia.
I thin
On Jun 15, 2011, at 10:21 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 19:04:44 +0200, sth...@nethelp.no said:
>
>> How big is huge? To some degree it depends on how broadcast "chatty"
>> the protocols used are - but there's also the matter of having a
>> size which makes it possible
On Jun 14, 2011, at 10:56 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> On 15 jun 2011, at 7:33, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>> Bottom line, I expect it's easier to get cooperation from OS vendors and
>> BIOS vendors to make changes
>> because experience has shown that they are more willing to do so than
>> vert
On Jun 14, 2011, at 9:43 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>
> On Jun 13, 2011, at 5:41 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jun 12, 2011, at 11:12 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>>
>>> On 12 jun 2011, at 15:45, Leo Bicknell wrote:
>>>
> Like I said before, that would pollute the network with many m
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 12:15, Schiller, Heather A
wrote:
> ...yes, there is a serious lack of v6 enabled eyeballs. But it's also
> not clear to me from Akamai's stats just how many of the sites they host
> are v6 enabled. 2? 12? 500?
I remember it being stated that ~40 of their customers would
> Are you not using managed switches?
Certainly.
> It takes me about 1 second to find exactly which device and which port
> a device is connected to. Once you know that; you have a pretty nice
> collection of statistics and log messages that usually tell you
> exactly what is wrong.
Here is whe
On Jun 15, 2011, at 12:32 PM, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
> Seth Mattinen wrote:
>> listen-on-v6 { any; };
>
> Yeah that's what I did. But I keep reading about how these big name companies
> messed it up in some subtle or not so subtle way and I keep thinking I must
> have missed something. Because
Are you not using managed switches?
It takes me about 1 second to find exactly which device and which port
a device is connected to. Once you know that; you have a pretty nice
collection of statistics and log messages that usually tell you
exactly what is wrong.
Or am I missing something?
On Th
> "Ethernet doesn't scale because of large amounts of broadcast traffic."
>
> We started to introduce multicast, and multicast-aware switches in
> IPv4; in IPv6 there is no broadcast traffic. We won't be able to
> scale networks up until we can turn off IPv4,
In other words, probably not for ano
On Jun 15, 2011, at 9:39 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> In a message written on Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 10:22:12AM -0500, Jima wrote:
>> Oh, oops; you did touch upon this. You might want to let the people
>> who've implemented RDNSS in software know that the IETF is working on
>> it. I'm sure that'll
On Jun 15, 2011, at 8:52 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> On 15 jun 2011, at 16:52, Tony Finch wrote:
>
>> Ethernet is not designed for huge LANs. If you want that you need
>> to make significant changes - http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mas90/MOOSE/
>
> Hm:
>
> "Our object is to design a communicat
The beauty of Ethernet is that it's simple. "Ethernet" has evolved
considerably, and continues to do so. It's not really fair to make
comments about it's sociability and talk about it as if it were still
in the state it was 20 years ago:
"Ethernet doesn't scale because of collisions and exponent
I need to find a clueful Rogers sales rep, if anyone has suggestions,
please send them my way.
thanks!
Also absent from this discussion is that the RIRs are still issuing
address space, and interface addressing is perfectly reasonable
justification.
-a
And that will teach me not to read the thread!
--
Leigh
From: Tom Hill [t...@ninjabadger.net]
Sent: 16 June 2011 13:46
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: Consequences of BGP Peering with Private Addresses
On Thu, 2011-06-16 at 11:30 +, Leigh Porter wr
Hello from Cambodia. I am familiar with the situation in Cambodia
and some surrounding countries.
On Wed, 15 Jun 2011, Michael DeMan wrote:
> Basically looking for tips on what cities/countries/locations
> have as much (mostly submarine cabling in this case?) fiber
> connectivity and redundancy.
We europeans had it the 10th already!
Hail to the king baby :)
Op 15-6-2011 17:46, Dennis Burgess schreef:
> Mine got delivered to my office yesterday! :)
>
> Dennis Burgess, Mikrotik Certified Trainer
> Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik & WISP Support Services
> Office: 314-735-0270 Website:
On Thu, 2011-06-16 at 11:30 +, Leigh Porter wrote:
> I have not followed this whole thread, but did anybody suggest just
> using IPv6 for this?
I was going to mention this, but it's only the neighbor address that is
IPv6. You still need an IPv4 next-hop and that is where the issue is in
using
From: Jeff Wheeler [j...@inconcepts.biz]
>This may sound crazy, and it is certainly not an ideal way of doing
>things; but it is an alternative worth consideration as networks
>exhaust their available IPv4.
I have not followed this whole thread, but did
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 12:47 PM, James Grace wrote:
> So we're running out of peering space in our /24 and we were considering
> using private /30's for new peerings. Are there any horrific consequences to
> picking up this practice?
I agree with other posters that this is not a good practice
I can only see about 450 right now - perhaps they fixed it
On 16/06/11 04:05, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 22:51:52 EDT, Chris Griffin said:
>> Prefixes Change ASnum AS Description
>> 19227 115->19342 AS15557 LDCOMNET NEUF CEGETE
26 matches
Mail list logo
