Hi everyone,
Just to let you know that the call for papers for APRICOT 2013 (in
Singapore next February) opened a few days ago.
Rather than posting the whole cfp here, you can see it via the programme
page on the APRICOT website - www.apricot2013.net/program.
NANOG and APRICOT are the network
Hi,
I thought I would share an extract from an email I sent off list to a peer. My
mail was a rather ramberly stream of consciousness exploring the issue, which
worked its way to a potential solution... Hence why I am sharing an extract
from it. I am not sure how practicably implementable it
Hi,
We've been seeing automatic RRSIG records on Google DNS lately, the 8.8.8.8 en
8.8.4.4. They are not always provided. They cause problems for some of our
customers in a weird way I cannot explain. For them these records do not
resolve but I cannot reproduce it.
So when I run dig command
Note the EATON Press release. Maybe the burn on the bench is the way
they get to the California energy reduction Standards? If it isn't
working it isn't using power.
Date: 23 October 2012
Latest Eaton Thought Leadership White Paper Provides Technical Analysis
of Eaton's Energy Saver System
Hi, David
I work at Google Public DNS and will take a look at this issue. No
RRSIG should be returned unless the client set the DO bit to ask for
it.
Thanks
Yunhong
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 9:12 AM, MailPlus| David Hofstee
da...@mailplus.nl wrote:
Hi,
We've been seeing automatic RRSIG records
Yeah, that's about right. When I had one fail that was not set in power
saver mode, it just shut off intermittently before letting out the genie.
When I had one go out while it was in energy saver mode, it continued to
operate but put out a weak ~80Vrms with heavy distortion that caused
equipment
On Wednesday, November 14th, 2012, Olivier CALVANO wrote:
I am search one or more carrier for connect 3 sites in Brasil, Mexico
and Argentina to one of our pop
in USA or Spain.
I don't deal with it directly, but my employer has used MPLS offerings
from (in alphabetical order) BT, Level
root@e3:/home/services# dig @8.8.8.8 m1.mailplus.nl
; DiG 9.7.3 @8.8.8.8 m1.mailplus.nl
; (1 server found)
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; -HEADER- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 38880
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 2, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 0
;; QUESTION SECTION:
It looks like if the server has the RRSIG RR, it returns it. For example, a
query with +dnssec will cause it to cache the RRSIG, after which it returns
it even if +dnssec not specified.
Jay Ford, Network Engineering Group,
Hi, we have found the bug that caused this problem. It was introduced
in a very recent release. The fix is on its way.
Thanks very much for the report,
Yunhong
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Jay Ford jay-f...@uiowa.edu wrote:
It looks like if the server has the RRSIG RR, it returns it. For
Hi Jima,
I can help you contacting BT if you need so.
Alejandro,
--Mensaje original--
De: Jima
Para: nanog@nanog.org
Asunto: Re: Brasil/Mexico/Argentina connectivity
Enviado: 15 nov, 2012 11:35
On Wednesday, November 14th, 2012, Olivier CALVANO wrote:
I am search one or more
Jay Ford jay-f...@uiowa.edu wrote:
It looks like if the server has the RRSIG RR, it returns it. For example, a
query with +dnssec will cause it to cache the RRSIG, after which it returns
it even if +dnssec not specified.
It's weird. If you repeatedly query 8.8.4.4 without the DO bit, you get
..for some blocks I've taken over admin for.
Make sure you are visibly listed as a Point of Contact on those records in
the appropriate RIR, so that folks who get your request can verify you. Even
better, register in your RIR's RPKI program and generate a ROA for it. Info
about ARIN's
Hello!
I have some ATT MPLS sites under a managed contract with latency
averaging 75-85 ms without any load. These sites are only 45 minutes
away. What is considered normal/acceptable?
Thanks,
On 11/15/12 12:54 -0600, Mikeal Clark wrote:
Hello!
I have some ATT MPLS sites under a managed contract with latency
averaging 75-85 ms without any load. These sites are only 45 minutes
away. What is considered normal/acceptable?
I recently had a scenario with some MPLS sites within the
Acceptable from a technical standpoint (in that stuff works) or acceptable
from an expected service standpoint?
In the case of the former, MPLS can run over really high latencies, so
you're nowhere near the limit.
For the latter, 85ms would be highly unacceptable to me for a circuit to a
site
--- mikeal.cl...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Mikeal Clark mikeal.cl...@gmail.com
I have some ATT MPLS sites under a managed contract with latency
averaging 75-85 ms without any load. These sites are only 45 minutes
away. What is considered normal/acceptable?
On Nov 15, 2012, at 1:54 PM, Mikeal Clark wrote:
Hello!
I have some ATT MPLS sites under a managed contract with latency
averaging 75-85 ms without any load. These sites are only 45 minutes
away. What is considered normal/acceptable?
MPLS as a technology should not add any significant
On Nov 15, 2012, at 2:15 PM, Scott Weeks wrote:
--- mikeal.cl...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Mikeal Clark mikeal.cl...@gmail.com
I have some ATT MPLS sites under a managed contract with latency
averaging 75-85 ms without any load. These sites are only 45 minutes
away. What is considered
The location in question is 7 T1s. They were not willing to give us fiber.
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net wrote:
On Nov 15, 2012, at 2:15 PM, Scott Weeks wrote:
--- mikeal.cl...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Mikeal Clark mikeal.cl...@gmail.com
I have some
Your provider is likely backhauling the circuits opposite directions to PE
routers in a different geographic local than the sites. It's time to have
a discussion with your sales engineer about the physical pathing of your
circuits and PE router locations.
When I know I have latency critical
I concur. We have sites all over the US and it is about 80-100 ms from
coast to coast with both of our MPLS providers. 45 minutes away your
latency should be 5ms on a decent network.
-
--- mikeal.cl...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Mikeal Clark
--- ja...@puck.nether.net wrote:
On Nov 15, 2012, at 2:15 PM, Scott Weeks wrote:
--- mikeal.cl...@gmail.com wrote:
I have some ATT MPLS sites under a managed contract with latency
averaging 75-85 ms without any load. These sites are only 45 minutes
away. What is considered
-- Forwarded message --
From: david peahi davidpe...@gmail.com
Date: Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 12:15 PM
Subject: Re: MPLS acceptable latency?
To: Mikeal Clark mikeal.cl...@gmail.com
Assuming no configuration errors, this underscores the need to negotiate
SLAs, and serious SLA
boldMy humble opinion/bold
SLAs are more for accountants and lawyers. Get the right tech support on
the phone and you can solve most issues without all the hassle. SLAs
really are minimal if you can contact the right people and work through the
problem. +1 to Level3 and Cogent as I have had
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 2:15 AM, Ben S. Butler
ben.but...@c2internet.net wrote:
Hi,
...
snip
...
What we need is a way to filter that says throw this prefix away if I can see
it inside of another prefix. Ie discard this /48 if it is part of a /32 (or
bigger) that I also have in my RIB and
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Mikeal Clark mikeal.cl...@gmail.com wrote:
I have some ATT MPLS sites under a managed contract with latency
averaging 75-85 ms without any load. These sites are only 45 minutes
away.
I've noticed this with ATT's MPLS product when dealing with the
internal
--- On Thu, 11/15/12, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
From: William Herrin b...@herrin.us
Subject: Re: MPLS acceptable latency?
To: Mikeal Clark mikeal.cl...@gmail.com
Cc: NANOG [nanog@nanog.org] nanog@nanog.org
Date: Thursday, November 15, 2012, 1:23 PM
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 1:54
Perhaps the network is oldish and there are BW bottlenecks that lead
to queues on the switches/routers that results in higher latency.
This would depend alot on the internal QoS strategy used by ATT, the
type of equipment used and the load in different parts of the network.
The only way to
Hi,
Ok. I am trying to encourage an inclusive exploration of an issue that seems to
be emergent. I am trying to get the community to articulate BCP not dictate it.
Would you want this logic to still apply if you have ::/0 in your table
anywhere?
Yes obviously limits would apply to the filter
Jeez, isn't RPKI supposed to solve this problem?
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Schiller, Heather A
heather.schil...@verizon.com wrote:
..for some blocks I've taken over admin for.
Make sure you are visibly listed as a Point of Contact on those records in
the appropriate RIR, so that
31 matches
Mail list logo
