Re: Area Social Activity
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 11:20:53AM -0800, Jay Hennigan wrote: Rod Beck wrote: I am suggesting a Certified Drinkers Event in the hotel bar Sunday evening. Any Hash House Harriers in our midst? The thought of the cross-section of society that would partake in both NANOG and H^3 is rather frightening... On On (but not horribly active)
Re: Using Mobile Phone email addys for monitoring
On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 05:51:38PM -0400, Alex Pilosov wrote: [...] Analog modem and voice line and TAP software (like sendpage or qpage) I like the TAP route with qpage. I was starting to get spam via my provider's e-mail to SMS gateway. They were kind enough to disable it, and we use TAP to send messages. I've never had any serious delays when using this method. Now, if I could just convince them that the messages are on net rather than out of network...
Re: IPv6 network boundaries vs. IPv4
On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 07:12:54AM -0400, Jason LeBlanc wrote: OT: He probably meant MOP and LAT are not routable, man that brings back memories. Yeah, I realy did, but my fingers typed 'decnet isn't routable' because that how the folks I worked with at the time described the issue. I was young at the time, and didn't understand the nuances (as opposed to being older and missing nuances now). My old nuerons took over when I composed the message, sorry for the confusion. Thanks to all the folks that have replied off-list. The (on topic) answers are coming where I expected them: - keep routing boundaries congruent - at local edges / stubs do whatever you want, but do it in private, and wash your hands afterwards (with appologies to R.A. Heinlein)
IPv6 network boundaries vs. IPv4
Is anyone out there setting up routing boundaries differently for IPv4 and IPv6? I'm setting up a network where it seems to make sense to route IPv4, while bridging IPv6 -- but I can be talked out of it rather easily. Years ago, I worked on a academic network where we had a mix of IPX, DECnet, Appletalk, and IP(v4). Not all of the routers actually routed each protocol -- DECnet wasn't routable, and I recall some routers that routed IPX, while bridging IP... This all made sense at the time -- there were IPX networks that needed to be split, while IP didn't need to be. DECnet was... DECnet -- and Appletalk was chatty, but useful. I keep hearing the mantra in my head of: I want my routers to route, and my switches to switch. I agree wholeheartedly if there is only one protocol -- but with the mix of IPv4 and IPv6, are there any folks doing things differently? With a new protocol in the mix are the lessons of the last 10 (or so) years not as clear-cut?
Re: single homed public-peer bandwidth ... pricing survey ?
On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 01:51:39PM -0800, Jason Arnaute wrote: [...] Or am I just getting ripped off ? I have actually seen contracts that have current pricing over $200/Mbps -- but the person responsible isn't allowed to negotiate on transit prices anymore. :-) (To be fair, at the time the contract was signed, the price was only about double market pricing...) No, I'm not bitter. Bitter is for much lighter feelings than I have at the momment... Oh, to un-hijack the thread: I'd start getting some competitive bids.
Re: Minutes comments 21 Sep
On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 07:29:05AM -0400, Robert E.Seastrom wrote: [...] I'm in favor of having the election not happen during a meeting, period, since that will underscore the fact that eligibility is not limited to those physically present. Longer voting windows = good. I agree that the window should be longer. While I was aware that physical presence was unncessary, I was distracted by mundane issues while the St. Louis meetning was in progress. I didn't notice the timing of the call for votes. Granted -- I should have been paying more attention, but a longer window would have resulted in 1% more turnout (more or less).
Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors
On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 07:05:44PM -0500, Jared Mauch wrote: [...] I think one of the major problems is that very few people know how to, or are capable of sending larger g711 frames (at increased delay, but more data per packet) because they can't set these more granular settings on their systems.. this means you have a lot higher pps rates which I think is the problem with the radio gear, it's just not designed for high pps rates.. So, how are the WISP folk dealing with VOIP traffic as it becomes a larger piece of their customer's traffic? Does anyone have a way to force a given VOIP endpoint to use larger data frames? Or are the WISPs forced to deal with with a shredded business plan because their gear is optimized for large packets? (Or am I simply missing something?) Or do you write a TOS that says: Customer is not allowed to send and receive lots of small packets quickly? :-)
Re: AOL scomp
On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 07:08:07PM +, Edward B. Dreger wrote: [...] On the cynical side: Has anyone considered an inverted blacklist -- i.e., a _destination_-based mail blocking mechanism? Rejecting mail to parties with excessive bogus complaint rates certainly might simplify life for those tasked with handling abuse incidents. ;-) It's interesting that you should ask that today. A few days ago we started throwing around an idea along these lines: - N = # of bogus abuse/spam reports for a given destination - X = # of reports where we stop delivering mail to a given destination - for 0 N X -- deliver the mail, but also inform the sender that the destination address has reported spam/abuse coming from our network, and that if it continues, we won't deliver mail to that destination anymore. - for N X -- tell the sender that we aren't delivering the mail because it is likely to get us put on a blacklist. We haven't fleshed things out completely, because we're not sure the cure is better than the disease yet... -- John Osmon
Re: Recent changes to UltraDNS, problems?
On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 07:53:13PM -0400, Robert Blayzor wrote: Has anyone else noticed any strange problems lately when querying UltraDNS for name server records? Not for name server records, but we do have a glue record in .org that pops up when querying one ultradns.net TLD nameserver, but not the other. Stranger still -- this glue record had been removed several months ago, so it almost looks like part of their infrastructure is sending out (months) old data. We've sent out requests for help to our registrar, and the registry. I figure the UltraDNS folks will be involved shortly too. :-) John
Re: Microsoft XP SP2 (was Re: Lazy network operators - NOT)
On Mon, Apr 19, 2004 at 12:03:32PM -0700, Dan Hollis wrote: On Mon, 19 Apr 2004, Jeff Shultz, WIllamette Valley Internet wrote: ** Reply to message from Drew Weaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Mon, 19 Apr 2004 13:42:53 -0400 [...notification of the...] average home Dial-Up users who were infected with various malicious agents (I.e. Nimda, et cetera) and we actually contacted those users, to let them know and again we were met with more hostility. You definitely don't have our customers then. Our usually appreciate being told that their systems are screwed up. He's right. Most customers get defensive/hostile when you tell them there's something wrong with their system. For what it's worth, our (dial-up and DSL) customers have generally act thankful when contact them about the problems their machines are causing. I guess nothing changes -- the world is full of people. :-)
Rural nework economics [was: Sabotage...]
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 08:15:11AM -0500, Douglas S. Peeples wrote: What you describe is a folded ring and is indicative of either a temporary solution or bad network design. As a rule, phone companies and capacity suppliers build very robust systems. LATA and ILEC boundaries, along with fiscal measures tend to conspire against rural areas. The result is bad network design or a temporary solution that is going to be in place for decades. By example: I can't imagine Taos, New Mexico needing more than an OC-48 to service all of its voice and data needs over the next few years. The ILEC had a reason (and funding) to build fiber to the city -- but who will pickup the tab for the redundant build? The revenue from the services on a single OC-48 won't pay for it...
Re: Sabotage investigation of fiber cuts in Northwest
On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 09:37:30PM -0500, Robert M. Enger wrote: You'd think after three previous disruptions, that Qwest would have enabled some form of redundancy. The Washington State PUC doesn't appear to be providing very good oversight. Farmington, NM doesn't have any redundancy either. Two types of problems seem to drive the 3 or 4 outages in the last few years: - electrcity cut-off at fiber regen sites because no one pays the rural electric co-ops - target shooting of splice boxes Even though Qwest is the ILEC, you can't really blame the outages on them -- they don't own the fiber route or huts, nor do they have any way to deal with Cousin Jimmy's rattlesnake gun. I hate to see what would happen if the damage was intentional...
Missle Silos (was: Backbone Infrastructure and Secrecy)
On Wed, 9 Jul 2003, Eric Kuhnke wrote: In the US, American Tower is/was liquidating a number of cold war era ex-ATT blast-proof sites. They are all in need of an upgrade, but the basics are there (underground, multiple layers of concrete, blast doors, etc. Even blast toilets. I'm surprised some enterprising/paranoid soul has not snatched a few of these up and converted them into secure offsite storage. Even without diverse routes, you can ensure safe data storage. Keep your data in Roswell! http://albany.bizjournals.com/albuquerque/stories/2003/03/31/story3.html Only bad part, is the ILEC doesn't have the facility to bring T1s to the site (let alone anything bigger). They are, however, about 1/2 mile from the border of one of the independents -- I believe they're being served via some type of wireless.
Re: Williams Opinions?
On Mon, May 06, 2002 at 09:58:27AM -0400, Owens, Shane (EPIK.ORL) wrote: Does anyone have any current opinions on Williams IP service and any expected changes with the Chapter 11? Shane Can't speak to their service, as I've never bought anything from them. After multiple spams in the last few months, I can't see that I ever would.
