On May 12, 2011, at 8:31 PM, Roy wrote:
On 5/12/2011 4:03 PM, George Herbert wrote:
Large end-user companies generally multihomed by that time, and you
generally did that by BGP4 at the time (post-1994), and before that
BGP3, and before that EGP, and before that... well, there was
On Feb 2, 2011, at 3:16 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 2 feb 2011, at 4:51, Dave Israel wrote:
They were features dreamed up by academics, theoreticians, and purists, and
opposed by operators.
Contrary to popular belief, the IETF listens to operators and wants them to
participate.
On Feb 2, 2011, at 10:23 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 2 feb 2011, at 16:00, Owen DeLong wrote:
SLAAC fails because you can't get information about DNS, NTP, or anything
other than a list of prefixes and a router that MIGHT actually be able to
default-route your packets.
Who ever
On Feb 2, 2011, at 6:18 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
NAT66 is different. NAT66 breaks things in ways that impact sites outside of
the site choosing to deploy NAT.
Examples?
On Feb 1, 2011, at 6:15 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Feb 1, 2011, at 2:56 PM, John Payne wrote:
On Feb 1, 2011, at 4:38 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
NAT solves exactly one problem. It provides a way to reduce address
consumption to work around a shortage of addresses
On Feb 2, 2011, at 2:54 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Feb 2, 2011, at 11:40 AM, John Payne wrote:
On Feb 2, 2011, at 6:18 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
NAT66 is different. NAT66 breaks things in ways that impact sites outside
of the site choosing to deploy NAT.
Examples?
SIP
Network
On Feb 2, 2011, at 3:12 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 2 feb 2011, at 20:37, John Payne wrote:
DHCP fails because you can't get a default router out of it.
If you consider that wrong, I don't want to be right.
Hey, I thought you wanted ops input... Here you are getting it, and look
On Feb 2, 2011, at 3:15 PM, George Herbert wrote:
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 8:55 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum iljit...@muada.com
wrote:
On 2 feb 2011, at 17:14, Dave Israel wrote:
I understand people use DHCP for lots of stuff today. But that's mainly
because DHCP is there, not because it's
On Feb 1, 2011, at 4:38 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
NAT solves exactly one problem. It provides a way to reduce address
consumption to work around a shortage of addresses.
It does not solve any other problem(s).
That's a bold statement. Especially as you said NAT and not PAT.
On Dec 17, 2010, at 4:06 PM, John Payne wrote:
With the holiday freezes approaching, it might be worth making sure that the
recently allocated /8s are not in your bogon list
23/8
100/8
5/8
37/8
Just sayin'
105/8, 2/8, etc etc
Now that the holidays are over and IANA v4
On Jan 28, 2011, at 3:14 PM, George Bonser wrote:
Now that the holidays are over and IANA v4 depletion is likely days
away, perhaps its time to consider stripping your bogon lists down to
the bare minimum, and as someone else said, declare bogons dead and
move to martians?
Just
On Jan 26, 2011, at 4:52 PM, Charles N Wyble char...@knownelement.com wrote:
Comcast is currently conducting trials:
http://comcast6.net/ (anyone participated in this?)
Yes, and other than the fact that their 6rd implementation only gives me a /64,
I've been really happy with it. My wife
With the holiday freezes approaching, it might be worth making sure that the
recently allocated /8s are not in your bogon list
23/8
100/8
5/8
37/8
Just sayin'
On Nov 3, 2010, at 10:08 AM, Adcock, Matt [HISNA] madc...@hisna.com wrote:
To my knowledge Simplex Grinnell fire detection systems currently use token
ring.
I can't believe I got through is thread (unless the iPhone threading is more
broken than usual) without anyone mentioning the fibre
On Apr 23, 2010, at 8:42 AM, Jared Mauch wrote:
On Apr 23, 2010, at 5:49 AM, Dave Hart wrote:
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 08:26 UTC, Steve Bertrand st...@ibctech.ca wrote:
- in WHOIS, I have ns1 and ns2.onlyv6.com listed as the authoritative
name servers
- both of these servers *only*
On Apr 8, 2010, at 8:51 AM, Joe Greco wrote:
On Apr 7, 2010, at 12:09 PM, John Palmer (NANOG Acct) wrote:
Was looking at the ARIN IP6 policy and cannot find any reference to those
who have
IP4 legacy space.
Isn't there an automatic allocation for those of us who have legacy IP
space.
On Apr 8, 2010, at 11:36 AM, Joe Greco wrote:
IPv6-only content won't be meaningful for years yet, and IPv6-only
eyeballs will necessarily be given ways to reach v4 for many years
to come.
So again, why do WE have to encourage YOU to adopt IPv6?
Why should WE care what you do to the point of
On Apr 8, 2010, at 4:01 PM, William Herrin wrote:
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 3:49 PM, John Payne j...@sackheads.org wrote:
So again, why do WE have to encourage YOU to adopt IPv6?
Why should WE care what you do to the point of creating
new rules so YOU don't have to pay like everyone else
On Apr 8, 2010, at 4:14 PM, Joe Greco wrote:
On Apr 8, 2010, at 11:36 AM, Joe Greco wrote:
IPv6-only content won't be meaningful for years yet, and IPv6-only
eyeballs will necessarily be given ways to reach v4 for many years
to come.
So again, why do WE have to encourage YOU to adopt
On Apr 8, 2010, at 4:44 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 4:27 PM, John Payne j...@sackheads.org wrote:
On Apr 8, 2010, at 4:01 PM, William Herrin wrote:
Because when WE haven't deployed IPv6 yet and YOU have trouble
finding
a free IPv4 address for your new
On Apr 8, 2010, at 5:14 PM, William Herrin wrote:
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 4:51 PM, John Payne j...@sackheads.org wrote:
On Apr 8, 2010, at 4:44 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
I think you'll find that the guy deploying the IPv6-only client -or-
server is going to be in the minority
On Apr 8, 2010, at 5:38 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
*I* am personally convinced that IPv6 is great, but on the other
hand,
I do not see so much value in v6 that I am prepared to compel the
budgeting for ARIN v6 fees, especially since someone from ARIN just
described all the
On Apr 7, 2010, at 12:09 PM, John Palmer (NANOG Acct) wrote:
Was looking at the ARIN IP6 policy and cannot find any reference to those who
have
IP4 legacy space.
Isn't there an automatic allocation for those of us who have legacy IP space.
If not, is ARIN
saying we have to pay them a
On Mar 26, 2010, at 9:24 PM, Mark Foster blak...@blakjak.net wrote:
or reboot is problematic in many cases. Many systems drop link-
state during reboot for a long-enough period that the bridge-port
restarts its spanning tree process, making results across reboots
consistently bad.
On Mar 26, 2010, at 9:24 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
InterNetX - Lutz Muehlig wrote:
Hello,
has someone experience in anycast ipv4 networks (to support DNS)?
Never been done Dangerous TCP does not work etc etc etc.
Can't really tell if you're being serious here due to caffeine underrun.
On Feb 3, 2010, at 3:10 PM, Joel M Snyder wrote:
Having this data is useful, but I can't help to think it would be
more useful if it were compared with 27/8, or other networks. Is
this slightly worse, or significantly worse than other networks?
I have only anecdotal information
On Jan 14, 2010, at 1:41 PM, Kevin Loch wrote:
Ketan Mangal wrote:
Yes there is a Newyork to Philadelphia fiber cut is there It might not be an
outage it might be high latency due to multiple
routes going out via there buffalo POP.
That fiber cut was at 9:30EST this morning, the major
On Oct 22, 2009, at 4:32 PM, Ray Soucy wrote:
Knowing about it the
instant it happens might even be better than slowly coming to the
realization that you're dealing with one.
Might just be me, but I'm more worried about the rogue RA (or DHCPv4)
server that does not disrupt communication at
On Jul 18, 2009, at 4:03 PM, Simon Lockhart si...@slimey.org wrote:
On Sat Jul 18, 2009 at 09:31:56PM +0200, Marc Manthey wrote:
hey peoples sorry for my question
but a buddy in wales have massive problems with internet connectivity
can someone confirm ?
I'm just on the welsh border, and
On May 21, 2009, at 12:03 PM, Patrick Darden wrote:
Whois query gets us:
NS2.FACEBOOK.COM 204.74.67.132
DNS05.SF2P.TFBNW.NET DNS04.SF2P.TFBNW.NET
NS1.FACEBOOK.COM 204.74.66.132
both 204.74.67.132 and 204.74.66.132 are pingable, but DNS queries
on them directly get various
On Apr 10, 2009, at 4:27 PM, Fouant, Stefan
stefan.fou...@neustar.biz wrote:
Hi folks,
I am trying to compile data on which providers are currently
supporting
BGP Flowspec at their edge, if there are any at all. The few
providers
I've reached out to have indicated they do not support
.
This is an important point in this discussion. There are a lot of
comments being made that are just simply wrong and causing confusion
because of slips in terminology regarding the path attribute.
Thanks Kris - exactly what I was getting to.
Kris
-Original Message-
From: John Payne [mailto:j
On Jan 14, 2009, at 10:50 AM, Michienne Dixon wrote:
Interesting - So as a cyber criminal - I could setup a router, start
announcing AS 16733, 18872, and maybe 6966 for good measure and their
routers would ignore my announcements and IP ranges that I siphoned
from
searching IANA? Hm...
On Aug 1, 2008, at 11:13 AM, Craig Pierantozzi wrote:
* Jon Lewis was thought to have said:
If someone from Level3 could tell me why routes tagged with
65000:0 and/or 65000:1239 don't actually stop those routes from being
advertised to 1239, I'd appreciate it.
You should start to see them
On May 15, 2008, at 10:28 PM, 袁智辉 wrote:
How is the state of arts of NETCONF (RFC 4741) protocol?
Is there any Network Management System Deployed which is base on
NETCONF?
I've personally been waiting for the data modeling to be
standardized. Yes, it's great and wonderful to have a
for the reply. However I was looking for a more explicit you
will/will not have to take action to continue receiving list mail
Thanks
John
-sue
John Payne wrote:
On Apr 17, 2008, at 9:25 AM, John Payne wrote:
Is there a reason you're forcing people to take manual action
with 23 hours notice
36 matches
Mail list logo
