On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 09:51:04AM -0700, Aaron C. de Bruyn via NANOG wrote:
> Capitalist solution: Build yet another IoT device that just does emergency
> alerting.
Please no. The IoT is already a security/privacy dumpster fire of enormous
proportions and this will provide yet another vector
On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 11:27 Sean Donelan wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Aug 2018, Aaron Gould wrote:
> > As you all have said, to confirm, I use ssm Mcast to distribute TV from
> > satellite down links in the headend, out to a few different remote head
> > ends. From there it's converted back to RF video
Can your hfc customers do an igmp join?
No? Then it's probably not considered "public".
-Steve
On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 5:21 AM Aaron Gould wrote:
> As you all have said, to confirm, I use ssm Mcast to distribute TV from
> satellite down links in the headend, out to a few different remote head
On Wed, 1 Aug 2018 15:45:44 +
Adam Davenport wrote:
> I can confirm that GTT does indeed filter IP sourced from 224.0.0.0/4 at its
> edge.
Do you mean sent to 224/4 or literally anything with a source address
of 224/4?
For those that are or are considering filtering, you might also want
I can confirm that GTT does indeed filter IP sourced from 224.0.0.0/4 at its
edge.
On 7/31/2018 6:44 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
It is hard to prove a negative.
So let’s prove a positive. One of the largest (2nd largest?) transit networks
on the planet just affirmatively stated they filter
On Wed, 1 Aug 2018 02:43:10 +
"Mankamana Mishra (mankamis) via NANOG" wrote:
> other than billing problem, is there any other reasons why multicast
> would not be viable for public internet ?
Two other significant contributing factors stem from complexity and
security issues.
Here are
On Wed, 1 Aug 2018 11:19:36 -0400, Rich Kulawiec may have
written:
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 05:53:48PM -0700, Dan Hollis wrote:
> > I'm saying people who filter their abuse mailboxes need to stop doing
> > so.
>
> 1. They needed to stop doing so a few decades ago. Anybody still doing
> it
On Tue, 31 Jul 2018, John Kristoff wrote:
Second best might be the Internet2 community where a number of
institutions that have always had it might still have it turned on.
Though there has been only one post in all of 2018 on their list if
that tells you anything.
At my previous job (large
other than billing problem, is there any other reasons why multicast would not
be viable for public internet ?
Mankamana
> On Jul 31, 2018, at 2:36 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Jul 31, 2018, at 2:28 PM, Sean Donelan wrote:
>>
>> Its tough to prove a negative. I'm extremely
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 05:53:48PM -0700, Dan Hollis wrote:
> I'm saying people who filter their abuse mailboxes need to stop doing so.
1. They needed to stop doing so a few decades ago. Anybody still doing
it today is doing it on purpose, which of course leads directly to the
question: why?
2.
Thus spake Mankamana Mishra (mankamis) via NANOG (nanog@nanog.org) on Wed, Aug
01, 2018 at 02:43:10AM +:
> other than billing problem, is there any other reasons why multicast would
> not be viable for public internet ?
Hi Mankamana,
You can find a reasonable overview here with respect
Hey Mankamana,
> other than billing problem, is there any other reasons why multicast would
> not be viable for public internet ?
Imagine someone like youtube or netflix would like to use multicast,
instead of caches. They'd need to start new multicast stream for every
content with small delay
As you all have said, to confirm, I use ssm Mcast to distribute TV from
satellite down links in the headend, out to a few different remote head ends.
From there it's converted back to RF video and sent to subscribers via cable or
hfc plant
Aaron
> On Jul 31, 2018, at 5:15 PM, Job Snijders
What if... Bear with me for a moment here, we don't try to force VoD onto a
multicast setup? Multicast is used extensively by all major ISPs(if they
have the rights) to deliver IPTV. One issue you brought up is people
unwillin to wait 1 or 5 mins for a show, well before the days of youtube
people
Could someone from Windstream please contact me off-list? We have a peering
issue.
Thanks,
Michael
-
Michael H Lambert, GigaPoP Manager Phone: +1 412 268-4960
Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center/3ROX FAX: +1 412 268-5832
300 S Craig St, Pittsburgh, PA 15213 USA
On 8/1/18 12:24 PM, Saku Ytti wrote:
Hey Mankamana,
other than billing problem, is there any other reasons why multicast would not
be viable for public internet ?
Imagine someone like youtube or netflix would like to use multicast,
instead of caches. They'd need to start new multicast
Heavy sigh. Its not about AM radios, although some tinkers have
hooked up raspberry pi's to weather band radio chips. Its a cool hack, but
not the point.
Today, 99% of emergency alerts are diissiminated via the Internet, in
addition to other channels (over the air broadcasters, cable,
If someone wants that sort of thing... does anyone still make AM
transistor radios?
On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 8:25 AM Rich Kulawiec wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 09:51:04AM -0700, Aaron C. de Bruyn via NANOG wrote:
> > Capitalist solution: Build yet another IoT device that just does emergency
Anybody know anyone at or anything about Privax or Avast? AS 198605 is
announcing the problem networks.
Getting a ton of SIP brute force attacks from their space, and emails with
addresses/timestamps to the abuse contacts listed at RIRs/etc have not
yieled any responses. Attacks still coming.
At a recent meeting on space policy a representative from Hughes/Echostar
told us that, as they provide satellite connectivity to gas stations in the
fire regions, they have
been working with emergency services to give fire fighters directions to
where they can go to get gas for their trucks,
Hey Miles and Michael,
It is entirely fair to debate what the use-case would be, the
underlaying technical problem remains the same, if it becomes useful
(globally) we don't have the hardware to cater for it.
I'm sure both of your use cases are used extensively in internal
network. I've worked
On Wed, 1 Aug 2018 at 20:47, Saku Ytti wrote:
> I'm sure both of your use cases are used extensively in internal
> network. I've worked for company who distributed broadcast TV on their
> MPLS IP backbone, two-plane network, red and blue, one copy for each
> tv channel on both planes and far-end
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On Wed, 2018-08-01 at 11:19 -0400, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
> 1. They needed to stop doing so a few decades ago. Anybody still
> doing it today is doing it on purpose, which of course leads directly
> to the question: why?
One reason as to "why" is
hey,
What if... Bear with me for a moment here, we don't try to force VoD onto a
multicast setup? Multicast is used extensively by all major ISPs(if they
have the rights) to deliver IPTV.
We are an IPTV provider in europe and we definetly see share of linear
TV (that we are delivering via
On Wed, 1 Aug 2018, Aaron Gould wrote:
As you all have said, to confirm, I use ssm Mcast to distribute TV from
satellite down links in the headend, out to a few different remote head
ends. From there it's converted back to RF video and sent to
subscribers via cable or hfc plant
I'm aware
I agree. Complaints are rarely acknowledged and never promptly. We simply use
a combination of Fail2Ban and remote trigger black hole filtering to drop the
inbound traffic from probing IPs at our borders.
-Original Message-
From: NANOG On Behalf Of Dovid Bender
Sent: Wednesday,
>The point of the study in proposed bill is customers of Netflix and
>Spotify (just to pick on them because everyone seems too) watching videos
>on "Smart TVs" or listening on "Smart Speakers" may not realize those
>devices won't get emergency alerts like their old-fashion AM/FM radios
>and
Matt,
Rarely do we ever get a response when we file complaints for SIP traffic.
We simply use Kamilio and where have known bad UA's we just drop the
packets and ban the IP's (using Fail2Ban), it will save you a lot of grief.
It's like trying to go after every get request to phpMyAdmin.
On Wed,
On Wed, Aug 1, 2018, at 10:11 AM, Matt Harris wrote:
> Anybody know anyone at or anything about Privax or Avast? AS 198605 is
> announcing the problem networks.
Chances are slim you'll get a useful response.
Crappy "HIDE YOUR ACTIVITY TORRENT FREELY" VPN provider that has a TON of
abusive
29 matches
Mail list logo
