Hello,
Please advice what is the best practice to use IPv6 address block
across distributed locations.
Recently we obtained our PI /48 from RIPE. The idea was to assign
partial slices from this block to different locations (we have
currently 3 offices in Europe and 2 in USA). All locations are
On Mon, 31 Oct 2011, Dmitry Cherkasov wrote:
Need your advice: is this normal to distribute /48 by /56 parts across
locations or should we obtain separate /48 for each of them? Or maybe we
need /32 that can be split into multiple /48? Anyway we are not ISP so
/48 looks quite reasonable and
Couldn't you also advertise the /48 from all the sites, if you're
willing to sort things out over the inter-site VPNs?--Richard
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 4:37 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote:
On Mon, 31 Oct 2011, Dmitry Cherkasov wrote:
Need your advice: is this normal to distribute
On 2011-10-31 08:56 , Dmitry Cherkasov wrote:
Hello,
Please advice what is the best practice to use IPv6 address block
across distributed locations.
You go to multiple RIRs and get multiple prefixes.
Heck, you apparently can even get multiple disjunct prefixes from the
same RIR.
There went
Not sure about RIPE, but under ARIN, you would qualify for a /44 (or larger if
you have more than 12 sites), out of which you could announce the /48s
independently and as an aggregate, as you wish to do.
-Randy
- Original Message -
Hello,
Please advice what is the best practice
Ideally, you should put a /48 at each location.
Owen
On Oct 31, 2011, at 12:56 AM, Dmitry Cherkasov wrote:
Hello,
Please advice what is the best practice to use IPv6 address block
across distributed locations.
Recently we obtained our PI /48 from RIPE. The idea was to assign
partial
Bill,
Responses in-line...
-Original Message-
From: Bill Stewart [mailto:nonobvi...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2011 6:22 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Cc: Brian Johnson
Subject: Re: Outgoing SMTP Servers
snip
I've got a strong preference for ISPs to run a
On Mon, 31 Oct 2011, Dmitry Cherkasov wrote:
The problem we ran across is that ISP in US does not wish to accept
prefixes longer then /48 from us.
Need your advice: is this normal to distribute /48 by /56 parts across
locations or should we obtain separate /48 for each of them? Or maybe
we need
On Oct 27, 2011, at 9:46 PM, Justin Seabrook-Rocha wrote:
Once that tool is complete, you should be able to merge/migrate your gmail G+
account to your Google Apps account. You can already do so with most of the
numerous other Google properties.
Keep in mind that if you want to publicly
Hi :
Looking for some recommendation on Hands and Eyes to aid in setting up gear
in datacenters located in Amsterdam and London.
Exceptional quality of workmanship a must.
Thanks
Mike
For London:
http://www.netsumo.com/
--
Leigh Porter
-Original Message-
From: Mike Rae [mailto:mike@sjrb.ca]
Sent: 31 October 2011 16:26
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Hands and Eyes for London and Amsterdam
Hi :
Looking for some recommendation on Hands and Eyes to aid in
On 10/31/11 03:43 , Jeroen Massar wrote:
On 2011-10-31 08:56 , Dmitry Cherkasov wrote:
Hello,
Please advice what is the best practice to use IPv6 address block
across distributed locations.
You go to multiple RIRs and get multiple prefixes.
Heck, you apparently can even get multiple
Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 10/30/2011 8:36 PM, Brian Johnson wrote:
So you support filtering end-user outbound SMTP sessions as this is a
means to prevent misuse of the Commons*. Correct?
If it is acceptable to have the receiving SMTP server at one end of a
connection do filtering -- and it
On Oct 31, 2011, at 12:30 49PM, Joel jaeggli wrote:
On 10/31/11 03:43 , Jeroen Massar wrote:
On 2011-10-31 08:56 , Dmitry Cherkasov wrote:
Hello,
Please advice what is the best practice to use IPv6 address block
across distributed locations.
You go to multiple RIRs and get multiple
On 10/31/2011 11:48 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:
I've often wondered the same thing as to what the resistance is to outbound
filtering is. I can think of a few possibilities:
1) cost of filtering
2) false positives
3) really _not_ wanting to know about abuse
On the other hand, you have
1)
Possibly not for much longer:
http://mashable.com/2011/10/19/google-to-support-pseudonyms/
Regards,
Jay
On 01/11/2011, at 2:49 AM, Kee Hinckley naz...@somewhere.com wrote:
On Oct 27, 2011, at 9:46 PM, Justin Seabrook-Rocha wrote:
Once that tool is complete, you should be able to
On: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 09:48:21 -0700, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com opined:
Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 10/30/2011 8:36 PM, Brian Johnson wrote:
So you support filtering end-user outbound SMTP sessions as this is a
means to prevent misuse of the Commons*. Correct?
If it is
On Oct 31, 2011, at 5:00 PM, Jay Mitchell wrote:
Possibly not for much longer:
http://mashable.com/2011/10/19/google-to-support-pseudonyms/
Google officially* repudiated that, saying it was nothing new, just their old
promise that eventually they plan to offer pseudonym support if they
On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 05:39:57 -0400, Richard Barnes
richard.bar...@gmail.com wrote:
Couldn't you also advertise the /48 from all the sites, if you're
willing to sort things out over the inter-site VPNs?
If we're talking about a site-to-site IPsec VPN over the internet, then
that's a very bad
Hello! My name is Justine and I am a graduate student at UC Berkeley
(http://cs.berkeley.edu/~justine).
I'm doing a research project on middlebox appliances such as proxies,
WAN optimizers, and firewalls. Middlebox appliances are any
networking-related hardware other than routers and switches.
Sent from my iPad
On Oct 31, 2011, at 1:30 PM, Jack Bates jba...@brightok.net wrote:
On 10/31/2011 11:48 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:
I've often wondered the same thing as to what the resistance is to outbound
filtering is. I can think of a few possibilities:
1) cost of filtering
2)
Sent from my iPad
On Oct 31, 2011, at 4:17 PM, Robert Bonomi bon...@mail.r-bonomi.com
snip
There is an at-least-somewhat-valid argument against outbound filtering.
to wit, various receiving systems may have different policies on what is/
is-not 'acceptable' traffic. They have a better
Hello Justine,
I find it interesting, to say the least, that all of the communication
that you have about a Berkeley research program while your email came
from washington.edu?
Thanks,
'Ayo
. Success is getting what you want, happiness is wanting what you
get - Ingrid Bergman
... the sky
A quick look at her web pg shows her undergad @ UWash
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 11:23 PM, Adefisayo Adegoke afis...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Justine,
I find it interesting, to say the least, that all of the communication
that you have about a Berkeley research program while your email came
:) I should've guessed that you guys, of all people, would notice the
discrepancy.
I used to be at the UW; I registered for this list using my UW email
address. Rather than re-register in order to be able to post to the
list, I just sent from my old email address.
The survey is linked from my
Dave CROCKER [mailto:d...@dcrocker.net] said on Sunday, 30 October, 2011 22:41
On 10/30/2011 8:36 PM, Brian Johnson wrote:
So you support filtering end-user outbound SMTP sessions as this is a
means to prevent misuse of the Commons*. Correct?
If it is acceptable to have the receiving SMTP
On 10/31/2011 8:12 PM, Brian Johnson wrote:
Sent from my iPad
On Oct 31, 2011, at 1:30 PM, Jack Batesjba...@brightok.net wrote:
On 10/31/2011 11:48 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:
I've often wondered the same thing as to what the resistance is to outbound
filtering is. I can think of a few
On 10/31/11 19:33 , Justine Sherry wrote:
:) I should've guessed that you guys, of all people, would notice the
discrepancy.
I used to be at the UW; I registered for this list using my UW email
address. Rather than re-register in order to be able to post to the
list, I just sent from my old
On 10/31/2011 11:00 PM, Scott Whyte wrote:
But seriously, if you can help her ascertain real middlebox use cases
she wants to help improve that segment of networking via useful
research, nothing more or less.
Would love to see the results, although it definitely is catered more to
enterprise
On Oct 31, 2011 9:13 PM, Jack Bates jba...@brightok.net wrote:
On 10/31/2011 11:00 PM, Scott Whyte wrote:
But seriously, if you can help her ascertain real middlebox use cases
she wants to help improve that segment of networking via useful research,
nothing more or less.
Would love to see
On Nov 1, 2011, at 11:44 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
Unfotunately ISPs are deploying many middle boxen, frequently in series, for
various reasons...cough cough cgn.
This AusNOG presentation touches upon the topic:
http://www.ausnog.net/images/ausnog-05/presentations/7-2-stateofdanger.pdf
31 matches
Mail list logo
