On 1/29/11 9:30 PM, Ryan Finnesey wrote:
All this out of band management talk is making me think it is an
opportunity for a supper low cost DSL offering. Maybe a good way to get
read of some capacity we have.
The key of course is that it not be coupled to the physical plant that
the other
On 1/27/11 7:33 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
On 1/27/2011 9:25 AM, Dan White wrote:
The DIR-825(Rev B) running firmware 2.05NA does. From the status screen:
IPv6 Connection Type : Autoconfiguration (SLAAC/DHCPv6)
Nice. New love for D-Link then. I've had DSL modem vendors sending me
On 1/27/11 10:01 AM, Jim Gettys wrote:
For god's sake, stay away from the DIR-825(Rev A), which has been
effectively abandoned by DLINK support and has no IPv6 support at all.
pretty sure you can't find those on the shelf...
The current model I bought on a lark for someone for christmas
unlike a simpler device you can actually turn that off.
in fact it has more knobs than you've likely seen in a consumer cpe...
joel
On 1/27/11 10:40 AM, Scott Weeks wrote:
--- frnk...@iname.com wrote:
From: Frank Bulk frnk...@iname.com
Have you looked at D-Link's DIR-825? It has most
On 1/27/11 10:49 PM, Roy wrote:
On 1/27/2011 9:36 PM, Craig Labovitz wrote:
And to add to this thread, an graph of Egyptian Internet traffic
across a large number of geographically / topologically diverse
providers yesterday (Jan 27):
On 1/11/11 11:15 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
On 1/11/2011 1:05 PM, George Bonser wrote:
Many of us are looking at things from today's
perspective. Maybe each room of my house will have its own subnet with
a low power access point and I can find which room something is in by
the IP address it
On 1/21/11 2:26 PM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
Michael Holstein michael.holst...@csuohio.edu writes:
I'd be curious to see what effects (if any) those who use
GPS-disciplined NTP references in Southeastern Georgia see from this
experiment.
Aren't CDMA BTS clocked off GPS?
NTP isn't
On 1/17/11 12:12 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
Are there any good Network Simulators/Trainers out there that support
IPv6? I want play around with some IPv6 setup.
what are you trying to simulate?
o control plane?
o traffic?
o interfaces and layers 1-3?
o ...
products which I've
On 1/15/11 1:24 PM, Leen Besselink wrote:
I'm a full supported for getting rid of NAT when deploying IPv6, but
have to say the alternative is not all that great either.
Because what do people want, they want privacy, so they use the
IPv6 privacy extensions. Which are enabled by default on
if you have multiple sites you should request a direct assignmnet later
than /48. previous $employer recieved a /44 direct assignment on the
basis of north american footprint.
On 1/13/11 4:49 AM, Richard Barnes wrote:
Hi all,
What IPv6 prefix lengths are people accepting in BGP from
On 1/13/11 11:30 PM, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
JC Dill wrote:
Scruz is ~30-45 minutes from the heart of the internet on the west
coast (Silicon Valley). If your $dayjob isn't in scruz, then it's
most likely IN Silicon Valley. So locate your 1U server in Silicon
Valley, where
Yes it's in
Message-
From: Matthew Kaufman [mailto:matt...@matthew.at]
Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2011 8:57 PM
To: Joel Jaeggli
Cc: Nanog Operators' Group
Subject: Re: Problems with removing NAT from a network
On 1/6/2011 6:34 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
On 1/6/11 5:48 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Doesn't
On 1/6/11 12:24 AM, Jeff Wheeler wrote:
On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 2:42 AM, Joel Jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote:
icmp6 rate limiting both reciept and origination is not rocket science.
The attack that's being described wasn't exactly dreamed up last week,
is as observed not unique to ipv6, and can
On 1/6/11 5:48 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Doesn't all of this become moot if Skype just develops a dual-stack capable
client
and servers?
Really, only some fraction of the supernodes and the login servers need
to be dual stack.
Owen
On Jan 6, 2011, at 1:32 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
On
On 1/5/11 8:49 AM, Jeff Wheeler wrote:
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 9:39 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum iljit...@muada.com
wrote:
that a lot of smart people agree is a serious design flaw in any IPv6
network where /64 LANs are used
It's not a design flaw, it's an implementation flaw. The same one
On 1/5/11 11:03 PM, Matthew Petach wrote:
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 10:51 PM, Joe Greco jgr...@ns.sol.net wrote:
Hi Joe,
I think what people are trying to say is that it doesn't matter whether
or not your host is easily findable or not, if I can trivially take out your
upstream router. With
On 1/5/11 10:36 PM, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
On Jan 6, 2011, at 1:26 PM, Joe Greco wrote:
A bunch of very smart people have worked on IPv6 for a very long
time, and justification for /64's was hashed out at extended
length over the period of years.
Very smart people can and do come up
On 12/28/10 10:35 AM, Richard Barnes wrote:
FWIW, the same does not appear to be true of the Verizon 3G network. (Not
that anyone expected it to be.) My VZW device has a NATted v4 address and
only link-local v6.
lack of a chipset support is a notable problem there
joel
On Dec 28, 2010
On 12/28/10 8:48 PM, Anonymous List User wrote:
For architectural and building management reasons we cannot mount our
antennas in a rooftop or outdoor location at either end. The distance
between two buildings is 1.5 km, and the fresnel zone is clear. Antennas
need to be located indoors at
On 12/26/10 10:04 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Dec 26, 2010, at 7:35 PM, Frank Bulk - iName.com wrote:
[Frank Bulk]
Some MSOs (including ourselves) have power systems (e.g. Alpha) in place
throughout the plant to provide backup power for at least some time.
Does that back up the cablemodem
On 12/23/10 9:19 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
And that's just another argument in favor of muni fiber -- since it's
municipal,
it will by definition serve every address, and since it's monopoly, it will
enable competition by making it practical for competitors to start up, since
they'll have
On 12/23/10 6:02 PM, Scott Taylor wrote:
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 20:37, Seth Mattinen se...@rollernet.us wrote:
On 12/21/10 2:18 PM, Frank Bulk wrote:
There are 4,035 routes in the global IPv6 routing table. This is what one
provider passed on to me for routes (/48 or larger prefixes),
On 12/13/10 8:32 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
On 12/13/2010 10:20 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
WOL is unfortunately terribly deficient in that the spec. never
envisioned the possibility
of a need for wake on WAN.
Bottom line, it's a non-routeable layer 2 protocol. Your choices boil
down to the
helper
On 12/9/10 7:20 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Thu, 9 Dec 2010, Vasil Kolev wrote:
I wonder why this hasn't made the rounds here. From what I see, a
change in this part (e.g. lower buffers in customer routers, or a
change (yet another) to the congestion control algorithms) would do
On 12/9/10 8:11 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
By the way, I was amused that a Twitter spokesman boasted that
The company is not overly concerned about hackers’ attacking
Twitter’s site, he said, explaining that it faces security issues all
the time and has technology to deal with the
Satisfies all of my criticism with the previously proposed membership
structure.
joel
On 12/16/10 5:31 PM, Steve Feldman wrote:
In order to jump-start the process of defining a membership structure
for NewNOG, I wrote an alternative proposal. My goals were to keep it
as simple and short
On 12/15/10 2:37 PM, Randy Epstein wrote:
Jon,
If ratios are really a concern and you really need to maximize your port
capacity, there are ways to balance this; balance your customer base. Start
hosting content. Now, this might not help on private peering interconnects,
but if you peer
On 12/8/10 6:30 AM, Drew Weaver wrote:
Yes, but this obviously completes the 'DDoS attack' and sends the signal that
the bully will win.
it's part of a valid mitigation strategy. shifting the target out from
underneath the blackholed address is also part of the activity. that's
easier in some
On 12/6/10 6:55 AM, Jared Mauch wrote:
On Dec 6, 2010, at 8:35 AM, Jeff Johnstone wrote:
Speaking of IPV6 security, is there any movement towards any open
source IPV6 firewall solutions for the consumer / small business?
Almost all the info I've managed to find to date indicates no
On 12/10/10 9:06 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Fri, 10 Dec 2010 11:08:00 EST, Lamar Owen said:
I believe the word you wanted was hooliganism. And we have a legal system
that has about 3,000 years of experience in dealing with *that*, thank you
very
much.
The code of hamurabi or
On 12/6/10 5:35 AM, Jeff Johnstone wrote:
Speaking of IPV6 security, is there any movement towards any open source
IPV6 firewall solutions for the consumer / small business?
Almost all the info I've managed to find to date indicates no support, nor
any planned support in upcoming releases.
On 12/7/10 5:18 AM, david raistrick wrote:
On Mon, 6 Dec 2010, Owen DeLong wrote:
Seriously, though, you're welcome to use fd00::/8 for exactly that
purpose. The problem is that you (and hopefully it stays this way)
won't have much luck finding a vendor that will provide the NAT for
you to
Got an address we can ping?
On 12/3/10 2:09 PM, Dustin Swinford wrote:
We have run into an issue with the 107.7.0.0/16 assigned to us several
months ago. It appears that many sites have not yet accepted this space. I
understand this is not a normal type post to NANOG, but hoped to get the
On Dec 3, 2010, at 16:58, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Fri, 03 Dec 2010 13:21:07 PST, Matthew Petach said:
People are still feeding their gear with AC? Save on PS inefficiency,
and feed direct 12/5vDC to the servers. Save space, save power,
save cooling.
What does that do to
On Dec 3, 2010, at 19:25, Matthew Petach mpet...@netflight.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 7:18 PM, Joel Jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote:
On Dec 3, 2010, at 16:58, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Fri, 03 Dec 2010 13:21:07 PST, Matthew Petach said:
People are still feeding their gear
Your battery stack isn't like 12v either, unless it's one battery.
Joel's widget number 2
On Dec 3, 2010, at 20:02, Jima na...@jima.tk wrote:
On 12/3/2010 9:25 PM, Matthew Petach wrote:
(OK, so it's not as practical when you have other customers to worry
about... but it might not be so crazy
On 12/2/10 4:56 PM, Matthew Petach wrote:
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 1:02 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
...
As to the emergency broadcast system, yeah, that's going to lose.
Didn't we already replace that with twitter?
quake/tsunami warnings flow via email rather quickly.
Matt
Since 11/18/10 this discussion has generated something like 66 messages
across five threads on this list, on nanog and elsewhere.
While some suggestions are entertaining, I would think of this criticism
and commentary on the document as useful if it winnowed the number of
options down to fewer
10/100 switches and NICs pretty much universally do not support jumbos.
Joel's widget number 2
On Nov 26, 2010, at 8:02, Brandon Kim brandon@brandontek.com wrote:
Where would the world be if we weren't stuck at 1500 MTU? I've always kinda
thought, what if that was larger
from the
On 11/22/10 10:34 AM, Deric Kwok wrote:
Hi
I read switch that supports PIM / ESRP / VRRP
I assume you don't mean extreme standby routing protocol, if you do then
you have your answer, you future is purple.
What are they?
Most decent layer3 switch platforms will support PIM/VRRP.
Thank
On 11/21/10 7:54 AM, William Herrin wrote:
We've gone too far down the wrong path to change it now; colons are
going to separate every second byte in the v6 address. But from a
human factors perspective, floating colons would have been better.
From a computer parser perspective, a character
On 11/21/10 2:50 PM, William Herrin wrote:
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 11:40 AM, Joel Jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote:
There is a lot of assumption on the part of ipv6 that the use of ipv6
literals in uri's would be a rather infrequent occurrence, given how
infrequent it is in ipv4 it would seem
On 11/19/10 10:56 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
It is always two bytes. A byte is not always an octet. Some machines do
It is always two OCTETS. A byte is not always an octet...
Assuming you have a v6 stack on your cdc6600 a v6 address fits in 22
bytes not 16.
have byte sizes other than 8 bits,
On 11/19/10 12:45 PM, William Herrin wrote:
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 9:07 PM, Richard Hartmann
richih.mailingl...@gmail.com wrote:
as most of you are aware, there is no definite, canonical name for the
two bytes of IPv6 addresses between colons. This forces people to use
a description like I
On 11/18/10 3:00 PM, Nick Olsen wrote:
That's what I'm hearing. Cogent refuses to peer with HE via IPv6.
So cogent IPv6 Customers currently can not hit things at HE. And they can't
do anything about it. Besides 6to4 tunneling and BGP peering with HE (or
native, If they can).
Wait, a
On 11/12/10 11:30 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 10:10:30AM -0500, Jason Lewis wrote:
Everytime I'm in the market for a device like you describe, it comes
down to the limitations of consumer devices. You can't get all those
things in a low cost solution. I end up rolling my
On 11/1/10 9:42 PM, Nathan Eisenberg wrote:
My guess is that the millions of residential users will be less and
less enthused with (pure) PA each time they change service providers...
Hi, almost everytime I open my laptop it gets a different ip address,
sometimes I'm home and it gets that same
On Oct 31, 2010, at 19:25, bas kilo...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Paul,
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 2:07 AM, Paul WALL pauldotw...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't know what the big deal is. I've rolled at least 20 of these
switches into my network, and not only are they more stable than the
Centillion
And doing so, (strongly encouraging them) has nothing to do with a membership
class called student. In fact it doesn't have anything to do with membership,
it has to do with exposure, attendance and validation. Any number of us who
became involved with NANOG, as students did so because we had
On 10/24/10 10:20 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 10:44 AM, Peter Lothberg r...@stupi.se wrote:
1) How necessary do you believe in local NTP servers? Do you really need th=
e logs to be perfectly accurate?
2) If you do have a local NTP server=2C is it only for local
On 10/24/10 10:25 AM, John Kristoff wrote:
The perfect accuracy of log files might be hard to justify and
quantify.
more to the point what's the minimum resolution of a counter in a log
file, if it's 1s or 1ms it's a bit different than if it's 1us.
On 10/21/10 2:59 PM, Brandon Galbraith wrote:
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 4:53 PM, Dan White dwh...@olp.net wrote:
On 21/10/10 14:43 -0700, Leo Bicknell wrote:
In a message written on Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 01:53:49PM -0700, Christopher
McCrory wrote:
open to the world. After a few google
On 10/21/10 6:02 AM, William Herrin wrote:
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 8:14 AM, Ray Soucy r...@maine.edu wrote:
That's assuming ULA would be the primary addressing scheme used. If
that became the norm, I agree, the extra uniqueness would be
desirable, perhaps to the point that you should be
On 10/21/10 6:38 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Oct 21, 2010, at 3:42 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
On 10/21/2010 5:27 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
Announce your gua and then blackhole it and monitor your prefix.
you can tell if you're leaking. it's generally pretty hard to
tell if you're leaking rfc
On 10/20/10 12:51 PM, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
Jeroen Massar wrote:
(And the spammers will take the rest...)
I am afraid so too.
(PS: There seems to be a trend for people calling themselvesIPv6
Pioneers as they recently did something with IPv6, if you didn't play
in the 6bone/early-RIR
On 10/20/10 9:44 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010, Graham Beneke wrote:
I've seen this too. Once again small providers who pretty quickly get
caught out by collisions.
The difference is that ULA could take years or even decades to catch
someone out with a collision. By then
On 10/19/10 9:24 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 22:24:02 +0200
Jens Link li...@quux.de wrote:
valdis.kletni...@vt.edu writes:
You are going to kill about 90% of all net-/sysadmins?
Do you *really* want somebody working on your network that gets confused by
a
reference to
On 10/17/10 8:24 PM, Joe Hamelin wrote:
That's why 3M registered mmm.com back in 1988.
and not just because minnestoaminingandmanufacturing.com is hard to type...
they've since officially change the name of the company to 3m...
--
Joe Hamelin, W7COM, Tulalip, WA, 360-474-7474
On Sun,
On 10/18/10 5:16 AM, ML wrote:
And +1 on the pioneers comment too.
Paul.
IPv6 Hipsters..Doing it before it was cool.
Late to the party...
The hipsters have already moved on having grown bored with their v6
deployments around 2004.
On 10/18/10 8:35 AM, Henning Brauer wrote:
* Owen DeLong o...@delong.com [2010-10-18 17:27]:
Have you done IPv6?
I have... It's not even difficult(), let alone really().Really().Difficult().
maybe not from a users standpoint (that comes later when it misbehaves
again). from an implementors
!
From: rdobb...@arbor.net
To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2010 16:09:43 +
Subject: Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption
On Oct 16, 2010, at 10:56 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
Then move on to the Internet which as with most things is where the
most cuurent if not helpful information
On 10/18/10 10:10 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
On 10/18/2010 11:45 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
More accurately... A /48 per customer end-site...
Define end0-site. Residential customers, for example, don't need more
than a /56.
This is a matter of opinion not gospel. larger, this size, or smaller
On 10/18/10 12:42 PM, Randy Carpenter wrote:
I have a few customers whose allocations are /29 away from their
nearest neighbor (half a nibble). That seems a little close
considering there is a lot of talk about doing nibble boundaries, and
there doesn't seem to be consensus yet.
For these
On 10/18/10 1:38 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
I'm an IPv6 pioneer, because I did it the year, you could really go
IPv6 only. That was when ICANN put IPv6 glue in the root zone, which
fell a few days before the IETF did an IPv4 blackout.
I thank Russ to come up with this IPv4 blackout, because it
Joel's widget number 2
On Oct 16, 2010, at 8:36, Brandon Kim brandon@brandontek.com wrote:
Since we are on the topic of IPv6. I'd like to know if anyone has
books/articles they recommend on fully
understanding IPv6 adoption in the work place. I will need to contact ARIN
shortly to
An incoming connection chews up an file descripter but does not require
an ephemeral port.
You can trivially have more that 65k incoming connections on a linux
box, but you've only got 64511 ports per ip on the box, to use for
outgoing connections.
I've seen boxes supporting more than a million
On 10/9/10 5:08 PM, Ryan Finnesey wrote:
I have been working on a similar project and I am finding it very hard
to get the mobile operators to understand why we want as little latency
as possible and they are not very open to people peering with their
wireless backbone.
Possibly because the
h...@routeviews.org is known to work.
joel
On 10/9/10 9:16 PM, Mehmet Akcin wrote:
hello,
anyone from university of oregon or routeviews project ( routeviews.org )
here ? please contact me off-list please.
thanks
mehmet
On 10/10/10 12:38 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 10:42 AM, Joel Jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote:
On 10/9/10 5:08 PM, Ryan Finnesey wrote:
LTE provides an opportunity to move the bottleneck.
LTE provides some latency benefits on the wireless interface, but the
actual packet
On 10/5/10 10:01 AM, Deric Kwok wrote:
Hi
Anyone can share the Network card experience
ls onborad PCI Expresscard better or Plug in slot PCI Express card good?
both are likely to be pci-e x1 interfaces if it's a single or dual port
chipset.
How are their performance in Gig transfer rate?
On 10/4/10 12:13 PM, Steve Feldman wrote:
On Oct 4, 2010, at 11:54 AM, Ren Provo wrote:
Hi Steve,
I appreciate your input here. It was clearly stated yesterday that
several folks do not want a fellows membership class but I do not
recall the reasoning other than Joel's comment that fee
I've stated it before I think, I have no problem with student's being
member's or having a discounted rate.
New blood in the community should be encouraged and celebrated, and if
they wish to participate in the the governance, so much the better. They
should however simply be members regardless
The longest part of our 2009 prefix assignment was getting our accounts payable
system to handle the additional supplier.
If you have all of you documentation in order you can easily run through the
process in two weeks.
Joel's widget number 2
On Oct 2, 2010, at 3:19, Bret Clark
On 10/1/10 9:46 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
i started to read the bylaws draft, hit the 42 flavors of membership,
and decided to drop this note and do something more useful with my time.
it left out gold and platinum members, 100 meeting members, extra
legroom members, and dismembers. why the
On 10/1/10 10:19 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
you forgot honorary troll, distinguished troll and fellow troll.
my only excuse is tough night in the rack. and zita-san says redheads
should get a class by themselves (sorry, ren).
my comment from 9/22 that at most there should be two membership
If one has a cisco 7200, then you have a software based border router.
Considerations, for a given router platform are capacity, susceptability to
dos, features required etc. Depending on the capacity required a software
device could do fine. If it's in front of hosting environment you want to
On Sep 26, 2010, at 8:26, Chris Adams cmad...@hiwaay.net wrote:
Once upon a time, Joel Jaeggli joe...@bogus.com said:
On Sep 25, 2010, at 9:05, Seth Mattinen se...@rollernet.us wrote:
From the datacenter operator prospective, it would be nice if some of
these vendors would acknowledge
Joel's widget number 2
On Sep 26, 2010, at 10:47, Chris Adams cmad...@hiwaay.net wrote:
Once upon a time, Joel Jaeggli joe...@bogus.com said:
On Sep 26, 2010, at 8:26, Chris Adams cmad...@hiwaay.net wrote:
There are servers and storage arrays that have a front that is nothing
but hot-swap
I didn't get the chance to cruise through this as quickly as I wanted
but I'll weigh in on at least part of it...
Despite my status as a sapphire-button mandarin in the current nanog
cabal I am not in general in favor of membership tiers or
classifications. If membership is required and I'm ok
On 9/21/10 2:10 PM, Michael Painter wrote:
David DiGiacomo wrote:
Instead of a rifle, how about a shotgun? It fires a nice wide spread
shot pattern. I think you would be much more likely to do
some damage (ie: knock fiber off a pole) with something like that.
Here in New Jersey it is illegal
On 9/20/10 11:38 AM, Nathan Eisenberg wrote:
Devil's Advocate here,
What would you say to ISP A that provided similar speeds as ISP B,
but B took payments from content providers and then provided the
service for free?
Gives you the choice, ISP A, which costs, and ISP B, which is free,
Inline...
On Sep 4, 2010, at 15:24, William Allen Simpson
william.allen.simp...@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/3/10 7:43 AM, Matthias Flittner wrote:
Since recently we noticed Neighbour table overflow warnings from
the kernel on a lot of Linux machines. As this was very annoying for
us and our
On 9/4/10 9:31 AM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
On 9/4/10 6:35 AM, Ryan Shea wrote:
Anyone with a contact at Doster with the ability to make things happen?
Apparently they do not support v6 glue records and they have been
unresponsive to my ticket. This seems a kooky reason to change registrars.
The
On 9/3/10 11:25 AM, Bill Bogstad wrote:
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 9:49 AM, Dobbins, Roland rdobb...@arbor.net wrote:
On Sep 3, 2010, at 7:58 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
However, scanning in IPv6 is not at all like the convenience of
comprehensive scanning of the IPv4 address space.
Concur, but I
On 8/29/10 6:25 AM, John Jason Brzozowski wrote:
Franck,
As you know 6to4 is enabled by default in many cases and is used perhaps
more than folks realize. Because of this and other observations we decided
to deploy our own relays.
Right prior to this the nearest 6to4 relay router from the
On 8/29/10 9:31 AM, Bjørn Mork wrote:
Richard A Steenbergen r...@e-gerbil.net writes:
Just out of curiosity, at what point will we as operators rise up
against the ivory tower protocol designers at the IETF and demand that
they add a mechanism to not bring down the entire BGP session
On 8/27/10 1:07 PM, Mike Gatti wrote:
where's the change management process in all of this.
basically now we are going to starting changing things that can
potentially have an adverse affect on users without letting anyone know
before hand Interesting concept.
BGP is transitive, change
On 8/23/10 2:31 AM, Leigh Porter wrote:
I very often see 1918 space in ICMP responses. It's quite dumb.
you wouldn't if you filtered rfc 1918 source addresses on your border.
-Original Message-
From: valdis.kletni...@vt.edu [mailto:valdis.kletni...@vt.edu]
Sent: 16 August 2010 14:27
On 8/23/10 2:59 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 22:23:19 -1000, Michael Painter said:
Researchers in South Korea have built a networking router that
transmits data at record speeds from components found in most
high-end desktop computers
On 8/23/10 12:25 PM, Andrew Kirch wrote:
On 8/23/2010 1:17 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
What it really comes down to is packets per watt or packets per dollar,
if it's cheaper to do it this way then people will, if not BFD.
I disagree here. Core routing isn't purchased based on cost, it's
On 8/21/10 11:52 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
I can remember early network printers using bootp and the assuming that
they could use that one ip address forever. today the printer will dhcp
and advertise it's availability in the same broadcast domain and may
well reregister it's name in dynamic dns
On 8/18/10 4:20 PM, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 11:16 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
In IPv4-land I have the possibility to
reconnect and get a new unrelated ip-address every time.
They're issued by the same ISP, to they're related.
Ups. Unrelated in the sense of random ip
On 8/19/10 10:58 AM, Joakim Aronius wrote:
* Joel Jaeggli (joe...@bogus.com) wrote:
manual configuration of ip address name mappings seems like a
rather low priority for the average home user...
I don't expect that will be a big activity in the future either,
more devices means less
On 8/19/10 5:30 AM, Joakim Aronius wrote:
* Hannes Frederic Sowa (han...@mailcolloid.de) wrote:
But most people just don't care. My proposal is to have some kind of
sane defaults for them e.g. changing their prefix every week or in the
case of a reconnect. This would mitigate some of the many
On Aug 14, 2010, at 8:05, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
On Aug 13, 2010, at 8:01 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
The lack of end-site multihoming (more specifically the lack of PI for
end-sites) was created by the IETF and resolved by the RIRs.
The beginning of resolving this was ARIN proposal
On Aug 14, 2010, at 10:27, Jimi Thompson jimi.thomp...@gmail.com wrote:
It was 40 acres and a mule - FYI
No 40 acres was 1/4 of 1/4 of a section. That's 's Sherman's field order (1865)
not the homestead act (which was 160). Or the circa 1790 activity referred to
in this thread.
Joel's
On 8/11/10 2:03 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
On 11 Aug 10, at 2:53 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
I think the question is more like why am I being quoted $100 A
megabit in India for transit in India? Not why am I being charged
for for the transport cost across the pacific.
Obviously I can't
On 7/16/10 6:02 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 20:57:15 PDT, Henry Linneweh said:
Can we get a consensus definition on these definition's and what hardware
vender's make edge routers and what hardware vender's make core routers.
I got a router, it's got 5-6 10GE
On 7/16/10 11:07 AM, Tony Finch wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010, Chris Adams wrote:
A simple XSLT will transform it into any needed format.
XSLT can't turn root-anchors.xml into the DNSKEY RR that BIND requires.
Tony.
anchors2keys will.
Yeah oops.
Just noticed that
Joel's iPad
On Jul 16, 2010, at 5:34 PM, Jeffrey Ollie j...@ocjtech.us wrote:
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 1:12 PM, Joel Jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote:
On 7/16/10 11:07 AM, Tony Finch wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010, Chris Adams wrote:
A simple XSLT will transform
601 - 700 of 925 matches
Mail list logo
