Here's the list pricing we received about a year ago for 60 Hudson/111 8th
in NYC: (24 month contract)
Single cab: $800/mo + $1000 setup
20A @ 208V: $605/mo + $500 setup
XC - Coax: $225/mo + $500 setup
XC - Fiber: $325/mo + $500 setup
XC - POTS: $25/mo + $100 setup
XC - T1/E1: $225/mo + $500 setup
On 17 January 2013 23:38, Matt Palmer mpal...@hezmatt.org wrote:
..
By the way, if anyone *does* know of a good and reliable way to prevent CSRF
without the need for any cookies or persistent server-side session state,
I'd love to know how. Ten minutes with Google hasn't provided any useful
Hi Everyone:
A final reminder.
You will not want to miss out... the NANOG 57 program is going to great.
We have Monday morning Tutorials, Monday afternoon Keynote, Welcome
Social, great content for 3 days!
Check-out the NANOG 57
agendahttp://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog57/agenda.phpas it
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 11:15 PM, Constantine A. Murenin
muren...@gmail.com wrote:
IPv6 is obviously the solution, but I think CGN poses more
technological and legal problems for the carriers as opposed to their
clients or the general-purpose non-server non-p2p application
developers.
On 18-1-2013 15:03, William Herrin wrote:
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 11:15 PM, Constantine A. Murenin
muren...@gmail.com wrote:
On the technical side, enterprises have been doing large-scale NAT for
more than a decade now without any doomsday consequences. CGN is not
different.
Well yeah, but
(resending with nanog-approved address..)
On 18. jan. 2013 01:30, Jeff Kell wrote:
On 1/17/2013 6:50 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Vonage will, in most cases fail through CGN as will Skype, Xbox-360,
and many of the other IM clients.
Not sure about Vonage, but Skype, Xbox, and just about everything
Owen DeLong wrote:
Clearly we have run out of trickery as multiple layers of NAT stumps even the
finest of our tricksters.
Yes, we can dedicate thousands more developer hours to making yet more
extensions to code to work around yet more NAT and maybe make it sort of kind
of work almost
On 1/17/13 6:21 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Lee Howard l...@asgard.org wrote:
On 1/17/13 9:54 AM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 5:06 AM, . oscar.vi...@gmail.com wrote:
The people on this list have a influence in how
On 1/18/13 9:03 AM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 11:15 PM, Constantine A. Murenin
muren...@gmail.com wrote:
IPv6 is obviously the solution, but I think CGN poses more
technological and legal problems for the carriers as opposed to their
clients or the
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 18, 2013, at 4:03 AM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 11:15 PM, Constantine A. Murenin
muren...@gmail.com wrote:
IPv6 is obviously the solution, but I think CGN poses more
technological and legal problems for the carriers as opposed to
We have a bunch of small remote offices where we deploy cheap routers with VPN
tunnels back to the central office. This is a very static process with high
overhead… we have to manage each remote router separately, and the offices do
not have tech personnel that can handle local office issues.
Lee Howard wrote:
You are welcome to deploy it if you choose to.
Part of the reason I'm arguing against it is that if everyone deploys it,
then everyone has to deploy it. If it is seen as an alternative to IPv6
by some, then others' deployment of IPv6 is made less useful: network
effect.
Hello,
Can anyone recommend a device that will allow for multiple gigabit gre
tunnels with ability to handle up to a million pps?
I know it can be done on a bsd or nix box , or something running junos but
Im looking for something specifically made and tailored for GRE tunnels.
Thanks,
Ameen
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 18, 2013, at 5:57 AM, Joe Maimon jmai...@ttec.com wrote:
Owen DeLong wrote:
Clearly we have run out of trickery as multiple layers of NAT stumps even
the finest of our tricksters.
Yes, we can dedicate thousands more developer hours to making yet more
The new Cloud Core routers from Mikrotik might be able to handle this...
Granted they are new, and the ROS (6.0) is not fully baked,
But based on the Specs, these may have enough CPU Ram oumph to handle
what you are asking for.
YMMV.
Regards.
Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet Telecom
On
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 18, 2013, at 7:48 AM, Joe Maimon jmai...@ttec.com wrote:
Lee Howard wrote:
You are welcome to deploy it if you choose to.
Part of the reason I'm arguing against it is that if everyone deploys it,
then everyone has to deploy it. If it is seen as an
Lee Howard wrote:
If an ISP is so close to running out of addresses that they need CGN,
let's say they have 1 year of addresses remaining. Given how many ports
apps use, recommendations are running to 10:1 user:address (but I could
well imagine that increasing to 50:1). That means that for
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Lee Howard l...@asgard.org wrote:
On 1/17/13 6:21 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
Then it's a firewall that mildly enhances protection by obstructing
90% of the port scanning attacks which happen against your computer.
It's a free country so you're
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 12:51 PM, A. Pishdadi apishd...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
Can anyone recommend a device that will allow for multiple gigabit gre
tunnels with ability to handle up to a million pps?
I know it can be done on a bsd or nix box , or something running junos but
Im looking for
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 18, 2013, at 8:06 AM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Lee Howard l...@asgard.org wrote:
On 1/17/13 6:21 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
Then it's a firewall that mildly enhances protection by obstructing
90% of the
On 1/18/13 12:48 PM, Joe Maimon jmai...@ttec.com wrote:
Lee Howard wrote:
You are welcome to deploy it if you choose to.
Part of the reason I'm arguing against it is that if everyone deploys
it,
then everyone has to deploy it. If it is seen as an alternative to IPv6
by some, then
I don't think you are going to find something made just for terminating
GRE tunnels but the Cisco ASR1000 and the Juniper MX5-MX80 or SRX line can
do what you want.
-Phil
On 1/18/13 12:51 PM, A. Pishdadi apishd...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
Can anyone recommend a device that will allow for
On 1/18/13 1:03 PM, Joe Maimon jmai...@ttec.com wrote:
Lee Howard wrote:
If an ISP is so close to running out of addresses that they need CGN,
let's say they have 1 year of addresses remaining. Given how many ports
apps use, recommendations are running to 10:1 user:address (but I could
This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet
Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan.
The posting is sent to APOPS, NANOG, AfNOG, AusNOG, SANOG, PacNOG, LacNOG,
TRNOG, CaribNOG and the RIPE Routing Working Group.
Daily listings are sent to
mx80 (or similar) or ASR. The MX would probably be my preference for just
pushing huge amounts of GRE packets and scales nicely in a single box
solution.
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 11:21 AM, Christopher Morrow
morrowc.li...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 12:51 PM, A. Pishdadi
I handle this a different way. I'm not saying it's the easiest solution,
but its very scalable to many thousands of endpoints.
I take a small router and I set the WAN side to DHCP. I use
client-intiated L2TP tunnels w/ ipsec protection to build a tunnel to the
head end.
The beauty of this is:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 18:21:28 -0500, William Herrin said:
Then it's a firewall that mildly enhances protection by obstructing
90% of the port scanning attacks which happen against your computer.
It's a free country so you're welcome to believe that the presence or
absence of NAT has no impact
On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 09:03:31 -0500, William Herrin said:
On the technical side, enterprises have been doing large-scale NAT for
more than a decade now without any doomsday consequences. CGN is not
different.
Corporate enterprises have been pushing GPO to the desktop for more
than a decade as
I wrote to him privately.. But will post on the list too.. Meraki is pretty rad
for doing just this.
From my Android phone on T-Mobile. The first nationwide 4G network.
Original message
From: PC paul4...@gmail.com
Date: 01/18/2013 11:34 AM (GMT-08:00)
To: Matthew Craig
Should NAT become prevalent and prevent innovation because of its
limitations, this means that innovation will happen only with IPv6 which
means the next must have viral applications will require IPv6 and this
may spur the move away from an IPv4 that has been crippled by NAT
everywhere.
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 1:28 PM, Lee Howard l...@asgard.org wrote:
Years ago, I asked, Why are we stuck with NAT? I still ask that. I
believe that the reason we're stuck with it is that so many of us believe
we're stuck with it--we're resigned to failure, so we don't do anything
about it.
This report has been generated at Fri Jan 18 21:13:11 2013 AEST.
The report analyses the BGP Routing Table of AS2.0 router
and generates a report on aggregation potential within the table.
Check http://www.cidr-report.org for a current version of this report.
Recent Table History
Date
BGP Update Report
Interval: 10-Jan-13 -to- 17-Jan-13 (7 days)
Observation Point: BGP Peering with AS131072
TOP 20 Unstable Origin AS
Rank ASNUpds % Upds/PfxAS-Name
1 - AS982954752 3.5% 64.5 -- BSNL-NIB National Internet
Backbone
2 - AS8402
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 4:46 PM, Jean-Francois Mezei
jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca wrote:
Should NAT become prevalent and prevent innovation because of its
limitations, this means that innovation will happen only with IPv6 which
means the next must have viral applications will require IPv6 and
On 13-01-18 17:00, William Herrin wrote:
Odds of a killer app where one router can't be replaced with a
specialty relay while maintaining the intended function: not bloody
likely.
Back in the late 1980s, large computer manufacturers such as Digital,
HP, IBM were pressured to adopt the future
- Original Message -
From: Eric Adler
To: Michael Painter
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 4:19 PM
Subject: Re: For those who may use a projector in the NOC
This appears to be an Epson / 3LCD marketing campaign.
snip
- Eric Adler
Broadcast
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 1/16/2013 7:16 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
Just an FYI...
Every version of Windows since Windows 2000 (sans Windows Me) has had the DNS
Client service which maintained this caching function. This was by design due
to the massive dependency on DNS
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 1/16/2013 7:16 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Erik Levinson erik.levin...@uberflip.com
I'm having an unusual DNS problem and would appreciate feedback.
For the zones in question, primary DNS is provided by GoDaddy
- Original Message -
From: Vinny Abello vi...@abellohome.net
Just an FYI...
Every version of Windows since Windows 2000 (sans Windows Me) has had
the DNS Client service which maintained this caching function. This
was by design due to the massive dependency on DNS resolution which
On 1/18/2013 5:46 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Vinny Abello vi...@abellohome.net
Just an FYI...
Every version of Windows since Windows 2000 (sans Windows Me) has had
the DNS Client service which maintained this caching function. This
was by design due to the
Jay Ashworth wrote:
Microsoft broke the Internet just to make their internal networking
work properly?
I'm shocked; *shocked* I tell... yes, just put the money right over there;
*shocked* I say.
You can't imagine how much time that lost me in diagnoses when it first
came out, until we finally
On 18 January 2013 14:00, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 4:46 PM, Jean-Francois Mezei
jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca wrote:
Should NAT become prevalent and prevent innovation because of its
limitations, this means that innovation will happen only with IPv6 which
On 16 January 2013 08:12, fredrik danerklint fredan-na...@fredan.se wrote:
From the article:
Faced with the shortage of IPv4 addresses and the failure of IPv6 to take
off, British ISP PlusNet is testing carrier-grade network address
translation CG-NAT, where potentially all the ISP's
On 01/08/2013 08:36 AM, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
- Forwarded message from Lauren Weinsteinlau...@vortex.com -
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2013 10:35:59 -0800
From: Lauren Weinsteinlau...@vortex.com
To: nnsq...@nnsquad.org
Subject: [ NNSquad ] Mark Crispin - MRC - Inventor of IMAP and a friend for
Constantine,
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 6:56 PM, Constantine A. Murenin
muren...@gmail.com wrote:
On 16 January 2013 08:12, fredrik danerklint fredan-na...@fredan.se wrote:
From the article:
Faced with the shortage of IPv4 addresses and the failure of IPv6 to take
off, British ISP PlusNet is
There is no suckerage to V6. Really, it's not that hard. While
CGN is the reality, we need to keep focused on the ultimate goal -- a
single long term solution. Imagine a day where there is no dual
stack, no IPv4, and no more band-aids. It will be amazing.
david.
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at
On 01/18/2013 02:07 PM, Jean-Francois Mezei wrote:
OSI and X.400 never gained much of a foothole and the millenium
generation probably never heard of them.
Is it possible that the same fate awaits IPv6 ? There is pressure to go
to IPv6, but if solutions are found for IPv4 which are simpler and
On 19 January 2013 04:48, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote:
No, because NAT-like solutions to perpetuate v4 only handle the client side
of the transaction. At some point there will not be any more v4 address to
assign/allocate to content provider networks. They have seen the writing on
Another (somewhat cheaper) Juniper option if you meet its limits is the
EX[34]200's which now do GRE in hardware:
http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos12.1/topics/concept/gre-tunnel-services.html
On 19/01/13 05:36, PC wrote:
mx80 (or similar) or ASR. The MX would probably be my
49 matches
Mail list logo
