-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chance Whaley wrote:
| Sorry about that. Didn't look in detail. Saw the UDP port 6257 and
| stopped.
|
| The mcast is coming from someplace upstream from
| fastethernet-0-0.genoa-gw.amplex.net (that is if I did my mcast
| MAC to mcast IP conversion
On Apr 14, 9:22am, Scott Grayban [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The more bashing I hear here the less I want to ask a question here.
I'm not stupid but I am worried that one question might spark a rash of
flames back at me.
This is a newbies point of view.
Thanks for braving it.-)
It would be
If I may, you sound like someone whom FT has depeered in the past? :)
Personally no. ;)
simply playing devils advocate - who really knows what business model
people are following? who really knows why this has happened? But in
my view this type of action where it impacts customers doesn't
you'll never get better redundancy than having more than one carrier.
On the contrary, you get better redundancy by sticking to
one carrier and making sure that they really provide
separacy though the entire span of the circuit. If you
have two carriers running fibre to yoiur building down
the
from FT:
FT terminated its direct interconnection with Cogent as they did not
comply with 2 of the criterias of the FT Peering Policy. This Policy
is official and published.
However, route exchanges between Cogent and FT customer remained
possible through IP transit provider networks such as
Lanny
I'm seeing delays of arounf 5 hours for mail being sent through Postini
at the moment. One of our suppliers complained they hadn't got our
normal call-offs and then it arrived, about 5 hours after had been sent.
The Postini is accepting messages, before passing on to the end
recipient
Hi John,
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Payne) [Fri 15 Apr 2005, 00:48 CEST]:
Do you? Relying 100% on anycast is MUCH worse than not deploying
anycast at all. Spend some time thinking about various failure modes.
(*sigh* just read NANOG archives if you want the short cut)
In my opinion this
This report has been generated at Fri Apr 15 21:48:05 2005 AEST.
The report analyses the BGP Routing Table of an AS4637 (Reach) router
and generates a report on aggregation potential within the table.
Check http://www.cidr-report.org/as4637 for a current version of this report.
Recent Table
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 6:34 AM
To: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: Anyone familiar with the SBC product lingo?
you'll never get better redundancy than having more than
one
On the contrary, you get better redundancy by sticking to
one carrier and making sure that they really provide
separacy though the entire span of the circuit. If you
have two carriers running fibre to yoiur building down
the same conduit, then you do NOT have separacy and as
a
...which reminds me of the Spoofer Project:
The Spoofer Project: State of IP Spoofing
http://momo.lcs.mit.edu/spoofer/summary.php
- ferg
-- Bill Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's ok. At least six more Telstra PCs will get compromised tomorrow.
I don't know if they're doing uRPF
Speaking on Deep Background, the Press Secretary whispered:
(Anybody here *NOT* seen cases where the 2 fibers leave the building on
opposite
sides, go down different streets - and rejoin 2 miles down the way because
there's only one convenient bridge/tunnel/etc over the river, or
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005, Daniel Golding wrote:
I also wonder how long it will be before home routers have DNS servers
built-in, with a switch to let users select between iterative queries of
their upstream's DNS and a normal recursive query. Has anyone seen this in
the consumer market?
My
Do you seriously view it that way? See the financial analysis
available on the web about Cogent and tell me the same thing again.
Same could be said for many companies in our industry at the
moment, I call them the zombies.
I want my packets to make it to the destination. For some
Euros
And I agree re: the building entrance issue and later choke points.
Anyone recall the time several years ago that most of the Valley was
isolated? One route was across the ?Bay? Bridge; it was down for
planned maintenance when backhoe fade struck around San Jose.
How many paths is enough?
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005, Jeff Cole wrote:
Brandon Ross wrote:
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005, Sean Donelan wrote:
Its called DHCP/PPP, both will auto-magically configure the correct DNS
Which doesn't work very well when your provider cannot keep a DNS server up
for 10 minutes at a time. See the beginning of
I'm seeing delays of arounf 5 hours for mail being sent through Postini
at the moment. One of our suppliers complained they hadn't got our
normal call-offs and then it arrived, about 5 hours after had been sent.
FYI, Postini only talks to their customers, not to senders whose mail
they are
On Apr 15, 2005, at 8:59 AM, Daniel Golding wrote:
Too late. Every Mac ships with a working version of BIND. Its not
enabled by
default, but it can be turned on with a few keystrokes.
Name a flavor of unix which doesn't?
And even if you can, name a flavor of unix which can't get it installed
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Daniel Golding) writes:
This is part of the game.
more like a war.
Party A depeers Party B. Party B has received 30 to 60 days notification.
That gives party B enough time to do one of two things.
1) They can ensure they have sufficient transit and/or peering with
I would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone at Nanog that has
assisted me in the completion of this paper. It's being submitted on Monday
and I will be sure to let you know how it goes
Once again - THANX
Doug
MDC Student
Kingston University
London /UK
-Original Message-
Daniel Golding wrote:
If you take a look at the dslreports.com forums, there are numerous
complains about DNS performance from various DSL and cable modem users. I'm
not sure how reasonable these complains are. The usual solution from other
users is to install a piece of Windows software called
And a very few population centers such as New York,
London, Tokyo, and Cheyenne Mountain should probably
have more than 5 paths.
I disagree. They may need that many spare paths beyond what is
required to provide their services, but in my experience pretty much
all
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 12:20:14PM -0700, Steve Gibbard wrote:
Speaking just for myself, I'd welcome discussion of operational and design
issues specific to edge networks here, and newbie questions are useful as
well. If those with experience don't share knowledge with those with less
From: Per Gregers Bilse [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 09:46:14 +0100
On Apr 14, 9:22am, Scott Grayban [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The more bashing I hear here the less I want to ask a question here.
I'm not stupid but I am worried that one question might spark a rash of
flames
This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet
Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan.
Daily listings are sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If you have any comments please contact Philip Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED].
Routing Table Report 04:00 +10GMT Sat 16 Apr, 2005
Paul Vixie wrote:
in other words, sometimes it's better to take pain in a lump sum
than on the time payment plan. if that's what cogent's trying to
do, they've got my support. if on the other hand cogent is, as
accused here today, dumping transit at below cost, then may they rot
in hell.
If interested in such a list, an active one is ISP-CHAT. Details:
To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives: http://isp-lists.isp-planet.com/isp-chat/archives/
Be warned however that it is wildly inflammatory and rarely useful.
Perhaps a in-between list that is
On Apr 15, 2005, at 2:10 PM, Fredy Kuenzler wrote:
Paul Vixie wrote:
in other words, sometimes it's better to take pain in a lump sum
than on the time payment plan. if that's what cogent's trying to
do, they've got my support. if on the other hand cogent is, as
accused here today, dumping
A number of IETF documents(*) state that there are some service providers
that place a NAT box in front of their entire network, so all their
customers get private addresses rather than public address.
It is often stated that these are primarily cable-based providers.
I am trying to get a handle
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 03:39:56PM -0400, Philip Matthews wrote:
A number of IETF documents(*) state that there are some service providers
that place a NAT box in front of their entire network, so all their
customers get private addresses rather than public address.
It is often stated that
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005, Philip Matthews wrote:
A number of IETF documents(*) state that there are some service providers
that place a NAT box in front of their entire network, so all their
customers get private addresses rather than public address.
It is often stated that these are primarily
Philip == Philip Matthews [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Philip A number of IETF documents(*) state that there are some
Philip service providers that place a NAT box in front of their
Philip entire network, so all their customers get private addresses
Philip rather than public address. It is
A number of IETF documents(*) state that there are some service providers
that place a NAT box in front of their entire network, so all their
customers get private addresses rather than public address.
It is often stated that these are primarily cable-based providers.
I am trying to get a
On 4/15/05, Philip Matthews [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am trying to get a handle on how common this practice is.
No one that I have asked seems to know any provider that does this,
and a search of a few FAQs plus about an hour of Googling hasn't
turned up anything definite (but maybe I am
A number of IETF documents(*) state that there are some service providers
that place a NAT box in front of their entire network, so all their
customers get private addresses rather than public address.
It is often stated that these are primarily cable-based providers.
I
I'm not complaining about it - heck, I use it.
I just wanted to point out that desktop DNS servers are a reality. Right
now, few folks use them. If ISP DNS server quality gets worse or there are a
few big outages, we may see desktop DNS usage climb. This may have
deleterious effects on the
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005, Philip Matthews wrote:
A number of IETF documents(*) state that there are some service providers
that place a NAT box in front of their entire network, so all their
customers get private addresses rather than public address.
It is often stated that these are primarily
Back when I worked at RCN in 1999, they had begun putting cable modem
customers behind NAT using 10/8 addresses. This occasionally drew
complaints from customers who were expecting a public IP (probably
wanted to host a server), but they weren't given much choice. Whether
or not they're still
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 01:40:12PM -0700, Scott Call wrote:
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005, Philip Matthews wrote:
A number of IETF documents(*) state that there are some service providers
that place a NAT box in front of their entire network, so all their
customers get private addresses rather than
On Apr 15, 2005, at 2:10 PM, Fredy Kuenzler wrote:
Paul Vixie wrote:
in other words, sometimes it's better to take pain in a lump sum
than on the time payment plan. if that's what cogent's trying to
do, they've got my support. if on the other hand cogent is, as
accused here today, dumping
For your perusal:
Encarta to Test User Edit System
Vint Cerf Slams Net Phone Regulation
Study Finds Pervasive Chinese Internet Controls
Last-minute tax filers hit the Web
Vint Cerf: Hollywood interested in BitTorrent
Google's Track by Number Gizmo
South Korea Cracks Down on Online Porn
While not big by any sense of the word, we NAT [almost] all of our
internal network. It wasn't initially a matter of choice, but rather of
necessity. We had a sprinklings of small netblocks in the old legacy C
swamp, mostly in the old SURAnet/BBN allocation, and after the Genuity
takeover they
After a routing issue between us and an instance of the RFC1918 anycast
servers blackhole-[12].iana.org which caused all sorts of bizzare failures
within customer networks, I'm trying to figure out if there is a really
good reason why I shouldn't keep a copy of the 1918 zones on my local
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005, Forrest W. Christian wrote:
After a routing issue between us and an instance of the RFC1918 anycast
servers blackhole-[12].iana.org which caused all sorts of bizzare failures
within customer networks, I'm trying to figure out if there is a really
good reason why I
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Forrest W. Christian) writes:
1) Is there a good reason why I shouldn't host a local copy of the RFC1918
in-addr zones on my servers?
according to RFC 1918, you should do this.
2) I've dug around and haven't been able to find an example of a RFC1918
zone file ala what's
45 matches
Mail list logo
