* Julien Goodwin
> Juniper have recently (15.1, still not out for all platforms) rebased
> JunOS on a slightly less ancient FreeBSD release, and nothing I have in
> my lab has it released yet, and I can't be bothered to go spelunking in
> the install image for what version of NTP it's running.
ntpd - NTP daemon program - Ver. 4.2.6
Colins-iMac:~ colinj$ uname -a
Darwin Colins-iMac.home 15.0.0 Darwin Kernel Version 15.0.0: Sun Jun 28
00:25:56 PDT 2015; root:xnu-3247.1.36~7/RELEASE_X86_64 x86_64
(10.11 osx el capitan)
-bash-4.2$ uname -a
Linux oraclelinux 3.8.13-68.1.2.el7uek.x86_64 #2 S
On 07/11/2015 08:17 PM, Harlan Stenn wrote:
Thanks, and I'm kinda stunned that folks are running such ancient
versions of NTP.
https://support.ntp.org/bin/view/Dev/ReleaseTimeline
4.2.0 was EOL'd in June of 2006, and we've fixed about 3,000 issues in
the codebase since then.
I used to do a lo
Harlan Stenn writes:
> We will. But we're going to be asking them for support for network
> time. Folks like you are probably paying them for support. They'll
> listen more to people like you.
>
> This goes to *all* vendors who embed NTP in their products, we're not
> interested in in picking o
On 12/07/15 13:17, Harlan Stenn wrote:
Dovid,
Thanks, and I'm kinda stunned that folks are running such ancient
versions of NTP.
https://support.ntp.org/bin/view/Dev/ReleaseTimeline
4.2.0 was EOL'd in June of 2006, and we've fixed about 3,000 issues in
the codebase since then.
Juniper have r
We will. But we're going to be asking them for support for network
time. Folks like you are probably paying them for support. They'll
listen more to people like you.
This goes to *all* vendors who embed NTP in their products, we're not
interested in in picking on anybody here.
H
--
On 7/11/15
You would need to ask Juniper that
On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 11:17 PM, Harlan Stenn wrote:
> Dovid,
>
> Thanks, and I'm kinda stunned that folks are running such ancient
> versions of NTP.
>
> https://support.ntp.org/bin/view/Dev/ReleaseTimeline
>
> 4.2.0 was EOL'd in June of 2006, and we've
Dovid,
Thanks, and I'm kinda stunned that folks are running such ancient
versions of NTP.
https://support.ntp.org/bin/view/Dev/ReleaseTimeline
4.2.0 was EOL'd in June of 2006, and we've fixed about 3,000 issues in
the codebase since then.
H
On 7/11/15 7:58 PM, Dovid Bender wrote:
> Juniper MX5
Juniper MX5
r...@yyy.xx.net> show ntp status
status=06a4 leap_none, sync_ntp, 10 events, event_peer/strat_chg,
version="ntpd 4.2.0-a Thu Mar 13 08:29:55 UTC 2014 (1)",
processor="powerpc", system="JUNOS12.3R6.6", leap=00, stratum=3,
precision=-18, rootdelay=90.375, rootdispersion=20.620, peer=2
>
>
> >That said this really isn't your problem. It is their problem.
Marc,
Your response surprises me a bit. I wish more ISP would consider their
customer's use cases more thoroughly and aim to address them as best as
possible. Regional differences in expectations are reasonable and provide a
In message
, Baldur Norddahl writes:
> On 10 July 2015 at 13:30, John Curran wrote:
>
> > Baldur -
> >
> > I am not aware of the RIPE practices with respect to IPv6 end-user
> > assignments,
> > but in the ARIN region, ISPs/LIR's make assignments to end users base=
> d
> > on similar
>
Resending...
On 7/10/15 12:29 PM, Harlan Stenn wrote:
> I'm trying to build a list of the versions of NTP that are in active use
> on various active pieces of network gear.
>
> I know that Cisco, for example, uses NTP in around 10 different product
> lines, but I don't know what versions of NTP a
We took them down yesterday, and attempted to bring them back up midnight
PST, and still massive packet loss. so they remain down for now.
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 9:44 AM, Jürgen Jaritsch wrote:
> Hi,
>
> No SLA broken cause A- and B-End were not directly our circuits ... but it
> helps a lot to
On 7/10/15 7:54 AM, Jürgen Jaritsch wrote:
> Wow Level3 responded to me that they had an issue last night but
> they simply did nothing ... for at least 10 hours they did nothing to fix the
> issue:
It's more likely that there's a certain amount of nonsense and a lot of
loose ends in
On 10 July 2015 at 15:21, George, Wes wrote:
> On 7/10/15, 6:34 AM, "NANOG on behalf of Baldur Norddahl"
> wrote:
>
>
> >Perhaps the problem is that DHCPv6-PD is not intelligent enough. Yes there
> >is a provision such that the user CPE could give a hint of how much space
> >is want, but no, it
On 10 July 2015 at 13:30, John Curran wrote:
> Baldur -
>
> I am not aware of the RIPE practices with respect to IPv6 end-user
> assignments,
> but in the ARIN region, ISPs/LIR's make assignments to end users based
> on similar
> practices that the community adopted for ARIN’s end-use
On 11 Jul 2015, at 15:17, Ramy Hashish wrote:
I mean, during the X minutes (between detection and mitigation), the
scrubbing center will be sending both legitimate and illegitimate
traffic
to the customer
Your assumption that there is a delay between diversion and mitigation
is not a valid
This is not what you were asking about in your original post on this
topic - you were talking about BGP sessions inside GRE tunnels, which is
not how most (any?) DDoS mitigation services operate, to my knowledge.
GRE is used over the Internet for many different applications, including
post-DDoS-mi
18 matches
Mail list logo
