-Original Message-
From: Kenny Kant [mailto:akennyk...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2013 12:35 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Upstream / Handoff UPS?
We have tons of circuits with various providers. Often times the
demarc / handoff switch from the provider is not running on
-Original Message-
From: Nathanael C. Cariaga [mailto:nccari...@stluke.com.ph]
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2013 8:50 AM
To: NANOG Mailing List
Subject: minimum IPv6 announcement size
Hi,
Just wondering if anyone could shed light on my concern.
I've been Google-ing about if there
-Original Message-
From: Shah, Parthiv [mailto:parthiv.s...@theclearinghouse.org]
Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2013 9:00 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: BGP related question
1) I would like to understand how can we detect and potentially
prevent activities like this? I understand
-Original Message-
From: Ryan Pavely [mailto:para...@nac.net]
Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 8:33 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: ARIN WHOIS for leads
Even the anti-spam army out there seem to ignore 'This is the abuse
contact', and end up spamming all whois org contacts. What's the
-Original Message-
From: Patrick W. Gilmore [mailto:patr...@ianai.net]
Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 9:47 AM
To: NANOG list
Subject: Re: ARIN WHOIS for leads
On Jul 25, 2013, at 19:29 , Otis L. Surratt, Jr. o...@ocosa.com
wrote:
From: Warren Bailey [mailto:wbai
-Original Message-
From: Rich Kulawiec [mailto:r...@gsp.org]
Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 2:23 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: ARIN WHOIS for leads
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 10:42:18AM -0700, goe...@anime.net wrote:
Because your mail servers are broken. Because you put spamfilters on
-Original Message-
From: Warren Bailey [mailto:wbai...@satelliteintelligencegroup.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 6:20 PM
To: Justin Vocke; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: ARIN WHOIS for leads
Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of maintaining the whois?
Yep!
We registered a few domains
-Original Message-
From: Patrick W. Gilmore [mailto:patr...@ianai.net]
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 1:37 AM
To: NANOG list
Subject: Re: Multihop eBGP peering or VPN based eBGP peering
On Jun 17, 2013, at 00:36 , Otis L. Surratt, Jr. o...@ocosa.com
wrote:
First, inside your own network
-Original Message-
From: Michael McConnell [mailto:mich...@winkstreaming.com]
Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2013 7:40 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Multihop eBGP peering or VPN based eBGP peering
Any idea why more companies don't offer eBGP peering / multi hop
peering? Its very common for
-Original Message-
From: Warren Bailey [mailto:wbai...@satelliteintelligencegroup.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2013 2:24 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Data Center Installations
Do any of you have a go to resource for materials used in
installations? Tie wraps, cable management,
-Original Message-
From: Blake Pfankuch - Mailing List
[mailto:blake.mailingl...@pfankuch.me]
Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2013 6:18 PM
To: Otis L. Surratt, Jr.; Warren Bailey; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: Data Center Installations
Along this same line of questioning... favorite Velcro? I
We had issues and similar behavior from SORBS.net and TrendMicro ERS but
have never dealt with Spam Rats. It was our second direct allocation
from ARIN last year that was apart of a larger block that got split up.
Our block was listed in their DUL. It was a pain to remove. They wanted
our PTR
Why does the youtube video link lead back to their Fiber Internet/TV
offering?
Maybe I'm lost but the video is about a Google Fiber Bar right?
Otis
-Original Message-
From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:ops.li...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 5:31 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Yep. But you know I wouldn't be surprised if Google entered that market.
That's why I was asking. You never know these days.
From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:ops.li...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 5:36 PM
To: Otis L. Surratt, Jr.
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Google
You can reach out to any VoIP/telecom Provider that has a white label program
or reseller.
Some states require you have a license if you are selling voice services period.
Here is a link for you concerning NY:
http://www.dps.ny.gov/
Read through that site or give them a call to determine if you
We generally perform all the management needed for our customer's circuits. If
the customer is wanting to remotely manage their own router and etc then you
should adjust your iACL to grant the customer access only on the IP on their
router interface not the whole /30 or etc. Or if you've routed
Have you searched the c-nsp list? You might have better luck there IMO.
http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp (if not a member)
https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ (archives)
I would look there first.
There seems to be some discussion also on http://supportforums.cisco.com
Maybe the OP for really nasty attacks in hindsight wishes NANOGers was used
instead to address the list. :)
Having all walks of life essentially all around, it really makes one careful
to truly think before speaking. Sometimes we miss this with everything we have
going on, but no one is
You will always have someone who doesn't understand. But every network operator
should have a sense of responsibility to learn IPv6 and implement dual
stacking. To be honest, in 2004/2005 I decided not to dive into IPv6 heavily
but everyone has a wake up call. All we can do is keep stressing
.
If you are counting on an IPv4 free pool to run your business next year, you
are making a bad bet.
Owen
On Aug 22, 2012, at 22:54 , Otis L. Surratt, Jr. o...@ocosa.com wrote:
My apologies again, I saw it as 127.0.0.0. and not 172.0.0.0.
I've been working long hours last couple nights
Dan,
Can you provide a link to support this?
If this is true, I wonder how this will work.
Otis
-Original Message-
From: Dan White [mailto:dwh...@olp.net]
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 12:24 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: 172.0.0.0/12 has been Allocated
172.0.0.0-172.15.255.255 was
I've been working too long.in my mind I was seeing 127.0.0.0 which I
was like wow a violation.
-Original Message-
From: Willy Wong [mailto:willy...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 12:32 AM
To: Otis L. Surratt, Jr.
Cc: Dan White; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: 172.0.0.0/12
. Heck, I would simple push more
IPv6 if I were them.
-Original Message-
From: Dan White [mailto:dwh...@olp.net]
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 12:37 AM
To: Otis L. Surratt, Jr.
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: 172.0.0.0/12 has been Allocated
You can do a whois search at arin.net
+1 for agreeing needs to be restrung.
This made me laugh! Nice humor for the day.
But you know someone should call the utility company that owns the pole
and report it. Also file a complaint with your ROW division and
corporation commission.
-Original Message-
From: Joel Esler
I'm baffled. This is horrible! What about standards?
-Original Message-
From: Patrick W. Gilmore [mailto:patr...@ianai.net]
Sent: Monday, August 20, 2012 3:12 PM
To: NANOG list
Subject: Comcast vs. Verizon for repair methodologies
Given the recent VZ thread, I thought I'd show why my
I have no experience with Spectrum.
As an alternative you could look at UBNT. They have some nice radios you
could explore with speed. The AirMax and AirFiber product lines you
might want to explore. I only run standard data over the radios no voice
or video yet. I have only deployed in a PTP
Anyone charging end users for IPv6 space yet? :p
Just wondering, with so many IPv6 resources in a single allocation it
would seem difficult to charge anything at all.
1. How are you making up loss of revenue on IPv4 assignments?
2. Are you charging anything?
3. Is the cost built into the
didn't charge for
IPv4 then you have nothing to to lose.
Otis
From: Cutler James R [mailto:james.cut...@consultant.com]
Sent: Fri 8/3/2012 3:48 PM
To: Otis L. Surratt, Jr.
Cc: NANOG list
Subject: Re: IPv6 End User Fee
On Aug 3, 2012, at 3:22 PM, Otis L. Surratt
and move on. It's not a big concern for us. I was just curious as to
the large providers that make extra money off those wanting more IPv4 addresses.
-Original Message-
From: Cutler James R [mailto:james.cut...@consultant.com]
Sent: Fri 8/3/2012 10:04 PM
To: Otis L. Surratt, Jr.
Cc: NANOG list
29 matches
Mail list logo
