I can't say what everyone else does, but we only make exact matches from route
object to prefix-list
http://www.mellowd.co.uk/ccie
> On 30 Jan 2014, at 21:48, "Martin T" wrote:
>
> Job, Tore: ok, I see. So "route" object in RIR routing registry database
> for each announced prefix is needed on
In message , "Justin M
. Streiner" writes:
> On Fri, 31 Jan 2014, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> > In Australia I would sue Telstra, Optus, ... if their customers
> > couldn't reach me due to routes being filtered. I would take this
> > to the ACCC (Australian Competition and Consumer Commission) as a
On Fri, 31 Jan 2014, Mark Andrews wrote:
In Australia I would sue Telstra, Optus, ... if their customers
couldn't reach me due to routes being filtered. I would take this
to the ACCC (Australian Competition and Consumer Commission) as a
restraint of trade issue.
And if the provider doing the
You may wish to consider twinax for short distance 10G over copper with
SFP+ at both ends
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twinaxial_cabling#SFP.2B_Direct-Attach_Copper_.2810GSFP.2BCu.29
Typically marketed as "direct-attach" (you can't remove the cables from
the transceivers, it's all integrated)
On 1/30/14, 5:26 PM, james jones wrote:
> I would like to know if anyone has seen one of these? If so where? Also if
> they don't exist why? It would seem to me that it would make it a lot
> easier to play mix and match with fiber in the DC if they did. Would be so
> hard to make the 1G SFPs faster
I would like to know if anyone has seen one of these? If so where? Also if
they don't exist why? It would seem to me that it would make it a lot
easier to play mix and match with fiber in the DC if they did. Would be so
hard to make the 1G SFPs faster (trying to be funny here not arrogant).
-Jame
In message <52eaeae2.6090...@rollernet.us>, Seth Mattinen writes:
> On 1/30/14, 15:58, Mark Andrews wrote:
> > The moment /24's aren't
> > readily available and they are forced into using this range anyone
> > filtering on /24 in this range is leaving themselves open to lawsuits.
>
>
> Because w
On 1/30/14, 15:58, Mark Andrews wrote:
The moment /24's aren't
readily available and they are forced into using this range anyone
filtering on /24 in this range is leaving themselves open to lawsuits.
Because why? Cartels? Illuminati? I want to travel by stargate. Who do I
sue?
~Seth
Have a look on Webhosting Talk Australia, this where a lot of Australian
providers hang out ;-)
http://webhostingtalk.com.au
Kindest Regards
James Braunegg
P: 1300 769 972 | M: 0488 997 207 | D: (03) 9751 7616
E: james.braun...@micron21.com.au | ABN: 12 109 977 666
W: www.micro
In message <384bf687-ad8a-4919-9eab-723a09854...@puck.nether.net>, Jared Mauch
writes:
>
> On Jan 30, 2014, at 12:17 AM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> > Or you could just accept that there needs to be more routing slots
> > as the number of businesses on the net increases. I can see some
> > intere
> I guess as a follow up question. Do you use the EUI-64 address as the
> Default gateway or the link local.
>> rfc 6164
what's link local? does it do vrrp? :)
randy
On Jan 30, 2014, at 12:17 AM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> Or you could just accept that there needs to be more routing slots
> as the number of businesses on the net increases. I can see some
> interesting anti-cartel law suits happening if ISP's refuse to
> accept /28's from this block.
i suspect i
Job, Tore: ok, I see. So "route" object in RIR routing registry database
for each announced prefix is needed only because some ISPs create filters
exactly the size of the "route" object in database? So for example if there
is a "route" object for 192.0.2.0/24 in RIR database, then ISP-A might
creat
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 10:22 PM, Christopher Morrow
wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 5:16 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
>> On 1/29/14, 14:01, Leslie Nobile wrote:
>>>
>>> Additionally, ARIN has placed 23.128.0.0/10 in its reserves in accordance
>>> with the policy "Dedicated IPv4 block to facilitate
On 30/01/14 19:50 +, Mark Blackman wrote:
We’ve got a client who is happily using Intervolve.
I used to have 2 racks with intervolve. I'd use them again.
Carlos,
Take a look at this: www.aryaka.com it's a managed services with private links.
I can give you more details if this is what you're looking for.
Best,
Nanda
-Original Message-
From: Carlos Kamtha [mailto:kam...@ak-labs.net]
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2014 7:20 PM
To: Nanda Ku
On 29 Jan 2014, at 23:37, Carlos Kamtha wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Was wondering if anyone could share any experiences.
>
> Prerequsites:
>
> a.) reliable upstream provider with established peering.
>
> b.) relatively acessible support staff.
>
> c.) FreeBSD preferring but CentOS i
I guess as a follow up question. Do you use the EUI-64 address as the Default
gateway or the link local.
On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 2:19 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
rfc 6164
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 08:49:53AM -0500, Carlos Kamtha wrote:
> The box will provide services to clients. so it has to be robust and
> free from bandwidth limitations.
That's going to get expensive. .au bandwidth is a touch on the pricey side.
- Matt
On Wed, 29 Jan 2014 14:16:43 -0800, Seth Mattinen wrote:
On 1/29/14, 14:01, Leslie Nobile wrote:
Additionally, ARIN has placed 23.128.0.0/10 in its reserves in
accordance with the policy "Dedicated IPv4 block to facilitate IPv6
Deployment" (NRPM 4.10). There have been no allocations made from
* Job Snijders
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 06:51:59PM +0200, Martin T wrote:
>
>> for example there is a small company with /22 IPv4 allocation from
>> RIPE in European region. This company is dual-homed and would like to
>> announce 4x /24 prefixes to both ISPs. Both ISP's update their
>> prefix-l
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 06:51:59PM +0200, Martin T wrote:
> for example there is a small company with /22 IPv4 allocation from
> RIPE in European region. This company is dual-homed and would like to
> announce 4x /24 prefixes to both ISPs. Both ISP's update their
> prefix-lists automatically based
Hi,
for example there is a small company with /22 IPv4 allocation from
RIPE in European region. This company is dual-homed and would like to
announce 4x /24 prefixes to both ISPs. Both ISP's update their
prefix-lists automatically based on records in RIPE database. For
example Level3 uses this pra
On Jan 29, 2014, at 10:22 PM, Christopher Morrow
wrote:
> maybe these weren't meant to be used outside the local ASN? :)
> I do wonder though what the purpose of this block is? If it's to be
> used inside the local ASN (as seems to be indicated based upon minimum
> allocation sizes) then why no
On Thu, 30 Jan 2014, Tore Anderson wrote:
I wouldn't worry if I were you. I'll wager you $100 that pretty much all
of the people requesting a block from ARIN under this policy (or any
other) is going to go for a /24 (or larger). There is some precedent;
RIPE policy has not mandated a minimum ass
On 1/28/14, 5:29 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:
> So essentially, you are looking for a 'direct' x-connect to AWS ?
> and not wanting to go thru a peering fabric or any other network ?
just as an aside amazon peer routes are in my experience regional so if
the goal is to offload traffic in miami bound f
As the author of the policy which set this block aside, I speak only from my
perspective as the author and not officially on behalf of ARIN or the AC in any
way:
The intent is to provide very small allocations/assignments for organizations
which need some amount of IPv4 for a best-effort to fac
* Justin M. Streiner
> In the worst case, this would add another 262,144 routes (/10 fully
> assigned, and all assignments are /28s) to the global IPv4 route view.
> Realistically, the number will be a good bit smaller than that, but only
> time will tell for sure exactly how much smaller. Wash/r
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 01:52:31PM +1100, Matt Palmer wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 06:37:35PM -0500, Carlos Kamtha wrote:
> > b.) relatively acessible support staff.
>
> Accessable for what? Hardware maintenance, or full-service outsourced
> sysadmin assistance? What timezones, and what com
well sorta.
The box will provide services to clients. so it has to be robust and
free from bandwidth limitations.
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 11:42:58PM +, Nanda Kumar wrote:
> Carlos,
>
> Is this for Wan connectivity between where you're and Australia?
>
> Best,
> Nanda
On Thu, 30 Jan 2014, Mark Andrews wrote:
Or you could just accept that there needs to be more routing slots
as the number of businesses on the net increases. I can see some
interesting anti-cartel law suits happening if ISP's refuse to
accept /28's from this block.
In the worst case, this wou
31 matches
Mail list logo
