On Mon, Jun 07, 2010 at 03:50:25PM -0500, Dale Cornman wrote:
Has anyone ever heard of a multi-homed enterprise not running bgp with
either of 2 providers, but instead, each provider statically routes a block
to their common customer and also each originates this block in BGP?
Yes; tends to
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 09:34:53PM +0300, Kasper Adel wrote:
Thanks for all the people that replied off list, asking me to send them
responses i will get.
[snip]
Which is useful but i am looking for more stuff from the best people that
run the best NOCs in the world.
So i'm throwing this
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 09:34:40AM -0600, Danny McPherson wrote:
On Jul 20, 2010, at 1:26 AM, Saku Ytti wrote:
On (2010-07-19 23:45 -0500), Brad Fleming wrote:
Hey,
: for local rtbh
: for local + remote rtbh
I didn't have much reason for selecting other
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 01:40:10PM +, Julien Gormotte wrote:
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 09:28:09 -0400, Rodrick Brown
rodrick.br...@gmail.com wrote:
Its unrealistic to believe payment for priority access isn't going to
happen this model is used for many other outlets today I'm not sure why
so
...and I used to live in parts of Virginia where rednecks took
out signs with shotguns and no doubt now [if not run out by
gentrification] take out fiber.
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 01:59:03PM -0700, Michael K. Smith - Adhost wrote:
[snip]
Long story short, you can't account for stupid.
...and
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 03:39:31PM -0500, Greg Whynott wrote:
[snip]
i have my maxas-limit set to 10 based on an article I was reading.
perhaps I should up that a bit.
That article was deeply mistaken. 50 was reasonable for older IOS with
bugs back in ... 2001-2003? I think. under the
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 04:49:48PM -0600, Aaron Wendel wrote:
A customer pays them for access to the Internet. If that access demands
more infrastructure then Comcast needs to build out the infrastructure and
pass on the costs to the customers demanding it.
s/Comcast/Level3/
I think it sets
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 08:03:27PM -0800, Leo Bicknell wrote:
[snip]
If the FCC wanted to do something useful they would look at the
combined ratio of all /customers/ of an ISP, and then require their
peering policy to allow for around 2x of that.
[snip]
...or maybe not get involved in peering
On Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 05:49:53PM -0500, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 5:10 PM, Matthew Petach mpet...@netflight.com wrote:
fair game for reverse billing. ?If it does, it's going to completely
eliminate transit as a commercial offering; instead, we'll
all be stuck
Recent IETF announce message
(http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg08209.html)
indicates comments should get in by the 19th. IMO a decent update
your expectations document with a refreshingly healthy nod to
netowkr realities. I'm sure they'd love more operator input,
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 11:16:30AM -0800, Leo Bicknell wrote:
[snip]
So from about 1996 to 2000 we had competition. They then figured out
how to rig the system so there is no effective competition, and so far
the government has been A-Ok with that.
You also miss the part about the capital
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 11:46:10AM -0800, Leo Bicknell wrote:
In a message written on Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 02:31:09PM -0500, Joe Provo
wrote:
Everywhere that had enough paying-humans-per fiber-mile, so primarily
the Northeast corridor (Metro DC through Metro Boston). Parts of the
SF Bay
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 12:46:39PM -0800, JC Dill wrote:
[snip]
Your lmgtfy link's search finds 5 year old press releases about
discussions to PLAN overbuilding in various locations. What I want are
the Names of Specific Locations (in the SF Bay Area) where such
overbuilds are currently in
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 07:13:53PM -0500, Lars Carter wrote:
[snip]
There are two companies, Company A and Company B, that are planning to
continuously exchange a large amount of sensitive data and are located in a
mutual datacenter. They decide to order a cross connect and peer privately
for
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 10:31:43PM -0600, Jeremy wrote:
Has there been any discussion about allocating the Class E blocks? If this
doesn't count as future use what does? (Yes, I realize this doesn't *fix*
the problem here)
https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/240-e
Last real message? 31 Oct 2007
On Thu, Feb 03, 2011 at 10:43:09PM -0500, Jay Ashworth wrote:
An armed FBI special agent shows up at your facility and tells your ranking
manager to shut down the Internet.
legal paperwork or pound sand. [very small hurdle, pathetic how many
LEOs seek to avoid it] The rest of it waits for
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 01:27:29PM +, Tony Finch wrote:
Jay Nakamura zeusda...@gmail.com wrote:
666,624 is kind of odd number, isn't it? That comes out to a
/13,/15,/19,/21 and a /22.
From the court documents I gather that it is a collection of miscellaneous
blocks that Nortel
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 08:13:46PM -0500, Benson Schliesser wrote:
[snip]
It's obvious that ARIN, as well as other whois database providers,
should pay attention to the proceedings. But under what premise
might ARIN act as a party to this lawsuit?
The proper question might be that if neither
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 01:10:48PM +1000, Julian DeMarchi wrote:
On 01/10/2013 01:06 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
Who uses it? Or did you see your IP listed in one of those multiple dnsbl
query sites and contacted them on general principles even though you didn't
see any actual bounced
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 03:36:44PM -0400, Zhiyun Qian wrote:
It has been long heard that many ISPs block outgoing port 25 for the purpose
of reducing spam originated from their network.
Yes, it is standard practice for non-server accounts and most dynamic-only
accounts; only allow
. If you have colleagues which attended (in person
or via the webcast) but may not be paying attention to this mailing list,
please do give them the survey URL so we can get their comments too.
Cheers!
Joe Provo
NANOG SC chair
--
RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 09:45:24AM -0400, Drew Weaver wrote:
Howdy,
Keep in mind I am basing this 'idea' off of fixed orbit's data
which can sometimes be a bit out of date, etc.
Understatement.
[snip]
I realize that we can use communities, and prepends to control
the inbound flow, I am
-10-22 New PC appointed
Thu 2009-10-29 MLC nominations close
Tue 2009-11-03 New MLC appointed
Cheers!
Joe Provo
on behalf of the NANOG Steering Committee
--
RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE
___
NANOG-announce mailing list
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 11:30:47AM -0400, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, Charles Mills wrote:
[snip]
Do the best of my knowledge, no. The definition of 'Tier 1' is something
of a moving target based on who you ask, but the most commonly stated
criteria I've seen over the
On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 09:34:46AM -0400, R. Benjamin Kessler wrote:
Hey Gang -
I'm unable to get to cisco.com from multiple places on the 'net
(including downforeveryoneorjustme.com); any ideas on the cause and ETR?
Instead of the hoot-n-holler line, maybe check bgp?
[Followups set to futures as organization discussion.]
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 08:13:55AM -0400, William Allen Simpson wrote:
Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
above link, and routing, at transport, there is a tld effort as well.
Randy Bush wrote:
yes. informally, a fair number of nanogians
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 11:20:28AM -0700, goe...@anime.net wrote:
On Wed, 12 Aug 2009, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 9:57 AM, Drew Weaverdrew.wea...@thenap.com wrote:
Anyone know why SAAVIS would be allowing PEER1 (AS 13768) to advertise
routes for whatever IP addresses
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 02:30:38PM -0700, Kevin Oberman wrote:
[snip]
While a web 2.0 app would be very nice, it's really not that hard to do
now. You do need the IRRToolSet or something similar. the IRRToolSet has
languished for a long time and was getting harder and harder to keep
running,
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 03:37:07PM -0600, randal k wrote:
Yep, we started seeing this right around 12:20pm MST. We saw it from a
customer's rapidly-flapping BGP peer. We told them to configure bgp
maxas-limit, but apparently CRS1s don't have that command.
Anybody have a handy route-map that
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 09:37:22AM +0200, Ivan Pepelnjak wrote:
Anybody have a handy route-map that will deny anything with a
as-path longer than say 15-20? ;-)
http://wiki.nil.com/Filter_excessively_prepended_BGP_paths
It will still be a while before we see unbroken 4byte AS behavior
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 12:58:01PM -0500, Clue Store wrote:
[snip]
would like to go with , but I have had some in the industry say this is not
as good as running an IGP with the customer.
Name and shame. TTBOMK, no-one who thought walking that road was a
Good Idea did so for long after
[comment: subject is irksome - Unroutable? That is meaningless]
On Thu, Sep 03, 2009 at 05:20:23PM -0400, Peter Beckman wrote:
I can't reach 83.222.0.0/19 from Verizon, but I can via Cox Communications
Business Fiber as well as Level3. Dies at a peering point it seems:
HOST: home
home and avoid contact
with others and do attend remotely via the streams. Keep an eye on
the agenda for links! http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog47/agenda.php
Your help in making the NANOG (and ARIN) meetings enjoyable for all
attendees is appreciated.
Cheers!
Joe Provo
for the Steering
Hey folks,
Just a reminder that the NANOG Election polls will be closing at 09.15 EDT.
If you are listed here
http://www.nanog.org/governance/elections/2009elections/2009_voters.php
you can vote, no matter where in the world you are. Ballot is here:
https://nanog.merit.edu/election/
MLC
On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 04:19:23PM -0500, Lee Riemer wrote:
Isn't blocking any port against the idea of Net Neutrality?
Which demonstrates just how relevant to reality such things are.
--
RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE
[tangent of interst for the archives]
On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 02:07:42PM -0500, Joe Greco wrote:
[snip]
If I'm assigned 24.1.2.3 by Comcast, and Comcast filters my ingress to
prevent me from emitting other addresses, you claim that's fine because
it's BCP38.
There's a problem: I can
/2009mlc_candidates.php)
before the Steering Committee meets on 3 November.
Cheers!
Joe Provo
--
RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE
___
NANOG-announce mailing list
nanog-annou...@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo
On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 09:37:03PM +0100, Andy B. wrote:
Hi,
Quick question: Would you buy transit from someone who does not
support BGP communities?
No.
--
RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 09:41:09AM -0600, Joe Greco wrote:
[attributions lost]
I'm reasonable certain a customer of ours who is using one of our
netblocks is using a different reverse path to reach us. How might I
figure out who is allowing them to source traffic from IPs that belong
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 04:37:35PM +0200, Gregory Edigarov wrote:
[snip]
can anybody recomend a piece of software, that could graph a live
network scanning it via snmp.
requirements are:
1. must produce a text output suitable for postproduction. graphviz is
an ideal, xml - acceptable.
On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 08:02:28PM -0200, Alvaro Pereira wrote:
And note that the Juniper EX2500 does not run JUNOS, it is just an OEM box
from someone else...
Blade Networks, now IBM.
Alvaro
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 10:23, Tim Vollebregt t...@interworx.nl wrote:
2,5MB shared
On Thu, Feb 02, 2012 at 07:53:53AM +, George Bonser wrote:
Back in the old days, people cared about policing bad behavior.
And I believe that is all that is needed today. We simply, as a
community, need to decide that we aren't going to tolerate such
behavior. It really is that
On Thu, Feb 09, 2012 at 01:28:07AM +0530, Anurag Bhatia wrote:
[snip]
I have never did such setup, but I assume it works as you say. I wonder how
it finds a US based system from IP quickly (since it's DNS server)?
Drop ip geolocation or internet geolocation into Your Favorite
Search Engine.
On Wed, Mar 07, 2012 at 09:29:29AM -0800, Radke, Justin wrote:
How can I easily view the current peering relationship of a particular AS?
Assume the AS you are researching does not have a looking glass and you are
not going to do lookups from the top 10 providers route servers to get some
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 08:45:12AM -0700, David Conrad wrote:
Leo,
On Mar 28, 2012, at 8:13 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
#1) Money.
#2) Laziness.
While Patrick is spot on, there is a third issue which is related
to money and laziness, but also has some unique aspects.
BCP38 makes the
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 07:31:26PM -0400, Jon Lewis wrote:
On Thu, 29 Mar 2012, Joe Provo wrote:
uRFP was a trivial, 0-impact feature on the cisco VXR-based CMTS
platform. Assert a simple statement in the default config (along
with 'ips classless' and all your other standard config elements
On Tue, May 01, 2012 at 02:43:50PM -0400, William Herrin wrote:
On 5/1/12, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.net wrote:
On May 1, 2012, at 13:26 , William Herrin wrote:
If I'm willing to go to your location, buy the card for your router
and pay you for the staff hours to set it up, there
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:26:29PM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote:
On 31/05/2012 11:23, Daniel Suchy wrote:
In my experience, there're not so many service providers
doing that.
Plenty of providers do it. IIWY, I would universally rewrite origin at
your ingress points to be the same;
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 10:19:16AM +0200, Daniel Suchy wrote:
On 05/31/2012 07:06 PM, Saku Ytti wrote:
On (2012-05-31 08:46 -0700), David Barak wrote:
On what precisely do you base the idea that a mandatory
transitive attribute of a BGP prefix is a purely advisory flag
which has no
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 08:03:50PM +0200, Daniel Suchy wrote:
On 06/01/2012 07:38 PM, Joe Provo wrote:
You clearly did not read the previous posts involving actual historical
evidence [and apparently ongoing] of remote networks attempting action
at a distance knowing that many overlook
Last post on this topic for me. You seem to wish to argue
against the lessons of history and the reality of running
a network on the global Internet.
On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 09:27:36AM +0200, Daniel Suchy wrote:
On 06/02/2012 02:53 AM, Joe Provo wrote:
Cost and performance were merely two
On Mon, Jun 04, 2012 at 06:08:47PM -0400, alex-lists-na...@yuriev.com wrote:
Hello,
If anyone has a contact in the Google Group that deals with Google's
Public DNS servers ( i.e. the 8.8.8.8/8.8.4.4 creatures ) could that person
kindly drop me an email off list?
I believe there might be
On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 01:13:45PM -0400, Manish Karir wrote:
All,
We are working on a project with the University of Michigan related
with studying the evolution of .com/.net zones
Does anyone have copies of .com / .net zone files around the
beginning of 2011?
Any help would be greatly
On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 03:17:25PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Jun 8, 2012, at 1:41 PM, Alec Muffett wrote:
PS: when security is hard, people simply don't do it. Blaming the victim
of poor engineering that leads people to not be able to perform best
practices is not the answer.
On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 04:27:29PM -0400, Christopher Morrow wrote:
err, last 3 times I asked this I was shown the error of my ways, but
here goes...
209.250.228.241 - seems to not have any records in ARIN's WHOIS
database, everythign seems to roll up to the /8 record :(
I see this routed
While we will expect to see the Patrick S. Ryan Jacob Glick
paper linked on
http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog55/abstracts.php?pt=MTk0OCZuYW5vZzU1nm=nanog55
at some point, folks wanting a head start on digesting it can
hit http://ssrn.com/abstract=2077095
Interestingly enough,
On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 01:01:35PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
[snip]
If you're that concerned about calling 911 for a heat stroke, why don't
you maintain a POTS line?
Choices are great but carry responsibility and result in
consequences. Some folks don't like to hear that, or just
can't be
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 05:57:20PM -0500, Craig Holland wrote:
They gave no particular reason. I figured I'd ask ya'all before I
started to push back and use phrases like 'silly', 'ridiculous', and
'pointless' in my argument to them.
Allow me:
It is silly to attempt to use only a single
[snip]
http://www.gweep.net/~crimson/Don't_Feed_The_Trolls.mp3
--
RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 11:00:15AM -0700, Christopher Rogers wrote:
What's the situation with the philadelphia internet exchange? Their
website, www.phlix.net does not resolve. Google is sparse. Anyone have
any information regarding that IX? Is it gone? If it's gone, what are
some viable
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 03:28:04PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 15:17:45 EDT, Paul Stewart said:
I can think of some but looking to develop a concrete list of appealing
reasons etc. such as:
-control over routing between networks
-security aspect (being able to
On Tue, Nov 04, 2008 at 01:07:13PM -0800, Gregori Parker wrote:
I've been reading up on BGP and asking around, but still havent found a
hard yes/no on this...hopefully someone here can provide clarification.
If I have a single ASN and an IP allocation from ARIN, can I advertise
one half of
On Mon, Dec 01, 2008 at 08:14:20PM +0100, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
[snip]
On 1 dec 2008, at 15.08, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
[snip]
I don't think any IXP can become a significant player on the
Internet today by only attracting participants from the country in
question. The Internet is
[cf http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg12684.html and
related past threads]
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 10:53:48AM -0500, Joe Abley wrote:
[snip]
More likely that someone would filter based on the longest assignment
made in a particular /8 (e.g. in 202/7, 199/8 we might expect to see /
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 02:34:39PM +1300, Nathan Ward wrote:
[snip]
Let me rephrase; Are there people who are filtering /24s received from
eBGP peers who do not have a default route?
of course.
--
RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE
community.
As always, we encourage you to send any questions or concerns via
email, or by voice at Merit 1.734.527.5700.
Looking forward to seeing you there!
Joe Provo
SC Chair
--
RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 04:51:36PM -0500, Joe Abley wrote:
[snip]
In my experience prepending someone else's AS to a prefix has only
been useful operationally only as a short-term, emergency measure
(e.g. when trying to avoid a black-hole between two remote ASes,
neither of whom shows
On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 12:29:28PM -0400, Charles Regan wrote:
I want to advertise my /22 to two different ISP on different POP.
I can't use BGP as ISP1 doesn't support it.
Get a new ISP and fire whoever signed that contract before getting
the technical details correct.
--
RSUC
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 02:06:09PM +0100, Mathias Wolkert wrote:
I'd like to know what software people are using to document networks.
Visio is obvious but feels like a straight jacket to me.
I liked netviz but it seems owned by CA and unsupported nowadays.
What do you use?
To what end? The
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 11:28:11AM -0800, Tony Hain wrote:
[snip]
starts with IP and runs alongside IPv4 (like we used to do with decnet,
sna, appletalk...), you will be comforted in all the similarities. You will
This is highly amusing, as for myself and many folks the experience
of these
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 01:15:40PM -0800, Darren Bolding wrote:
Is there a good source to explain the whole RADB system, and
tools/processes people use to maintain routing policies/filters based on it?
I'd like to both review and make sure my current understanding is accurate,
and have a doc
On Sat, Mar 07, 2009 at 12:26:45PM +0100, Chris Meidinger wrote:
Saqib,
On 07.03.2009, at 12:12, Saqib Ilyas wrote:
I must thank everyone who has answered my queries. Just a couple more
short questions.
For instance, if one is using MRTG, and wants to check if we can meet
a 1 Mbps
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 12:14:08PM -0400, Steve Bertrand wrote:
[snip]
Are there any potential dangers of publishing our information before we
use it that I may be overlooking?
In case you are worried about folks who filter, recall that the IRR
uniqueeness is based upon the Prefix/length,
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 05:13:54PM +, tt tt wrote:
Hi List,
We are looking to move our non infrastructure routes into iBGP
to help with our IGP scalability (OSPF). We already run full BGP
tables on our core where we connect to multiple upstream and
downstream customers. Most of our
On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 11:45:08AM -0400, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
Daniel Senie d...@senie.com writes:
We observe this same kind of behavior with firewalls in the path
watching for dead sessions they can clean up. Appears they send RSTs
to both end points when they decide a session has
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 04:13:38PM -0500, Jack Bates wrote:
[snip]
The original question provides a good statistic, I think. Only 8
prefixes that were announced by more than 3 origin AS.
And the overall message is that only the (prefix holder|originating
ASn[s]) can tell you if it is intended
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 03:49:25PM -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
[snip]
I'm aware what side it's on. However, I didn't have contact information
for an actual human on either side of the link, so I posted on [EMAIL
PROTECTED]
[snip]
There's a lot of rolodex resources out there that can get you
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 01:37:43PM +, *Hobbit* wrote:
[snip]
If this happened to some of the other major sources of crap that
I'm thinking of, it would make the freaking NATIONAL NEWS. Where's
the BACKBONE to go after the real high-volume sources, rather than
continuing to kick sand in
On Thu, Dec 24, 2009 at 01:09:26PM -0500, Randy Bush wrote:
I _do_ create action plans and _do_ quarterback each step and _do_
slap down any attempt to deviate.
imagine a network engineering culture where the concept of 'attempt to
deviate' just does not occur.
Whimsical deviations don't
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 12:19:32PM -0500, Jared Mauch wrote:
[snip]
Apparently I forgot the rant tag, but really, if you have sane
CoPP policies, you are mostly protected. If the vendor does not
provide this capability, please STOP BUYING THEIR CRAP.
Another fine example of broken
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 05:13:39PM -0800, George Bonser wrote:
[snip]
Some of that water is dirtier than the rest. I wouldn't want to be the
person who gets 1.2.3.0/24
Yeah, I encountered some lovely wireless hotspots that use visit
http://1.1.1.1/ to log out. Seem some vendors encourage the
On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 02:16:30AM -0700, Sean Reifschneider wrote:
I've wondered about this for years, but only this evening did I start
searching for details. And I really couldn't find any.
Can anyone point me at distant history about how 4.2.2.2 came to be, in my
estimation, the most
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 09:30:38PM +, Paolo Lucente wrote:
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 10:20:41PM +0100, Arnold Nipper wrote:
On 11.03.2010 16:29 Dylan Ebner wrote
Do the Arista switches support netflow? From a management perspective
netflow can be vital. This is something we have been
On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 02:04:39PM +0200, jul wrote:
Hello,
While watching some parked domains, I recently observed one which has a
TXT field containing some crypto value, something like a ssh key/RSA 512
or 1024 output (only the crypto part 'cvxvcvcxvcxv=' ).
If the TXT data is a large
On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 01:20:04AM -0400, Anton Kapela wrote:
So, this week, I actually read the update report. Noting the stats below (..a
flap/update once per minute? please, fix your CPE router), I have but one
humble request:
Could the settlement-free members of the DFZ please consider
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 12:58:43PM -0400, Bill Bogstad wrote:
[snip]
be attractive to at least some of them. Come up with some kind of
logo for the program IPv6 READY!. Make it a bandwagon thing so
that vendors who aren't part of the program look behind the times.
Wheels, they get
On Fri, Aug 05, 2011 at 05:04:51PM -0700, Bino Gopal wrote:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20768-us-internet-providers-hijacking-users-search-queries.html
It is more than slightly misleading to say hijacking search
queries; paxfire is evil as it hijacks dns and breaks NXDOMAIN
and
On Sat, Aug 06, 2011 at 10:41:10AM -0400, Scott Helms wrote:
Correct, I don't believe that any of the providers noted are actually
[snip]
Belief has nothing to do with it. The article is vaguely referring
to 'search' and incorrectly jumps to https. Disappointing that
nanog readers can't read
On Sat, Aug 06, 2011 at 01:25:18PM -0500, Jimmy Hess wrote:
On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 12:08 PM, Joe Provo nanog-p...@rsuc.gweep.netwrote:
On Sat, Aug 06, 2011 at 10:41:10AM -0400, Scott Helms wrote:
Correct, I don't believe that any of the providers noted are actually
[snip
On Fri, Sep 09, 2011 at 02:41:40PM +0200, Grzegorz Janoszka wrote:
Telia (AS1299) stopped announce some prefixes to us, ie 83.8.0.0/13. Is
it another internet depeering? Do you also see it?
There are more routing policies on the Internet, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
I
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 11:36:44AM -0500, Dennis Burgess wrote:
I have a network that has three peers, two are at one site and the third
is geographically diverse, and there is NO connection between the two
separate networks.
So, you have two islands? Technically, that would be separate
ASNs
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 01:18:04PM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Jun 10, 2013, at 12:54 , Joe Provo nanog-p...@rsuc.gweep.net wrote:
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 11:36:44AM -0500, Dennis Burgess wrote:
I have a network that has three peers, two are at one site and the third
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 03:22:41PM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Jun 10, 2013, at 14:14 , Joe Provo nanog-p...@rsuc.gweep.net wrote:
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 01:18:04PM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Jun 10, 2013, at 12:54 , Joe Provo nanog-p...@rsuc.gweep.net wrote:
On Mon, Jun
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 12:26:01AM +0200, Niels Bakker wrote:
[snip]
Also, if you don't have data, best to keep your opinion to yourself,
because you might well be wrong.
The deuce you say! Replacing uninformed conjecture and conspiracy
theories with actual data? Next thing you know there
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 10:42:55AM -0800, Paul Ferguson wrote:
[snip]
Taken to the logical extreme, the right thing to do is to deny any
spoofed traffic from abusing these services altogether. NTP is not the
only one; there is also SNMP, DNS, etc.
...and then we're back to implement BCP38
This has always been the case, and traffic splay and origin/sink
management has been more important than cost savings since at
least 2002? Maybe 2001. Definitely before 2004.
On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 08:42:06PM -0700, wbn wrote:
Hi fellow NANOGers -
I recently spent some time with peering
On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 12:53:07AM +0900, Paul S. wrote:
Do these people never check what exactly they end up originating
outbound due to a config change, if that's really the case?
Of course not because their neighbors are allowing it to
pass; so as with all hijacks, deaggregation, and other
No, we examined this back in 2007. See your favorite cache site
for http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/240-e
--
RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / CotSG / Usenix / NANOG
On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 05:54:18PM +0200, Job Snijders wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 11:41:52AM +, Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed) wrote:
> > I am a co-author on a route-leak detection/mitigation/prevention draft
> > in the IDR WG in the IETF:
> >
On Wed, Jun 08, 2016 at 11:48:36AM +, Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed) wrote:
> Thanks for the inputs about the inter-AS messaging and route-leak prevention
> techniques between neighboring ASes. Certainly helpful information and also
> useful
> for the draft
1 - 100 of 139 matches
Mail list logo
