On 13/01/2021, Andy Ringsmuth wrote:
>
>> On Jan 13, 2021, at 3:39 PM, Alejandro Acosta
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 13/1/21 4:05 PM, Sean Donelan wrote:
>>>
>>> The Uganda Communications Commission has issued a shutdown order for the
>>> operation of all Internet gateways in Uganda beginning January 13
This whole discussion reminds me of the situation the security and
vulnerability researchers often face from the corporate overlords.
Why is noone talking about the real issue?
Namely, how could a RIR be so easily shutdown by the courts with the
jurisdiction?
Why is this mailing list used to sol
On 29/08/2021, Jay Hennigan wrote:
> On 8/29/21 11:42, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
>
>> It would seem reasonable to leave the whole issue up to the courts,
>> instead of engaging in contempt of foreign courts, and to stop the
>> vigilante justice against any of the par
On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 at 10:10, Darin Steffl wrote:
> I believe that when this happens, they should proactively block or limit
> video and file download/upload traffic as much as possible to make sure
> communications like calls and texts can go through with the highest success
> rate possible. Net
When you're not paying for service, you're not the customer, you're the
product.
I don't understand why anyone, especially anyone frequenting NANOG, would
use Cloudflare for their DNS.
Cloudflare runs a racket business, and their whole business model depends
on them being a monopoly; plus people
On 06/10/2020, Sean Donelan wrote:
>
> Florida has had notoriously unreliable state I.T. infrastructure for
> years. Florida's unemployment websites were broken for months during the
> Spring 2020 COVID unemployment demand surge. So its very likely crappy
> state I.T. infrastructure problems bein
I think it's a general problem with a lot of these application firewall
companies these days.
There's been a long time I couldn't access both staples.com and
officedepot.com, and officedepot.com is still broken for me to this day.
(Ironically, they're both using the same CDN — so much for the comp
#DeleteFacebook.
On Tue, 9 Apr 2019 at 21:18, J. Hellenthal via NANOG
wrote:
> Delete fB account ...
>
> --
> J. Hellenthal
>
> The fact that there's a highway to Hell but only a stairway to Heaven says
> a lot about anticipated traffic volume.
>
> > On Apr 9, 2019, at 21:05, Nathan Anderson w
On Fri, 3 May 2019 at 20:57, Brielle Bruns wrote:
> Just an FYI since this is bound to impact users:
>
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1548973
>
> Basically, Mozilla forgot to renew an intermediate cert, and people's
> Firefox browsers have mass-disabled addons.
>
> Whoops.
>
This
Dear NANOG@,
I'm not sure where else to post this, and this is not really new, either,
but I think I have a new take here.
I use my own personal domain name for various UNIX stuff, including sending
log-related things to myself out of cron, which end up in my own Gmail.com
account, either directl
any 25
> ipfw add [rule number] reject ip6 from me6 to any 587
>
> Good luck.
>
> -
> Alain Hebertaheb...@pubnix.net
> PubNIX Inc.
> 50 boul. St-Charles
> P.O. Box 26770 Beaconsfield, Quebec H9W 6G7
> Tel: 514-990-5911 h
On Thu, 24 Oct 2019 at 11:41, Joe Klein wrote:
[…]
I suspect that by changing your 5321.MailFrom, you changed the signal
> calculus, for now. I bet in a bit, provided that you don’t change any other
> behaviors, that these emails will eventually be rejected too.
>
Of course. This is just a tel
Unpopular opinion: other countries should do the same.
If somehow all the transatlantic (and/or transpacific) cables are offline;
will the whole internet outside of the US stop working, too?
AWS and all the other providers have DCs all over the world, but would they
still work if they can't cont
I think at this point we should upgrade the classification of this
issue from being Spam-filter-related to being a fundamental
interoperability issue of Google Mail and G Suite with regards to
email and SMTP.
Google has a monopoly on corporate email nowadays (even OPs own domain
name is still hand
On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 at 16:43, Matthew Pounsett wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 at 17:39, John R. Levine wrote:
>>
>>
>> Or maybe users are tired of the useless monthly messages and report them
>> as spam.
>
>
> Again, these are not a user messages or regular list traffic, they're
> admin/modera
On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 at 15:12, John Levine wrote:
>
> In article
> you
> write:
> >Google still rejects email from my own domain name as outlined in a
> >prior message on this list a month or two ago:
>
> Google accepts my mail just fine, including from my mailing lists.
> Their goal is to make t
On Wed, 25 Dec 2019 at 19:32, Michael Thomas wrote:
> On the dark side, this is probably coming to a lot more states and
> countries due to climate change. Australia. Sigh.
>
Do you have a source for this? It would seem that these power issues are
rather unique to California not because of some
On Wed, 25 Dec 2019 at 20:29, Michael Thomas wrote:
>
> On 12/25/19 6:16 PM, Michael Loftis wrote:
>
>
>
> Having lived through the blackouts that was entirely different. 90% Enron
> manipulating the markets. There was plenty of capacity both in transmission
> and generation, but Enron manipulate
On Wed, 25 Dec 2019 at 22:08, Michael Thomas wrote:
>
> On 12/25/19 7:26 PM, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
> >
> > I'm an ex-California resident myself here
>
> Good riddance. This has nothing to do with the climate change that is
> actually happening here.
>
On Thu, 26 Dec 2019 at 13:19, Stephen Satchell wrote:
> Longer term, review your backhauls and interconnects. Dark fiber would
> be preferred here, because you would be controlling backup power at both
> ends, and not depending on intermediate nodes.
>
What about the NSA taps? Do they tap the
Dear all,
It came to my attention that anyone visiting en.wikipedia.org site from an
"old Android smartphone", as Wikipedia puts it, will be redirected to
https://en.wikipedia.org/sec-warning (
http://web.archive.org/web/20191217154700/https://en.wikipedia.org/sec-warning),
which, amongst other th
On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 at 01:40, Quan Zhou wrote:
>
> On 12/31/19 15:34, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
> > removing support for insecure TLS protocol versions, specifically
> > TLSv1.0 and TLSv1.1
>
> This is actually a good thing. There are many *valid technical reasons*
&
On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 at 02:29, Matt Hoppes
wrote:
> Why do I need Wikipedia SSLed? I know the argument. But if it doesn’t
> work why not either let it fall back to 1.0 or to HTTP.
>
> This seems like security for no valid reason.
Exactly. I used the wording from their own page; but I think it'
Well, that would be nothing, because they're blocking your device from
having any access.
C.
On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 at 04:04, John Adams wrote:
> because no one should know what you read about or check out at wikipedia
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Dec 31, 2019, at 00:30, Matt Hoppes <
> mattli
Just to make it clear: are you suggesting that it should be a requirement
to always verify the site where anonymous people make anonymous edits? Let
that sink in.
C.
On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 at 05:31, J. Hellenthal wrote:
> ... because you should be able to verify the site you are at is actually
>
I think this is the worst of both worlds. The data is basically still
public, but you cannot access it unless someone marks you as a
"friend".
This policy is basically what Facebook is. And how well it played out
once folks realised that their shared data wasn't actually private?
C.
On 16 May
On 17 May 2018 at 08:03, Niels Bakker wrote:
> * na...@ics-il.net (Mike Hammett) [Thu 17 May 2018, 14:44 CEST]:
>>
>> Agreed. This is garbage, un-needed legislation.
>
>
> Disagreed. These are great and necessary regulations.
>
> I'm loving the flood of convoluted unsubscribe notices this month f
They should probably just rebrand to CoGeCo, but that does look kinda
silly, so, they probably won't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogeco
> Cogeco is an acronym for Compagnie Générale de Communication ("General
> Communications Company").
Both Cogent Communications and Cogeco are in pretty dif
On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 at 13:44, Mike Hammett wrote:
> What are your thoughts on why a network would join a non-profit IX, but not a
> neutral, for-profit IX? Let's assume that traffic levels are similar.
But are traffic levels actually similar? Most areas have one or the
other dominating the fiel
The most famous lack of IPv6 connectivity is between AS6939 (Hurricane
Electric LLC) and AS174 (Cogent Communication), not to be confused
with AS7992 (Cogeco Cable), which actually does peer with both
cogentco.com and he.net, including on IPv6.
The HE/Cogent issue is so widely known that, apparent
Hi Brian,
With all the CoGeCo 🇨🇦 vs. CogentCo 🇺🇸 confusion, I don't think
anyone asked the obvious question yet…
But what's exactly at 2a03:2880:f012:3:face:b00c:0:1?
I've tried reaching it on port http, and it doesn't answer:
% curl -6 -v --head --resolve
"www.facebook.com:80:2a03:2880:f012:3:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 at 22:12, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2018-12-20 at 17:28 -0600, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
> > Hi Brian,
>
> Hi,
>
> > But what's exactly at 2a03:2880:f012:3:face:b00c:0:1?
>
> It's one of the endpoints involved i
On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 20:01, William Herrin wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 5:52 PM Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan
> wrote:
> >> In addition, it bypasses all the security folks have built around the
> >> idea of blocking port 25 traffic from sources which should not be
> >> operating as mail serv
On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 22:00, Suresh Ramasubramanian
wrote:
> Most new MTA implementations over the past several years default to TLS with
> strong ciphers. So how much of a problem is low or no TLS right now?
The real problem is that opportunistic StartTLS stops being
opportunistic the minute
I'm pretty certain it's only in the TLS world where "opportunistic"
means to use it even if it doesn't actually work, just because it's
advertised as (potentially) available.
C.
[…]
> --srs
>
>
> From: Constantine A. Mure
On 08/03/2017, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Seems to me that the only people who get static, wireless, IP addresses
> are people who put sensors on vehicles and IoT applications. Who gets a
> static IP for a phone? This might cause some serious heartburn for my
> previous employer - who built CAD sys
On 20/07/2017, Hiers, David wrote:
> Hi,
> We're looking to extend some services into Canada. While our lawyers dig
> into it, I thought that I'd ask the hive mind about border restrictions.
>
> For traffic routing, is anyone constraining cross-border routing between
> Canada and the US? IOW, if
Hi Mike,
Thanks for sharing the story in what must be quite a difficult time.
You mention that Level3 also has presence in the county, including
their own independent route. Did they also suffer an outage during
this latest incident? If not, then why did their connection not allow
at least some
On 6 May 2014 07:56, wrote:
> On Tue, 06 May 2014 09:22:37 +0200, Henning Brauer said:
>> * Nick Hilliard [2014-04-26 22:56]:
>> > the situation was created by the openbsd team, not the ieee, the ietf or
>> > iana.
>>
>> that's nothing short of a lie.
>
> Umm.. remind me who chose the conflictin
On 6 May 2014 12:31, David Conrad wrote:
> Constantine,
>
> On May 6, 2014, at 11:54 AM, Constantine A. Murenin
> wrote:
>>>>>> As a final note of course, when we petitioned IANA, the IETF body
>>>>>> regulating "official" internet
On 6 May 2014 15:17, David Conrad wrote:
> Constantine,
>
> On May 6, 2014, at 4:15 PM, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
>>> Protocol 112 was assigned by IANA for VRRP in 1998.
>>>
>>> When did OpenBSD choose to squat on 112?
>>
>> If you don't
On 6 May 2014 18:51, Jared Mauch wrote:
>
> On May 6, 2014, at 9:11 PM, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
>
>> On 6 May 2014 15:17, David Conrad wrote:
>>> Constantine,
>>>
>>> On May 6, 2014, at 4:15 PM, Constantine A. Murenin
>>> wrote:
>
On 7 May 2014 15:09, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> CARP uses a VRRP version number that has not been defined by VRRP,
>> hence there is no conflict there, either. The link from the quote
>> above has a quote from Henning.
>
> Which means that in addition to squatting on the VRRP port,
VRRP protocol numb
On 7 May 2014 17:56, wrote:
> On Wed, 07 May 2014 17:10:32 -0700, "Constantine A. Murenin" said:
>
>> Also, would you please be so kind as to finally explain to us why
>> Google can squat on the https port with SPDY,
>
> Because it doesn't squat on the por
On 9 July 2014 11:18, Dennis Burgess wrote:
> Looking for a good listing of US/Canada peering exchange, similar to
> Torx in Toronto.
http://www.dmoz.org/Computers/Internet/Routers_and_Routing/Internet_Exchanges/North_America/
C.
On 21 July 2014 13:56, Alex Rubenstein wrote:
> What timing.
>
> I live in 07874. Out here, only 50 miles from New York City, we have a
> problem.
>
> Verizon's network in this area is older than most people who are subscribed
> to this list. The copper is literally falling off the telephone pol
On 21 July 2014 18:25, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> goe...@anime.net wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 21 Jul 2014, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>>>
>>> - the anti-muni laws hurt small localities the most, where none of the
>>> big players have any intent of deploying anything
>>
>>
>> This is exacatly why ashland fiber n
On 22 July 2014 09:09, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Well yeah, the LECs would definitely come unglued.
>
> But... first off, what do you mean by "free?" Someone has to pay the
> capital and operating budgets - so if not from user fees, then from taxes.
>
> So.. it's a nice thought, but not likely to h
Hello,
I personally don't understand this policy. I've signed up with
hetzner.de, and I'm trying to get IPv6; however, on the supplementary
page where the complementary IPv6 /64 subnet can be requested (notice
that it's not even a /48, and not even the second, routed, /64), after
I change the sel
On 8 December 2012 13:03, Mark Andrews wrote:
> It's also more than likely a hold over of IPv4 think where, generally,
> only companies are allocated address blocks. I would be ringing
> the ISP and talking to the staff escalating until you get to someone
> who understands the issue. Also a /64
On 8 December 2012 16:12, Dan Luedtke wrote:
> Hi,
>
> hmm, they get away with it once again. On the other hand their prices
> stay low.
>
> Off-topic but somehow important to me:
>> HE has an open-peering policy (AFAIK);
>> which basically means that tunnelbroker.net traffic is free for
>> hetzne
On 8 December 2012 23:10, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> Frankly, the more I think about this, the less it's clear why someone
>> like hetzner.de would actually want you to be using their native IPv6
>> support, instead of the one provided by HE.net through their free
>> tunnelbroker.net service. HE has a
On 10 December 2012 16:07, Mark Andrews wrote:
> You don't SWIP each residential customer with IPv4. You often SWIP blocks
> of residential customers down to the pop level.
> You often SWIP each commercial customer with IPv4.
>
> To require a SWIP entry for each residential customer is bureaucrac
also know of at least one other provider who gave me a /48 from
their ARIN-issued space without doing any kind of a whois record
within their /32, but they have only a single physical site, so it's
not such a big deal, IMHO.
Also, I notice that your policies at ARIN have exceptions explicitly
for
On 8 January 2013 12:29, Mark Foster wrote:
> I'm amazed that the NANOG mailing list doesn't simply reject email from
> non-subscribed addresses. I didn't realise that this was so difficult,
> considering it's an out-of-box Mailman feature to be able to arrange
> exactly that.
I think they're su
On 17 January 2013 17:17, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On Jan 17, 2013, at 4:30 PM, Jeff Kell wrote:
>
>> On 1/17/2013 6:50 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> Vonage will, in most cases fail through CGN as will Skype, Xbox-360,
>>> and many of the other IM clients.
>>
>> Not sure about Vonage, but Skype, Xbox,
On 18 January 2013 14:00, William Herrin wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 4:46 PM, Jean-Francois Mezei
> wrote:
>> Should NAT become prevalent and prevent innovation because of its
>> limitations, this means that innovation will happen only with IPv6 which
>> means the next "must have" viral appl
On 16 January 2013 08:12, fredrik danerklint wrote:
> From the article:
>
> "Faced with the shortage of IPv4 addresses and the failure of IPv6 to take
> off, British ISP PlusNet is testing carrier-grade network address
> translation CG-NAT, where potentially all the ISP's customers could be
> shar
On 28 January 2013 10:35, Warren Bailey
wrote:
> Spoken like a true ATT customer..;)
I've had an AT&T FTTU in my bedroom closet, which was an Alcatel
HONT-C (4 POTS (unused), 1 Ethernet; 155.52 Mbps upstream and 622.08
Mbps downstream; shared with at most 32 users), and AT&T California
outright r
On 28 January 2013 13:57, david peahi wrote:
> The above anecdote is typical in my experience with the telcos, and
> underscores the need for a national broadband buildout in the USA, funded
> and run by the Federal Government, based upon the Australian National
> Broadband Network model. The USA
On 9 February 2013 22:59, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Feb 2013, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
>
>> When you are staying at a 3* hotel, should you have no expectations that
>> you'll be getting at least a 3Mbps pipe and at least an under 100ms average
>> la
On 10 February 2013 11:02, joel jaeggli wrote:
> On 2/9/13 7:55 PM, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
>>
>> Dear NANOG@,
>>
>> In light of the recent discussion titled, "The 100 Gbit/s problem in
>> your network", I'd like to point out that smaller op
On 14 February 2013 11:58, David Hubbard wrote:
> Hi all, anyone have suggestions for very stable/reliable managed DNS?
> Neustar/UltraDNS is an obvious option to look at, just curious about
> alternatives. Cost effective would be nice, but stable under attack is
> better.
Not sure about attacks
r money
by going elsewhere? I hear microwave links are pretty popular these
days, and offer great bandwidth and latency.
C.
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Mike Lyon [mailto:mike.l...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Saturday, 09 February, 2013 23:23
>> To: Constantine A. Mureni
On 26 February 2013 20:03, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> Original Message -
>> From: "Owen DeLong"
>
> [ quoting me ]
>> > Ironically, I suspect that it's for the same reason that East Germany has
>> > right up to the minute telephony services these days, while West German is
>> > still sucking
On 27 February 2013 11:47, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On Feb 27, 2013, at 7:39 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
>
>> - Original Message -
>>> From: "Jared Mauch"
>>
>>> Sad as we all know the main cost for 1g to a site is in the optics
>>> (well actually the fiber build... But after that, it costs al
Dear NANOG@,
I've had a Linode in Fremont, CA (within 173.230.144.0/20 and
2600:3c01::/32) for over a year, and, in addition to some development,
I sometimes use it as an ssh-based personal SOCKS-proxy when
travelling and having to use any kind of public WiFi.
Since doing so, I have noticed that
On 2 March 2013 15:45, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> Now, back to ARIN: is Linode doing it right? Is vr.org doing it
>> wrong? Are they both doing it correct, or are they both wrong?
>>
>
> ARIN Policies do require Linode to SWIP their customer allocations,
> so the fact that they are not doing so is a
On 3 March 2013 12:02, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> On 03/03/2013 10:46, Arthur Wist wrote:
>> Apparently due to a routing issue...
>
> back up again: http://blog.cloudflare.com/todays-outage-post-mortem-82515
>
> tl;dr: outage caused by flowspec filter tickling vendor bug.
Definitely smart to be deleg
On 3 March 2013 23:31, Saku Ytti wrote:
> On (2013-03-03 12:46 -0800), Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
>
>> Definitely smart to be delegating your DNS to the web-accelerator
>> company and a single point of failure, especially if you are not just
>> running a web-s
Dear NANOG@,
Not every operator has the ability to setup their own anycast.
Not every operator is big enough to be paying 25 USD/month for a
managed GeoDNS solution, just to get their hands on GeoDNS. (Hey, for
25$/mo, I might as well have an extra POP or two!)
Why so many years after the conce
On 20 March 2013 20:43, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 08:28:23PM -0700, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
>> Any plans to make DNS itself GeoDNS-friendly?
>
> No. And I say this as someone working for a vendor that provides that
> service.
>
> Any s
On 20 March 2013 20:57, Seth Mattinen wrote:
> On 3/20/13 8:28 PM, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
>>
>> Why even stop there: all modern browsers usually know the exact
>> location of the user, often with street-level accuracy. It should be
>> possible to say that you h
On 20 March 2013 21:29, Masataka Ohta wrote:
> Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
>
>> Why even stop there: all modern browsers usually know the exact
>> location of the user, often with street-level accuracy.
>
> If you think mobile, they don't, especially because &q
On 21 March 2013 04:36, Masataka Ohta wrote:
> Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
>
>> Are you suggesting that geolocation is inaccurate enough to misplace
>> Europe with Asia?
>
> Yes, of course.
>
> Think mobile.
Why are you insisting that mobile will have wrong geol
On 21 March 2013 05:23, Graham Beneke wrote:
> On 21/03/2013 09:23, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
>> On 20 March 2013 21:29, Masataka Ohta
>> wrote:
>>> Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
>>>
>>>> Why even stop there: all modern browsers usually know th
On 1 April 2013 17:06, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Goes in the same category as this bit of news:
>
>
> IETF Announces IPv4 flag day for 1/1/2014. Today, IETF and IESG jointly
> announced that IPv4 would no longer be supported on the global internet after
> 1/1/2014. Those wishing to continue using the
Hello,
There has been at least a 25% packet loss between hetzner.de and cox.net
in the last couple of hours.
Tried contacting hetzner.de, but they said it's not on their network.
This has already happened a couple of days ago, too (strangely, on April 1),
but then was good for the rest of the
On 2013-W14-6 05:04 +0300, Denys Fedoryshchenko wrote:
> On 2013-04-06 04:32, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
> >Hello,
> >
> >There has been at least a 25% packet loss between hetzner.de and
> >cox.net
> >in the last couple of hours.
> >
> >Tried con
On 2013-W14-5 21:27 -0700, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
> On 2013-W14-6 05:04 +0300, Denys Fedoryshchenko wrote:
> > On 2013-04-06 04:32, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
> > >Hello,
> > >
> > >There has been at least a 25% packet loss between hetzner.de and
>
On 6 April 2013 18:24, cb.list6 wrote:
> Interesting.
>
> http://www22.verizon.com/support/residential/internet/highspeedinternet/networking/troubleshooting/portforwarding/123897.htm
> What is CGN - and How to opt-out The number and types of devices using the
> Internet have increased dramati
On 2 May 2013 11:12, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> On May 02, 2013, at 12:12 , Joe Abley wrote:
>> On 2013-05-02, at 12:10, Joe Abley wrote:
>>> On 2013-05-02, at 11:59, Charles Gucker wrote:
>
That's not entirely true.You can easily do lookup for
whoami.akamai.net and it will ret
On 2 May 2013 15:41, Cameron Daniel wrote:
> On 2013-05-03 4:57 am, Christopher Morrow wrote:
>>
>> anyway... nit-picking-aside, cool that there's a way to figure this sort
>> of
>> thing out :)
>> google has a similar method, which I can't find today :( > webcrawler!!!>
>
>
> dig -t txt o-o.myadd
MicroCenter Santa Clara / Silicon Valley is no more, due to the rent
extortion in the Bay Area.
If you care for my rant on the subject:
http://tu.cnst.su/post/39584711234/why-microcenter-silicon-valley-is-no-more
C.
On 31 May 2013 11:16, Warren Bailey
wrote:
> We talked about this the other
Dear NANOG@,
I came across an interesting problem in trying to find an affordable
KVM provider with IPv6 support.
It seems like several rather major and reputable providers in the
value sector do claim to have IPv6 support, but once you get your IPv6
addresses or subnets from them, you might be r
On 26 January 2015 at 13:26, Brad Bendy wrote:
> Has anyone seen issues where a end user on uVerse trying to connect to
> either another provider or AT&T non uVerse (in this case DIA) is having SIP
> blocked? SIP leaving the uVerse network going to another uVerse DSL account
> is fine, but it appe
On 6 December 2015 at 18:24, 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?
>>>
>>
>> Question: Why would you have to drop
On 23 November 2015 at 20:05, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>> On Nov 23, 2015, at 17:28 , Baldur Norddahl
>> wrote:
>>
>> On 24 November 2015 at 00:22, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
>>> Are there a significant number (ANY?) streaming video providers using UDP
>>> to deliver their streams?
>>>
>>
>> What else c
On 23 November 2015 at 20:45, Mark Andrews wrote:
> T-Mo could have just increased the data limits by the data usage
> of 7x24 standard definition video stream and achieved the same thing
> in a totally network neutral way. Instead they choose to play
> favourites with a type of technology.
1,5M
On 7 January 2016 at 19:43, Valdis Kletnieks wrote:
> So we went round and round back in November regarding Binge On! and whether
> it was net neutrality. So here's some closure to that...
>
> The EFF did some testing and discovered that what T-Mobile is actually doing
> doesn't match what they sa
>
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
>
>
> Midwest Internet Exchange
> http://www.midwest-ix.com
>
>
> - Original Message -
>
> From: "Constantine A. Murenin"
> To: "Valdi
On 10 January 2016 at 20:12, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>> On Jan 9, 2016, at 08:01 , Jeremy Austin wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 5:06 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The best solution for everybody is the solution most consumers are adverse
>>> to, which is usage based billing. Granted, many
On 21 January 2016 at 19:42, Matthew D. Hardeman wrote:
> An excellent point. Nobody would tolerate this in IPv4 land. Those disputes
> tended to end in days and weeks (sometimes months), but not years.
>
> That said, as IPv6 is finally gaining traction, I suspect we’ll be seeing
> less tolera
On 23 January 2016 at 02:43, Tore Anderson wrote:
> William,
>
>> Don't get me wrong. You can cure this fraud without going to extremes.
>> An open peering policy doesn't require you to buy hardware for the
>> other guy's convenience. Let him reimburse you or procure the hardware
>> you spec out i
I completely agree, the only possible explanation would be if they
actually get paid by Google for IPv4 transit (either directly or
indirectly), or somehow use Google's IPv4 traffic as a leverage to pad
the in/out ratios (and/or overall traffic levels) such as to continue
to enjoy settlement-free p
On 27 February 2016 at 10:26, Frank Bulk wrote:
> Anyone from Southwest Airlines on this list?
>
> On a recent flight I discovered I couldn't complete payment through PayPal
> because my web browsers properly noticed that the Southwest Airlines SSL
> certificate that the captive portal was giving
On 29 February 2016 at 08:53, Paul S. wrote:
> DO's SG range is allocated out of a single /64 (I think?) and Google
> basically asks for captcha on every single request over IPv6. :(
The solution is to not signup with providers that have no respect for
RFCs and BCPs.
Proper VPS providers have no
On 2 March 2016 at 03:46, William Herrin wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 1:12 AM, Karl Auer wrote:
>> Testing in court the idea that you may not advertise my routes would be
>> a fascinating exercise. If you falsely advertised them it would be a
>> different matter.
>
> Hi Karl,
>
> I'm having tr
On 10 April 2016 at 14:48, Jon Lewis wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Apr 2016, Max Tulyev wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> I need to stop IPv6 web traffic going from our customers to Google
>> without touching all other IPv6 and without blackhole IPv6 Google
>> network (this case my customers are complaining on long
On 26 June 2015 at 11:04, Hank Disuko wrote:
> Bell Canada is apparently gearing up to provide the good people of Toronto
> with the World's Fastest Internet™.
> http://www.thestar.com/news/city_hall/2015/06/25/bell-canada-to-give-toronto-worlds-fastest-internet.html
Only 1Gbps?!
LOL, but US In
1 - 100 of 111 matches
Mail list logo
