Re: London Interxion Data Centers

On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 4:56 AM Töma Gavrichenkov wrote: > Peace > > On Fri, Feb 26, 2021, 3:06 PM Rod Beck > wrote: > >> My understanding is that there are three London Interxion data centers (I >> thought Equinix was the Borg and had assimilated pretty everything at this >> point). >> >>

Re: Texas internet connectivity declining due to blackouts

On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 8:50 PM Sean Donelan wrote: > > > On Tue, 16 Feb 2021, Cory Sell via NANOG wrote: > > adoption. Sure, wind isn’t perfect, but looks like solution relied on > failed > > in a massive way. > > Strange the massive shortages and failures are only in one state. > > The extreme

Re: 2021.02.10 community meeting unofficial notes

der the > “Topic” column of the agenda. > > Cheers, > > Valerie > > Valerie Wittkop - NANOG Program Director > 305 E. Eisenhower Pkwy, Suite 100, Ann Arbor, MI 48108 > Tel: +1 866 902 1336, ext 103 > > On Feb 10, 2021, at 12:59 PM, Matthew Petach > wrote: > >

2021.02.10 community meeting unofficial notes

It was mentioned in the chat this morning that there was no link to slides or anything on the agenda for the community meeting that happened this morning, so I offered to share the notes I was jotting down during the meeting, to give an idea of what was covered for those in timelines not as

Re: Half Fibre Pair

You can see the terminology getting referenced in articles such as this one from Telegeography: https://www.submarinenetworks.com/en/insights/a-new-coming-for-submarine-cable-systems-the-independent-infrastructure-developers "Further PLCN incorporates Spectrum Manager, that allows the C+L band

Past policies versus present and future uses

On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 4:22 AM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG < nanog@nanog.org> wrote: [...] > So, you end up with 2-3 RIRs allocations, not 5. And the real situation is > that 3 out of 5 RIRs communities, decided to be more relaxed on that > requirement, so you don’t need actually more than 1

Re: Nice work Ron

On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 1:11 AM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG < nanog@nanog.org> wrote: > When you sign a contract with a RIR (whatever RIR), is always 2 parties, > so majority of resources operated in the region (so to have the complete > context) clearly means that you are using in the region

Re: not a utility, was Parler

On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 4:23 AM Rod Beck wrote: > Declare Facebook a public utility and eliminate advertising by replacing > with a fee or what you call a tariff. Breaking up does not always work. > Facebook is like a natural monopoly - people want one site to connect with > all their 'friends'.

Re: Parler

On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 7:53 PM William Herrin wrote: > On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 6:58 PM Matthew Petach > wrote: > > Private businesses can engage in prior restraint all they want. > > Hi Matt, > > You've conflated a couple ideas here. Public accommodation laws were >

Re: Parler

Oh, geez... I was going to ignore this thread, I really was. :( On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 6:13 PM Keith Medcalf wrote: > >The first amendment deals with the government passing laws restricting > >freedom of speech. It has nothing to do with to whom AWS chooses to sell > >their services. It is

Re: Parler

On Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 14:06 Keith Medcalf wrote: > > The world is now a different place with the election of the Nazi's. > OK, it's now official. I'm invoking Godwin's Law on this thread. *plonk* Matt

Re: Parler

On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 12:29 PM Mel Beckman wrote: > It’s gratifying to see the many talented engineers here working on a > solution to the underlying problem: Censorship. Don’t confuse freedom of > speech (which protects us from government censorship) from freedom of > commerce, which is a

Re: Parler

On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 12:03 PM Michael Thomas wrote: > > On 1/10/21 11:11 AM, Bryan Fields wrote: > > > > Anyone hosting with Amazon/Google/the cloud here should be really > concerned > > with the timing they gave them, 24 hours notice to migrate. Industry > > standards would seem to be at

Re: Parler

On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 7:06 AM wrote: > Another interesting angle here is that it as ruled President couldn’t > block people, because his Tweets were government communication. So has > Twitter now blocked government communication? > > They blocked Trump's personal account, not the White House

Re: NDAA passed: Internet and Online Streaming Services Emergency Alert Study

On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 4:31 PM Chris Adams wrote: > Once upon a time, Matthew Petach said: > [...] > > I don't know if an unsubscribed cell phone gets the emergency alerts (I > know you are supposed to be able to call 911 from any cell phone, even > if not carrying paid servic

Re: NDAA passed: Internet and Online Streaming Services Emergency Alert Study

On Mon, Jan 4, 2021 at 7:11 PM Billy Crook wrote: > Then again how many people would benefit from adding this to online > streaming, but don't already have cellphones that have emergency alert > popups that get their attention. The kind of people who don't have > smartphones are going to be the

Re: NDAA passed: Internet and Online Streaming Services Emergency Alert Study

On Sun, Jan 3, 2021 at 5:03 PM Keith Medcalf wrote: > >I think the challenge here is that there's a category of people > >who don't have cell phones, who don't have cable TV, but > >receive content over their internet connection. I happen to > >live with someone like that, so I know it's a

Re: NDAA passed: Internet and Online Streaming Services Emergency Alert Study

On Sat, Jan 2, 2021 at 5:45 PM Max Harmony via NANOG wrote: > > On 02 Jan 2021, at 19.18, Matthew Petach wrote: > > I think the challenge here is that there's a category of people > > who don't have cell phones, who don't have cable TV, but > > receive content over their

Re: NDAA passed: Internet and Online Streaming Services Emergency Alert Study

On Sat, Jan 2, 2021 at 6:51 AM Sander Steffann wrote: > Hi, > [...] > Just to be clear: this is talking about IP traffic, not things like > SMS-CB, right? When there are already cell broadcast alerts, I have the > feeling that adding alerts to IP traffic (however that would be > supposed to

Re: [External] Re: 10g residential CPE

On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 4:26 PM Niels Bakker wrote: > * mpet...@netflight.com (Matthew Petach) [Tue 29 Dec 2020, 01:08 CET]: > >But as far as the physics goes, the conversion of biomatter into > >petrochemicals in the ground is more "renewable" than the conversion &

Re: [External] Re: 10g residential CPE

On Sun, Dec 27, 2020 at 12:28 PM Mark Tinka wrote: > > > On 12/27/20 21:56, Keith Medcalf wrote: > > > Me too. On top of that, diesel and gasoline are pretty reliable. > Though some people may argue about "renewables" the fact is that it is all > a matter of time-frame. Solar power, for

Re: Unexplainable router log entries mentioning IPSEC from Yahoo IPs

In this case, however, what's being seen is simply valid traffic which was most likely erroneously redirected through an internal encryption device. I would hazard a guess the folks involved have already jumped on checking the redirector rules to fix the leakage which allowed external IPs to be

Re: Gaming Consoles and IPv4

...I'm guessing someone didn't read "Harrison Bergeron" in middle school, then? Crippling everyone down to the lowest common denominator is a wonderful recipe for creating a service or platform that *nobody* wants to use. If I connect through an AOL dialup account to an FPS gaming platform, you

Re: Gaming Consoles and IPv4

The number of times when a decision is *both* cheaper *and* better is miniscule compared to when the decision is being made to optimize one axis relative to the other. And in an industry with narrow margins, most often that decision will run squarely along the "cheaper" axis, at the expense of

Re: TCP and UDP Port 0 - Should an ISP or ITP Block it?

On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 8:36 AM Mel Beckman wrote: > “SHOULD” is not “SHALL”, and thus this doesn’t countermand RFC 768’s > instruction “ If not used, a value of zero is inserted." So the key > question is, when is the source port not used? When a reply is not > requested, is my thinking. Is

Re: questions asked during network engineer interview

On Tue, Jul 14, 2020, 11:00 Ahmed elBorno wrote: > 15 years ago, I applied to a network admin role at Google, it was for > their corporate office, not even the production network. > > I had less than two years experience. > > The interviewer asked me: > [...] > 2) If we had a 1GB file that we

Re: Arista Switches rebooting

Just history repeating itself... ;) https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/field-notices/200/fn25994.html https://www.networkworld.com/article/3122864/cisco-says-router-bug-could-be-result-of-cosmic-radiation-seriously.html As the process size in fabrication gets smaller and smaller, it

Re: Google peering pains in Dallas

On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 11:43 AM Christopher Morrow wrote: > On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 2:39 PM Aaron C. de Bruyn > wrote: > > > > Why isn't there a well-known anycast ping address similar to > CloudFlare/Google/Level 3 DNS, or sorta like the NTP project? > > Get someone to carve out some

Re: Comcast - Significant v4 vs v6 throughput differences, almost stateful.

On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 12:45 PM Sabri Berisha wrote: > - On Apr 23, 2020, at 8:06 AM, Nick Zurku > wrote: > > We’re having serious throughput issues with our AS20326 pushing packets to > Comcast over v4. Our transfers are either the full line-speed of the > Comcast customer modem, or

Re: Route aggregation w/o AS-Sets

T. > > Regards, > Jakob. > > -Original Message- > Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2020 02:32:37 -0700 > From: Matthew Petach > > I generally would use the atomic-aggregate knob to > generate aggregate routes for blocks I controlled, > when the downstream ASN information was n

Re: Constant Abuse Reports / Borderline Spamming from RiskIQ

On Tue, Apr 14, 2020, 18:14 Matt Palmer wrote: > [Hideously mangled quoting fixed] > > On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 02:51:55PM +0530, Kushal R. wrote: > > Matt Palmer wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 11:14:11PM +0530, Kushal R. wrote: > > > > All abuse reports that we receive are dealt within 48

Re: Route aggregation w/o AS-Sets

On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 10:35 AM Lars Prehn wrote: > Hi everyone, > > how exactly do you aggregate routes? When do you add the AS_SET > attribute, when do you omit it? How does the latter interplay with RPKI? > > Best regards, > > Lars > > I generally would use the atomic-aggregate knob to

Re: attribution

Well, according to your router's error message, it *did* work...it ensured you couldn't propagate that route update, thereby ensuring no traffic from your neighbors would traverse the prepended path. Of course, it's a bit of a degenerate case of "working"--but it *did* serve to shift traffic

Re: South Africa On Lockdown - Coronavirus - Update!

On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 10:01 AM Randy Bush wrote: > > He's a network operator. From North America, on the North American > Network > > Operators mailing list. Something you are not, so please stop spouting > your > > drivel on a list that has nothing to do with you. > > this is not how we

Re: interesting troubleshooting

On Sat, Mar 21, 2020 at 12:53 AM Saku Ytti wrote: > Hey Matthew, > > > There are *several* caveats to doing dynamic monitoring and remapping of > > flows; one of the biggest challenges is that it puts extra demands on the > > line cards tracking the flows, especially as the number of flows rises

Re: interesting troubleshooting

On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 3:09 PM Saku Ytti wrote: > Hey Nimrod, > > > I was contacted by my NOC to investigate a LAG that was not distributing > traffic evenly among the members to the point where one member was > congested while the utilization on the LAG was reasonably low. Looking at > my

It's not about the congestion, it's about the profit motive driving the industry

On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 10:52 AM Mike Bolitho wrote: > >You're facing essentially the same issue as many in non-healthcare do ; > how to best talk to applications in Magic Cloud Land. Reaching the major > cloud providers does not require DIA ; they all have presences on the major > IXes, and

Re: COVID-19 vs. peering wars

I'm curious; would people say that fixing peering inefficiencies could have a bigger impact on service performance than asking that Netflix, Amazon Prime, Youtube, Hulu, and other video streaming services cut their bit rates down? https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-51968302

COVID-19 vs. peering wars

On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 10:27 AM Mike Bolitho wrote: > *Restoration:* > > *The repair or returning to service of one or more telecommunications > services that have experienced a service outage or are unusable for any > reason, including a damaged or impaired telecommunications facility. Such >

Re: Looking for transit with full table bgp cloud options

On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 3:04 PM William Herrin wrote: > On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 2:31 PM Joe Maimon wrote: > > I am looking for some cloud services, that would support Transit and > > full table BGP to the cloud provided vm(s). > > Hi Joe, > > Vultr has it down pretty solid although for some

Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks

On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 1:04 PM Tom Beecher wrote: > I like the topic, but I think we should dispense with comments like 'house > arrest'. > Agreed. The situation is already plenty serious as it is. Let's not add any more fuel to the fire. ...though, on a slightly related note, I've been

Re: Google peering in LAX

It may be worthwhile for you to consider adding 15169 to your "Don't accept $tier1 prefixes from other peers" policy in your inbound policy chain. I've found that there's a set of $LARGE_ENOUGH networks that, even though they're not literal $tier1 providers, benefit from that same level of

Re: idiot reponse

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 4:15 PM J. Hellenthal via NANOG wrote: > Wtf kinda one word response is that lol > You missed the *very* important second line of the response, which makes the first, one-word line meaningful. Go back and read it again. ;) Matt > > -- > J. Hellenthal > > The fact

Re: QUIC traffic throttled on AT residential

On Fri, Feb 21, 2020, 13:31 Łukasz Bromirski wrote: > > [...] > > Now… once we are aware, the only question is — where we go from here? > > — > ./ > Well, it's clear the UDP 443 experiment wasn't entirely successful. So clearly, it's time to use the one UDP port that is allowed through at the

Re: Customer sending blackhole route with another provider's AS

Anyone that is using blackhole communities should have enough Clue-fu to adjust announcements along each pathway to have the correct sequence of ASNs. Passing a route with a different upstream's ASN as the origin, instead of their own, is just *asking* for "blackhole leakage", where they

Re: "Using Cloud Resources to Dramatically Improve Internet Routing"

Whoa... So IPv6 is just a segment routing wrapper around IPv4. !insert mandatory "I know kung fu" meme <-- here ^_^ On Thu, Jan 9, 2020 at 12:07 PM Töma Gavrichenkov wrote: > This is the deadliest IPv6 packet structure infographics I've ever seen in > my life. > >

Re: Cost Recovery Surcharge & Va Personal Property Tax Recovery for IP Transit

On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 10:17 AM Tom Beecher wrote: > Both are quite likely to be negotiable. > > FCC Cost Recovery fees are the federally mandated ones they are allowed to > pass on to you. Most anything else named 'Cost Recovery' is optional, and > so named to try and confuse you into thinking

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

Unfortunately, Wi-Fi handoffs suck donkey balls compared to cell tower handoffs when moving. It's fine when you're stationary, but walking down the street, and shifting from one wifi hotspot to the next, you're going to be dropping and re-establishing connections with a new endpoint IP address

Re: restricted hotel block

Which hotel was that? I might want to go, just to take advantage of the discount... ^_^ Matt On Tue, Dec 10, 2019, 09:36 Randy Bush wrote: > is anyone aware of any conference other than nanog which does > > Online Reservations: (Open exclusively to NANOG Members only from >

Re: Elephant in the room - Akamai

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019, 19:05 Kaiser, Erich wrote: > Lets talk Akamai > [...] > The last two nights the traffic levels to them has skyrocketed as well. > > Any insight? > > > Erich Kaiser > The Fusion Network > As a CDN, I would usually expect to see traffic *from* Akamai to be the large

Re: Disney+ Streaming

e that content is coming from may > change. > > Mark > > > On 13 Nov 2019, at 07:53, Matthew Petach wrote: > > > > > > Different target audiences. > > > > Now the parents can be watching "Good Omens" or "Game of Thrones" on > Ne

Re: Disney+ Streaming

Different target audiences. Now the parents can be watching "Good Omens" or "Game of Thrones" on Netflix while the kids are streaming "The Lion King" on Disney+ streaming. Instead of the whole family watching one show together, now we have segmentation in the marketplace. End result is more

Re: RPKI adoption (was: Re: Corporate Identity Theft: Azuki, LLC -- AS13389, 216.179.128.0/17)

On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 5:44 PM John Curran wrote: > On 13 Aug 2019, at 9:28 PM, Ronald F. Guilmette > wrote: > > ... > The last time I looked, RPKI adoption was sitting at around a grand total > of 15% worldwide. Ah yes, here it is... > > https://rpki-monitor.antd.nist.gov/ > > I've asked

Re: User Unknown (WAS: really amazon?)

On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 4:31 PM Stephen Satchell wrote: > On 8/9/19 4:03 PM, Matthew Petach wrote: > > ...apparently Amazon has become a public utility > > now? > > > > I look forward with bemusement to the PUC > > tariff filings for AWS pricing. ^_^;; > >

Re: User Unknown (WAS: really amazon?)

On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 2:16 AM Scott Christopher wrote: > > [...] > It's not about $BIGCORP having lots of corporate lawyers imposing its will > on the small guys - it's about Amazon's role as a public utility, upon > which many many many important things depend. > > S.C. > > I must have missed

Re: Did IPv6 between HE and Google ever get resolved?

On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 6:40 PM Jay Hennigan wrote: > Perhaps you should bake them a cake. :-) > The cake was delicious and moist https://www.flickr.com/photos/mpetach/4031434206 "I'd like to buy a vowel. Can I get an 'e', pleas?" ^_^;;

Re: Did IPv6 between HE and Google ever get resolved?

On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 4:33 AM Matthew Petach wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 12:40 PM David Hubbard < > dhubb...@dino.hostasaurus.com> wrote: > >> Hey all, I’ve been having bad luck searching around, but did IPv6 transit >> between HE and google ever get

Re: Did IPv6 between HE and Google ever get resolved?

On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 12:40 PM David Hubbard < dhubb...@dino.hostasaurus.com> wrote: > Hey all, I’ve been having bad luck searching around, but did IPv6 transit > between HE and google ever get resolved? Ironically, I can now get to them > cheaply from a location we currently have equipment

Re: GPS rollover

On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 8:04 PM Stephen Satchell wrote: > So far as I can tell with NTP, there was no issue with time sources > becoming false-tickers, including my local GPS appliance. FWIW. > > I believe the rollover is *next* month, in April. :)

Re: 2FA, was A Deep Dive on the Recent Widespread DNS Hijacking

On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 9:51 AM wrote: > On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 08:36:11 -0800, Seth Mattinen said: > > On 2/25/19 9:59 PM, Keith Medcalf wrote: > > > Are you offering an indemnity in case that code is malicious? What > are the > > > terms and the amount of the indemnity? > > > Anyone who is that

Re: DNS Flag Day, Friday, Feb 1st, 2019

On Thu, Jan 31, 2019, 01:27 Radu-Adrian Feurdean < na...@radu-adrian.feurdean.net wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 31, 2019, at 03:24, Mark Andrews wrote: > > You do realise that when the day was chosen it was just the date after > > which new versions of name servers by the original group of Open Source

Re: DNS Flag Day, Friday, Feb 1st, 2019

On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 4:12 PM Brian Kantor wrote: > Quoting from the web site at https://dnsflagday.net/ > [...] > The current DNS is unnecessarily slow and suffers from inability > to deploy new features. To remediate these problems, vendors of > DNS software and also big public DNS

Re: Effects of Cold Front on Internet Infrastructure - U.S. Midwest

On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 9:07 AM Christopher Morrow wrote: > And here I always figured it was bespoke knit caps for all the packets in > cold-weather climes? > learn something new every day! (also, now I wonder what the people who > told me they were too busy knitting caps are ACTUALLY doing??) >

Re: Whats going on at Cogent

On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 1:54 PM Kenny Taylor wrote: > I wasn't familiar with it, so thanks for sharing! The Google search for > 'he cogent cake' was entertaining. Hard to believe that conflict is going > on 9+ years.. > > Kenny > I can vouch for it. The cake was delicious and moist. And it

Re: Impacts of Encryption Everywhere (any solution?)

On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 7:24 PM, John R. Levine wrote: > In article gmail.com>, > Matthew Petach wrote: > >> Your 200mbit/sec link that costs you $300 in hardware >> is going to cost you $4960/month to actually get IP traffic >> across, in Nairobi.

Re: Impacts of Encryption Everywhere (any solution?)

On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 11:22 AM, Ben Cannon wrote: > I’m sorry I simply believe that in 2018 with the advanced and cheap ptp > radio (ubiquiti anyone? $300 and I have a 200mbit/sec link over 10miles! > Spend a bit more and go 100km) plus the advancements in cubesats about to > be launched, even

Peering with abusers...good or bad?

On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 4:13 PM, Dan Hollis wrote: > OVH does not suprise me in the least. > > Maybe this is finally what it will take to get people to de-peer them. > If I de-peer them, I pay my upstream to carry the attack traffic. If I maintain peering with them, the

NANOG70 tee shirt mystery

So, I've been staring at the NANOG70 tee shirt for a bit now: https://flic.kr/p/VejX5y and I have to admit, I'm a bit stymied. Usually, the tee-shirts are somewhat referential to the location or to a particular event; but this one is leaving me scratching my head. Is it perhaps a shot of the

Re: Russian diplomats lingering near fiber optic cables

On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 11:40 AM, wrote: [...] > > Well, I'd be willing to buy that logic, except the specific buildings called > out look pretty damned big for just drying off a cable. For example, this > is claimed to be the US landing point for TAT-14 - looks around

Re: Yahoo Geo Location

Hi hi, Sorry, a bit behind in my email, apologies for that. Ping me the /23 in private email and I'll see what we can do about it. Thanks! Matt On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 6:46 PM, Mike Callagy wrote: > Does anyone know who Yahoo uses for geo location? I've got a /23 that

Peering BOF/Peering social @NANOG69?

I'm squinting at the Guidebook for NANOG69, and I don't seem to see any peering BOF or peering social this time around. Am I being blind again, and it's on the agenda somewhere but I'm just overlooking it? Pointers in the right direction would be appreciated. Thanks! :) Matt

Re: Legislative proposal sent to my Congressman

On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 6:15 PM, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote: > [...] > > The only way to stop this sort of thing once and for all is to make it > punitively costly to the humans at the helm of the corporations selling this > crap in the first place. Under corporate law, this

Re: Optical Wave Providers

(Speaking purely for myself, and thoroughly demonstrating my relative ignorance on the topic, but also opening up an opportunity to become better educated...) You may find that optical providers don't really want to mix 1G/10G waves in on systems that are running Nx100G waves on the fiber. With

Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?

On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 4:03 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote: >[...] Only then does an IXP produce bandwidth. Minor nitpick--an IXP never 'produces' bandwidth; it facilitates movement of data between entities, but the IXP itself shouldn't be producing bandwidth. It's the allocation of

Re: Thinking Methodically about building a PoC

On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 9:49 PM, Roland Dobbins wrote: > > On 13 Jun 2016, at 8:52, Kasper Adel wrote: > >> 2) Do some planning and research first. > > This. > > --- > Roland Dobbins > We never design in a vacuum. There's

Fwd: Sunday night social?

> I just finished registering for NANOG 67, and answered Yes to "Will you be attending the sunday evening social" and booked my flight accordingly...but now i can't seem to find any details on what time it starts on the website. Does anyone know what time it starts? > > Thanks! > > Matt > >

Re: announcement of freerouter

On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 4:51 AM, Rob Seastrom wrote: >> On Dec 29, 2015, at 4:08 AM, Josh Reynolds wrote: >> >> It wasn't about trolling, it was about legitimate prior art and reasonably >> so. Also, there's potentially a confusing association between

Re: de-peering for security sake

On Sat, Dec 26, 2015 at 12:34 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> On Dec 26, 2015, at 08:14 , Joe Abley wrote: >> On Dec 26, 2015, at 10:09, Stephen Satchell wrote >>> My gauge is volume of obnoxious traffic. When I get lots of SSH probes >>> from

Re: de-peering for security sake

On Sat, Dec 26, 2015 at 6:37 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> On Dec 26, 2015, at 15:54 , Baldur Norddahl >> wrote: >> [...] >> The key approach is still better. Even if the password is 123456 the >> attacker is not going to get in, unless he somehow stole

Re: Nat

On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 9:55 AM, Daniel Corbe wrote: >> On Dec 20, 2015, at 11:57 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: >> >> There is little that can be done about much of this now, but at least we can >> label some of these past decisions as ridiculous and

Re: Nat

On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 1:20 PM, Lee Howard <l...@asgard.org> wrote: > > > On 12/17/15, 1:59 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Matthew Petach" > >>I'm still waiting for the IETF to come around >>to allowing feature parity between IPv4 and IPv6 >>when it comes t

Re: Nat

On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 7:17 AM, Sander Steffann wrote: > Hi Jeff, > >> It's far past time to worry about architectural purity. We need people >> deploying IPv6 *NOW*, and it needs to be the job of the IETF, at this >> point, to fix the problems that are causing people not to

Re: Nat

On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 5:22 PM, Randy Bush wrote: >> We need to put some pain onto everyone that is IPv4 only. > > this is the oppress the workers so they will revolt theory. Ah, yes, the workers are quite revolting! > load of crap. > > make ipv6 easier to deploy, especially in

Re: IPv6 Cogent vs Hurricane Electric

On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 4:24 PM, Max Tulyev wrote: > On 04.12.15 01:19, Baldur Norddahl wrote: >> On 1 December 2015 at 20:23, Max Tulyev wrote: >>> I have to change at least one of my uplinks because of it, which one is >>> better to drop, HE or Cogent?

Re: IPv6 Cogent vs Hurricane Electric

On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 5:43 PM, Randy Bush wrote: >> Or, if you feel that Cogent's stubborn insistence on partitioning the >> global v6 internet > > if A does not peer with B, > then for all A and B > they are evil partitioners? > > can we lower the rhetoric? > > randy > I

Re: IPv6 Cogent vs Hurricane Electric

Or, if you feel that Cogent's stubborn insistence on partitioning the global v6 internet shouldn't be rewarded with money, pay someone *other* than cogent for IPv6 transit and also connect to HE.net; that way you still have access to cogent routes, but you also send a subtle economic nudge that

Re: IPv6 Cogent vs Hurricane Electric

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 6:02 PM, Jared Mauch wrote: > > Looking at the most recent IPv6 data available at CAIDA you can see the > customer cone size: > > http://as-rank.caida.org/?data-selected-id=15 > > Be careful as the tool seems fragile when switching from the

Re: Bluehost.com

On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 8:13 AM, Bob Evans wrote: > I think he means to say the rich get richer on the other side of the > investment by playing the shorting and the buying of stock in the gambling > marketplace. As the stock itself can create a new currency so

Re: OT: BdNOG announces website blocks

On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Scott Weeks wrote: > > - > Md. abdullah Al naser mail.naserbd at yahoo.com > Wed Nov 18 12:56:15 BDT 2015 > > The service of Facebook, Viber and Whatsapp are > blocked from now till further

Re: Bluehost.com

On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 5:54 PM, Kiriki Delany wrote: > [...] > > Bottom line, is the industry needs to be increasing value, because the flip > side working for no profit, surviving off investment only... there's no > end-game. You see this cycle time and time again as

Re: route converge time

One thing I notice you don't mention is whether your BGP sessions to your upstream providers are direct or multi-hop eBGP. I know for a while some of the more bargain-basement providers were doing eBGP multi-hop feeds for full tables, which will definitely slow down convergence if the routers

Re: route converge time

Or, better yet, apply a REJECT-ALL type policy on the neighbor to deny all inbound/outbound prefixes; that way, you can keep the session up as long as possible, but gracefully bleed traffic off ahead of your work. Matt On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 3:46 PM, Jürgen Jaritsch wrote: >

Re: IGP choice

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 12:35 PM, Dave Bell wrote: > On 22 October 2015 at 19:41, Mark Tinka wrote: >> The "everything must connect to Area 0" requirement of OSPF was limiting >> for me back in 2008. > > I'm unsure if this is a serious argument, but its

Re: IGP choice

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 9:57 AM, marcel.durega...@yahoo.fr wrote: > Hi everyone, > > Anybody from Yahoo to share experience on IGP choice ? > IS-IS vs OSPF, why did you switch from one to the other, for what reason ? > Same question could apply to other ISP, I'd like to

Re: IGP choice

On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 1:41 AM, marcel.durega...@yahoo.fr wrote: > sorry for that, but the only one I've heard about switching his core IGP is > Yahoo. I've no precision, and it's really interest me. > I know that there had OSPF in the DC area, and ISIS in the core,

Re: outlook.com outgoing blacklists?

On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 9:49 AM, Todd K Grand wrote: > I have an email server which hosts 3 domains. > I have reason to believe that microsoft maintains an outgoing blacklist and > would like confirmation on this. > > I have had many a report that people on domains hosted on

Re: BGAN Optimized Laptops

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 6:14 PM, Scott Weeks wrote: > ... > > Someone told me that there is a way for the browser to say > to the web server, send me only the parts of the web page I > request. For example, send me everything but the flash and > images. Being a browser

Re: Drops in Core

Quite the inverse, I'd say; most of the capacity headaches center around the handoff between networks, and most of the congestion points I come across are with private peering links where one party or the other is unwilling or unable to augment capacity. The first and last mile are fine, but the

Re: net neutrality peering dispute between CenturyTel/Qwest and Cogent in Dallas

I dunno, Jim, that sounds almost like you might think the inevitable outcome will be an everyone pays model of settlements, the way telcos do it. Unfortunately, in that model, the only winners are the transit networks in the middle, because no accounting department is going to want to keep track

Re: Super Core Hardware suggestions

I suspect you might want to look at the QFX10002-36Q series: http://www.juniper.net/assets/us/en/local/pdf/datasheets/1000531-en.pdf Matt On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 7:10 PM, Ben Cornish b...@overthewire.com.au wrote: Hey All We are looking for suggestions for a device to act as a super Core

  1   2   3   4   5   >