On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 12:18:24 -0400, Greg Whynott greg.whyn...@oicr.on.ca
wrote:
I like cisco, but i think the HP way is more logical and less prone to
error. A previous poster gave an excelent example, i burnt myself not
adding the add to a trunk config on our cisco switches. i went
On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 19:24:38 -0400, Darren Bolding dar...@bolding.org
wrote:
Tap manufactures will be sure to tell you of many issues.
Well, there are issues on both sides...
A true tap is an electronic mirror. It doesn't much care what the signal
is; whatever it senses, it replicates.
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 13:59:41 -0400, Steven Bellovin s...@cs.columbia.edu
wrote:
Do the complaints you receive include port numbers?
I've never seen one that did. I've not even seen one with an exact
timestamp.
You would require the src and dst ip *and* port, plus the near exact
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 17:43:39 -0400, Lee Howard l...@asgard.org wrote:
RIAA should be IPv6 activists.
Right. That's not going to bite them on the ass either... privacy
addresses only stick around for ~72hrs. A demand for an address from 3
months back would be impossible to answer. (that
On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 04:48:13 -0400, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
... Very Interesting Times for ISPs that deploy LSN and are subject to
CALEA.
CALEA is not a time machine. When an order is received, the collection
agency starts receiving traffic; nothing (or at most, very little) is
On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 16:36:08 -0400, Christopher Morrow
morrowc.li...@gmail.com wrote:
say, i wonder how many actual calea requests have been sent out
anyway?? (I know one very large network has yet to get a single one,
or so the grape vine tells me.)
I see this asked a lot...
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 17:09:55 -0400, Deepak Jain dee...@ai.net wrote:
I think it's safe to say CALEA is a non-issue for this crowd.
That's true for now. But with an increasingly data hungry world, and VoIP
popularity, ISPs aren't going to escape CALEA forever. There are reasons
IOS has
On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 21:21:56 -0400, Jim Richardson
weaselkee...@gmail.com wrote:
That's already a problem for getting alert pages. Any actual *pager*
companies left? They all seem to have gone to SMS systems.
SkyTel is the only one I remember. Sadly, their coverage is about that of
Cricket
On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 02:38:12 -0400, khatfi...@socllc.net wrote:
I worked with a company that threw away / recycled nearly an entire 100k
sq. foot datacenter. All of the gear still in working order. It's just
one those things...
There are constraints beyond the logic of common sense. And it
On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 13:20:58 -0400, Christopher Morrow
christopher.mor...@gmail.com wrote:
Polling a little bit here, there's an active discussion going on
6...@ietf about whether or not v6 routers should:
o be required to implement ip redirect functions (icmpv6 redirect)
o be sending these
On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 20:08:34 -0400, Brandon Ross br...@pobox.com wrote:
Okay, I'll ask again. Exactly how does disabling ICMP redirects on my
router prevent traffic from being intercepted?
It stops *one vector* of MITM attack. If a router honors redirects (and
it never should), an evil
On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 20:43:39 -0400, Mark Smith
na...@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org wrote:
You're assuming the cost of always hair pinning traffic on an interface
is cheaper than issuing a redirect.
I am saying no such thing. (a single redirect packet is always more
On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 20:42:01 -0400, Mark Smith
na...@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org wrote:
In IPv6, redirects serve two purposes, where as in IPv4 they only
served one -
IPv4 redirects serve exactly the same two situations... both are
situations where a router would be
On Fri, 03 Sep 2010 08:12:01 -0400, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
Really? So, since so many ISPs are blocking port 25, there's lots less
spam hitting our networks?
Less than there could be. It appears a lot less effective because there
are so many ISPs not doing any blocking. Both
On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 16:20:48 -0400, Jesse Loggins jlogginsc...@gmail.com
wrote:
It seems that many Network Engineers consider RIP an old antiquated
protocol that should be thrown in back of a closet never to be seen or
heard from again.
That is the correct way to think about RIP. (RIPv1
On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 17:20:52 -0400, Ryan Shea ryans...@google.com wrote:
ATT may have their own term.
The industry standard term is UNE (unbundled network element.) However,
the sales drones may not recognize that either.
--Ricky
On Fri, 01 Oct 2010 06:45:10 -0400, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
It's not so much a matter of whether ARIN cares or whether ARIN wants
to do something about your issue. It's more a matter of whether ARIN
is empowered to do anything at all about your issue.
EXACTLY.
Ron, what exactly do
On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 08:30:48 -0400, Henning Brauer hb-na...@bsws.de
wrote:
Currently, the Pica8 driver is released in binary form
none of the interesting low-level drivers is open. none. zero.
If it's based on a Broadcom chip, trust me, they are doing the world a
favor by not exposing you
On Thu, 02 Dec 2010 13:39:16 -0500, Kevin Day toa...@dragondata.com
wrote:
You can get breakers with GFIs built into them(called GFCIs), but
they're favored less than putting them at the outlet. ...
I think they are now a violation of the NEC. And they were delisted by UL
years ago. They
On Thu, 02 Dec 2010 17:26:51 -0500, Nathan Stratton nat...@robotics.net
wrote:
They are
Bought some at Grainger the other day.
Just because someone is selling them doesn't mean they meet building
codes. (esp. for residential use.) None of the dozen or so licensed
electricians I've
On Tue, 14 Dec 2010 11:24:45 -0500, Craig L Uebringer
cluebrin...@gmail.com wrote:
Same crap I've seen on loads of provider networks.
No ISP I've ever worked for or with has ever willingly ran their transit
(or peering) links at capacity.
(Granted, I've been responsible for saturating
On Wed, 15 Dec 2010 15:51:05 -0500, Mikel Waxler doo...@gmail.com wrote:
Bandwidth is not allocated in static blocks on a
first come first serve basis. It is shared across all users. ...
a single new connection would not noticeably effect others.
I love how people demonstrate how they've
On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 19:13:16 -0500, Jeffrey Lyon
jeffrey.l...@blacklotus.net wrote:
I'm getting 72.215.225.9 for that host.
[root:pts/0{4}]debian1:~/[09:53 PM]:whois canadian-rx-store.org | grep
^Name
Name Server:NS2.CODIZ.NET
Name Server:NS4.CODIZ.NET
...
[root:pts/0{4}]debian1:~/[09:53
On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 20:31:58 -0500, Jeffrey Lyon
jeffrey.l...@blacklotus.net wrote:
I've already stated that i'm having the server powered down. What else
do you people want?
That's a fine first step, but then tomorrow when everyone has forgotten
about all this, that server gets turned back
On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 15:53:32 -0500, Ray Soucy r...@maine.edu wrote:
Every time I see this question it' usually related to a fundamental
misunderstanding of IPv6 and the attempt to apply v4 logic to v6.
Not exactly. If it's a point-to-point link, then there are *TWO* machines
on it -- one at
On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 19:46:19 -0500, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
Dude... In IPv6, there are 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 /64s.
Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Dude, there are 256 /8 in IPv4.
640k ought to be enough for anyone.
People can mismange anything
On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 23:14:10 -0500, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
Interesting... The Leadig Provider in Dhaka is using hijacked
addresses.
Not according to APNIC...
% [whois.apnic.net node-5]
% Whois data copyright termshttp://www.apnic.net/db/dbcopyright.html
inetnum:
On Wed, 02 Feb 2011 17:04:33 -0500, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
They didn't fail. They were designed to complement each other. It
just that somewhere along the way people forgot that.
No. They failed. In all respects.
The political agendas within IPng were anti-NAT and anti-DHCP.
On Wed, 02 Feb 2011 17:18:25 -0500, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
Or you just filter them out in the laptop. With the proper tools you
just ignore and RA's containing 2002:. Done that for years now.
Get back to me when you control every network device in the world.
That may work for
On Wed, 09 Feb 2011 16:42:14 -0500, Nathan Eisenberg
nat...@atlasnetworks.us wrote:
What do you mean, lit up? You mean they're not in the routing tables
that you get from your carriers? I'd argue that's no indication of
whether they're in use or not.
That's pretty much the definition of
On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 01:35:42 -0500, Matthew Moyle-Croft
m...@internode.com.au wrote:
Because it is a waste of time and money.
That's an assertion I've heard, but has anyone quantified it? ...
Not that I've ever seen. All the bitching I've seen here and elsewhere
boils down to it being
On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 11:43:50 -0500, Matthew Kaufman matt...@matthew.at
wrote:
There is no one universal global routing table. They probably appear
in someone's routing table, somewhere... just not yours.
Using public address space for private networking is a gross misuse of the
resource.
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 10:00 AM, Scott Helms khe...@ispalliance.net wrote:
Agreed, V4 traffic levels are likely to drop and stay at low levels for
decades.
I seriously doubt v4 traffic is going to fall off a cliff. That would
require IPv6 adoption on a large scale over a relatively short
On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 12:20:59 -0500, George Bonser gbon...@seven.com
wrote:
The thing is that a very few networks account for a very large amount of
traffic.
Traffic has to have two end points. Just because the content source
supports IPv6 does not mean the content request will be. That's
On Mon, 04 May 2009 16:05:30 -0400, Wallace Keith
kwall...@pcconnection.com wrote:
I would stick with wire wrap, 66 blocks make an inferior connection.
True, but a 66 block will work. Usually. And is easily re-punched.
If someone cannot deal with wire wrapping, they are not living in a
On Mon, 04 May 2009 17:03:31 -0400, Bill Stewart nonobvi...@gmail.com
wrote:
When I came back, I found this ugly EUI-64 thing instead,
so not only was autoconfiguration much uglier,
but you needed a /56 instead of a /64 if you were going to subnet.
Does anybody know why anybody thought it was a
On Mon, 04 May 2009 18:01:32 -0400, Jack Bates jba...@brightok.net wrote:
Given there is no CLASS, but just a separation of network and host, I'd
hate to compare it to classful routing. They probably would have been
happy with a /96 network except for stateless autoconfig, which is quite
On Mon, 04 May 2009 22:29:29 -0400, Jack Bates jba...@brightok.net wrote:
EUI-64 is required for autoconfig...
On paper :-) There's no technological reason why the 48bit MAC wouldn't
be enough on it's own. Tacking on an extra (fixed) 16bit value doesn't
make it any more unique. Doing so
On Tue, 05 May 2009 09:13:06 -0400, Joe Greco jgr...@ns.sol.net wrote:
No, it's not too late to make simple changes. We're still figuring out
lots of bits about it.
Yes, it is too late. IPv6 as it stands is a huge pile of crap and bloat.
We'd be better off straping the whole mess and
On Tue, 05 May 2009 13:28:25 -0400, Charles Wyble char...@thewybles.com
wrote:
Utility companies utilize Zigbee pretty extensively. So that's millions
and millions of addresses right there.
But does the entire planet need to talk to those critters? No. Nor
should they even be able to.
On Tue, 05 May 2009 16:13:05 -0400, Jack Bates jba...@brightok.net wrote:
Actually, they probably would have stuck to a 64 bit address space and
it was debated. Then it came down to, let's make it a 64 bit network
space, and give another 64 bits for hosts (96 bits probably would have
On Tue, 05 May 2009 20:39:23 -0400, Karl Auer ka...@biplane.com.au wrote:
Wow, that's a metaphor that has been not merely mixed, but shaken and
stirred as well. Are you for a move to IPv6 now or not? Is the Pinto
IPv4 or IPv6? What does the exploding gas tank represent?
I'm complaining that
On Wed, 06 May 2009 09:24:09 -0400, Tony Finch d...@dotat.at wrote:
No - but it is *phenomenally useful* if it does. Changing addresses is
only ever something you want in very specific circumstances.
You'll love RFC 4941 as implemented by Windows Vista and later.
Their awful experimental
On Wed, 06 May 2009 11:17:09 -0400, David Andersen d...@cs.cmu.edu wrote:
Or test with UDP and blast as fast as you can so that you're not
seeing TCP weirdness.
That's the best option... spew packets. Just make sure they are as large
as possible without needing fragmentation.
And if your
On Wed, 06 May 2009 16:50:15 -0400, TJ trej...@gmail.com wrote:
FWIW - WinXP uses 24hours/change_in_prefix/reboot as the default criteria
for new Privacy IID creation, is that not aggressive enough?
I define that as not aggressive. (I've seen ISPs rotate addresses (DHCP)
faster than that.)
On Tue, 26 May 2009 19:51:42 -0400, Chris Adams cmad...@hiwaay.net wrote:
Isn't 208V usually provided as a connection across two phases of a 3
phase circuit? In that case, you get 120V by going between one phase
and neutral (no transformer required).
Indeed it is. If you want to see it
On Tue, 26 May 2009 20:32:54 -0400, Paul Vixie vi...@isc.org wrote:
once in a while some crashcart CRT monitor won't run on anything but 120V
but for $50 NRC it can be replaced with an LCD. everything else that's
still worth plugging in (that is, having a power/heat cost per
performance
On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 06:01:20 -0400, Andre Oppermann nanog-l...@nrg4u.com
wrote:
... completely do away with ARP, MAC addresses and all
that stuff.
Removing all that stuff means it's no longer ethernet.
Do you think this is useful? Maybe vendors will hear me/us.
No. I do not.
Ethernet is
On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 16:33:10 -0400, Zartash Uzmi zart...@gmail.com wrote:
... Can you say why
precisely the cost of Ethernet is low compared to other viable
alternatives?
Volume. Economies of scale. Etc.
Ethernet is cheap because it's everywhere, and built into almost
everything.
On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 16:57:07 -0400, Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net
wrote:
I've come to the conclusion that if someone put a nice web2.0+ interface
on creating and managing these objects it would be a lot easier.
If there were a customer portal where you could visit to say update my
On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 18:40:39 -0400, Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net
wrote:
Is there some significant barrier to people getting recent code on the
devices that is not impacted by this and the other fun bgp 'attacks'
that can happen?
In a word: YES.
Any respectable ISP will not load code
[here we go again]
On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 14:37:49 -0400, William Herrin
herrin-na...@dirtside.com wrote:
Some clever guy figured out that ... why not
add an extra 64 bits for that very convenient improvement? This is
called stateless autoconfiguration.
Except that clever guy was in fact an
On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 18:55:35 -0400, Dan White dwh...@olp.net wrote:
All of the items in the above list are true of DHCP. ...
In an IPv4 world (which is where DHCP lives), it's much MUCH harder to
track assignments -- I don't share my DHCP logs with anyone, nor does
anyone send theirs to
On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 17:40:40 -0400, Mark Smith
na...@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org wrote:
I think it is both classless and classfull (although it's different
enough that we probably should stop using loaded IPv4 terms ...)
It's _classless_. There's none of this Class
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 09:33:03 -0400, Justin Shore jus...@justinshore.com
wrote:
He didn't really give much of a reason for the /127s yet. I think it's
coming up in a later session. I think it basically boiled down to
whether or not the customer would actually use anything bigger. I'll
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 19:38:58 -0400, Bill Stewart nonobvi...@gmail.com
wrote:
... If you've got a VPN tunnel device, too often the remote
end will want to contact you at some numerical IPv4 address and isn't
smart enough to query DNS to get it.
As I was told by Cisco, that's a security
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:22:17 -0400, Zhiyun Qian zhiy...@umich.edu wrote:
1). For any outgoing traffic, if the destination port is 25, then drop
the packets.
2). For any incoming traffic, if the source port is 25, then drop the
packets.
Inspecting outgoing traffic is generally easier to do
On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 12:55:58 -0400, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
Wouldn't the right place for that form of rejection to occur be at the
mail server in question?
In a perfect world, yes. When you find a perfect world, send us an invite.
I reject lots of residential connections...
The
On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 07:15:00 -0400, Jeroen Massar jer...@unfix.org wrote:
On that iToy of yours it is just a flick of a switch, presto.
Where flick of a switch is actually several steps...
Settings - Network - VPN... there's your switch.
Wait for it to connect
Go back to mail, refresh...
On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 15:52:46 -0400, Alex Harrowell a.harrow...@gmail.com
wrote:
Why do they do that?
You'd have to ask them. Or more accurately, you'd need to ask their
system integrator -- I've never seen an in house network run like that.
(and for the record, they were charging for
On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 05:39:57 -0400, Richard Barnes
richard.bar...@gmail.com wrote:
Couldn't you also advertise the /48 from all the sites, if you're
willing to sort things out over the inter-site VPNs?
If we're talking about a site-to-site IPsec VPN over the internet, then
that's a very bad
On Fri, 02 Dec 2011 14:37:29 -0500, joshua sahala jsah...@gmail.com
wrote:
Any property or right that is owned by a person or entity and has
monetary value. See also liability.
If it was a RIR assignment, it's not owned. It's more akin to a
lease. That said, there are documented
On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 10:42:40 -0500, Matthew Kaufman matt...@matthew.at
wrote:
Now that 5.0.0.0/8 is being allocated, you need to move out of it (so
that your users can reach the real 5.0.0.0/8 sites).
Why wouldn't this be sufficient justification for a new /8 from ARIN?
Because it's not
On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 16:36:32 -0500, David Conrad d...@virtualized.org
wrote:
... I had thought new allocations are based on demonstrated need. The
fact that addresses are in use would seem to suggest they're needed.
That depends on how you see their demontrated need. The way I look at
it,
On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 18:43:05 -0500, Stephen Sprunk step...@sprunk.org
wrote:
However, if they actually have the number of hosts claimed, that
justifies the space they're asking for. What addresses they're using
today is irrelevant. ARIN policy only /suggests/ that they use RFC 1918
space;
On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 22:34:33 -0500, Michael Painter tvhaw...@shaka.com
wrote:
I quickly read through the indictment, but the gov't claims that when
given a takedown notice, MU would only remove the *link* and not the
file itself.
That's actually a standard practice. It allows the uploader
On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 14:37:16 -0500, Paul Graydon p...@paulgraydon.co.uk
wrote:
... Whenever they received a DMCA take-down they would remove the link,
not the underlying file, so even though they knew that a file was
illegally hosted, they never actually removed it.
And that's where their
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 18:18:07 -0500, Brandon Ewing nicot...@warningg.com
wrote:
Pace 4111N
Netgear 7550 B90
Netgear 6200 A90
Motorola 3360
Those are the devices for which they will be testing and releasing IPv6
capable firmware. I wouldn't expect the decade old Westel 2100 to ever
see
On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 13:32:35 -0500, Chuck Church chuckchu...@gmail.com
wrote:
Shouldn't a forged LOA be justification to contact law enforcement?
It is, but if you want anything done about it before the polar ice caps
melt, you'll seek other paths as well.
a) law enforcement doesn't
On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:18:42 -0500, Mike Lyon mike.l...@gmail.com wrote:
If they are Dell servers, you could always name each host in their BIOS
so it shows up on the display of the host.
I did that with a batch of sun v20z's... when they got to the colo, no one
knew which was which until
On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 00:19:16 -0400, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
Nope. I have FiOS and the 5 IPs. They are 5 IPs, in sequence, at a
completely arbitrary location in a /24 subnet.
...
Time Warner (TWTC, not TWC) does the same thing... we have 8 addresses
from them... 131 - 138; it's a
On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 10:58:05 -0400, Chuck Church chuckchu...@gmail.com
wrote:
Does anyone know the reason /64 was proposed as the size for all L2
domains?
There is one, and only one, reason for the ::/64 split: SLAAC. IPv6 is a
classless addressing system. You can make your LAN ::/117 if
On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 17:17:37 -0400, Karl Auer ka...@biplane.com.au wrote:
a) DAD only happens when an IPv6 node is starting up. ARP happens
whenever a node needs to talk to another node that it hasn't seen in
while.
DAD is a special case of ND. It happens every time the system selects an
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 08:33:51 -0400, iptech ipt...@northrock.bm wrote:
3.0 compliant setup, and this standard no longer supports PPPoE via
L2TP, and can now only offer PPTP for terminating with us.
As I recall from my reading of the standard, there's nothing in there to
prevent any tunneling
The reason I ask is that we received a security alert with a link
hxxp://pastebin.com/###.
hxxp has been around for a long time. It's a lame hack that was never
widely accepted by browsers. The purpose was to have a clickable link
that didn't send a referer. (i.e. copy-n-paste) There
On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 12:57:25 -0500, adrian kok
adriankok2...@yahoo.com.hk wrote:
What is max mtu in jumbo frame?
That depends on the hardware. I've seen gear running as low as ~8k. I'd
have to consult standard, but I think the max is 10k (10240).
Keep in mind the switch is not the only
On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 16:51:00 -0500, Justin M. Streiner
strei...@cluebyfour.org wrote:
If you're sourcing the pings from a device that supports it, you can
also send the large pings with the Do Not Fragment bit set.
Most modern systems do that already (part of path MTU discovery.) And if
On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 20:29:36 -0500, Skeeve Stevens ske...@skeeve.org
wrote:
I agree... I'd love to know where they got that from... who even wrote
it?
I see you've never done business with EDS. They've been using 1/8 for
over a decade. Also, over the years, I've seen a number of
On Wed, 04 Feb 2009 20:35:15 -0500, James R. Cutler
james.cut...@consultant.com wrote:
Clarification here:
1/8 was never on the EDS backbone. Was only used locally in one site,
as far as I can determine.
They might have done that for other customers as well. (to avoid 10/8
collisions.)
On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 10:25:44 -0500, Iljitsch van Beijnum
iljit...@muada.com wrote:
On 5 feb 2009, at 1:16, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
I guess I was thinking about v4 modems which do not get a subnet, just
an IP address. If we really are handing out a /64 to each DSL Cable
modem, then we
On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 22:32:10 -0500, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
IPTables is decent firewall code.
Not really. It's quite complicated for a non-engineer type to manage.
Think of all the unpatched windows xp/vista users of the world.
It's free.
...
Further, since more and more CPE
On Sat, 07 Feb 2009 14:31:57 -0500, Stephen Sprunk step...@sprunk.org
wrote:
Non-NAT firewalls do have some appeal, because they don't need to mangle
the packets, just passively observe them and open pinholes when
appropriate.
This is exactly the same with NAT and non-NAT -- making any
On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 09:39:01 -0500, Iljitsch van Beijnum
iljit...@muada.com wrote:
If you want the machine to always have the same address, either enter
it manually or set your DHCP server to always give it the same address.
Manual configuration doesn't scale. With IPv4, it's quite hard to
On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 21:11:50 -0500, TJ trej...@gmail.com wrote:
Your routers fail frequently? And does your traffic continue to get
forwarded? Perhaps through another router?
More frequently than the DHCP server, but neither are frequent events.
Cisco's software is not 100% perfect, and
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 19:39:47 -0400, Joe Greco jgr...@ns.sol.net wrote:
Knowing that blatant lying about IP space justifications has been an
ongoing game in the community, ARIN has decided to do something about
it.
...
That game has been going on for over a decade. I've seen it first hand as
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 18:40:30 -0400, Chris Adams cmad...@hiwaay.net wrote:
SSL and FTP are techincal justifications for an IP per site.
No they aren't. SSL will work just fine as a name-based virtual host with
any modern webserver / browser. (Server Name Indication (SNI) [RFC3546,
sec
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 19:22:08 -0400, Ken A k...@pacific.net wrote:
Also, monthly bandwidth monitoring/shaping/capping are more easily done
using one ip per hosted domain...
That's why the infrastructure is virtualized and you monitor at or
behind the firewall(s) and/or load balancer(s) --
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 20:57:31 -0400, Matthew Palmer mpal...@hezmatt.org
wrote:
FTP? Who uses FTP these days?
...
A depressingly large number of people use FTP. Attempts to move them
onto
something less insane are fruitless. Even when the tools support it (and
plenty of web design tools
On Fri, 01 May 2009 21:32:19 -0400, William Warren
hescomins...@emmanuelcomputerconsulting.com wrote:
Specifically, I am using the guide posted at:
http://www.openxtra.co.uk/articles/calculating-heat-load
Before you decide on an air conditioning unit you should commission an
audit from a
On Sat, 02 May 2009 00:26:37 -0400, Wayne E. Bouchard w...@typo.org wrote:
... approximation
Even an approximation is hard to make. One might think the simple math of
how much power is fed into the room would do, but it ignores numerous
factors that greatly effect the answer. I can
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 13:56:01 -0500, JC Dill jcdill.li...@gmail.com wrote:
It's a common belief among network operators that if a server operator
doesn't have access/ability to modify the PTR record for a server, it's
a good sign that the server shouldn't be used to send email, but instead
On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 18:47:39 -0500, Bulger, Tim tim_bul...@polk.com
wrote:
Having 1/8 allocated cannot be a blessing... There must be thousands of
underskilled in the wild with stuff configured for 1/8. It's like a
magnet for unwanted noise traffic.
I was thinking the same thing. I know of
On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 18:16:01 -0500, Kaveh . af...@hotmail.com wrote:
A) Pre-existing configs: What Tim and Joe mentioned is apparently
correct. I was on phone with a few Cisco tech-reps earlier today and
they told me that since version 8.2, they have been shipping ASAs with a
default
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 16:53:37 -0400, Michael Holstein
michael.holst...@csuohio.edu wrote:
If this is a strictly hardware discussion, v6 works on a variety of
models, albeit not with stock firmware.
...
This suggests that Cisco (et.al.) can release an official firmware
image to support v6 on
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 8:16 PM, Michael Dillon
wavetos...@googlemail.com wrote:
I did not fat finger anything. In the real world, nearly 100% of consumers
demand IPv6 from their ISP. ...
Hah. No. No they don't. They want, as you point out, access to the
internet, which they are currently
On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 03:20:26 -0400, shake righa ssri...@gmail.com wrote:
Can one subnet to include /127 for point to point connections?
That's the equiv of a /31 in IPv4. Do you use /31's for p-t-p links in
your IPv4 network(s)?
(Yes, I've used /31's before, but only to represent 2 /32's.
On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 12:09:30 -0400, John Palmer (NANOG Acct)
nan...@adns.net wrote:
If not, is ARIN saying we have to pay them a fee to use IP6?
Yeap. Just like everyone else with address space assigned from ARIN.
Isn't this a disincentive for us to move up to IP6?
Yes! However,
On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 09:47:44 -0400, Leo Bicknell bickn...@ufp.org wrote:
The point is, RA's are operationally fragile and DHCP is operationally
robust.
No. Both are just as fragile... if you haven't taken steps to protect
them. If you aren't doing any sort of DHCP snooping, anyone can
On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 09:45:01 -0400, Leo Bicknell bickn...@ufp.org wrote:
In a message written on Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 01:04:41PM +0200, Iljitsch
van Beijnum wrote:
Like I said before, that would pollute the network with many multicasts
which can seriously degrade wifi performance.
Huh?
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 12:02:18 -0400, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
That was kind of my point. You are unlikely to encounter such a large L2
domain outside of an exchange point.
I've seen such large networks in private industry (and governements, not
just the US) several times. And IPv6
1 - 100 of 221 matches
Mail list logo
