Re: ouch..
That will either be because you exceeded your port count or the RTSP ALG is broken. -- Leigh Porter On 15 Sep 2011, at 07:48, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 06:36:42 -, Leigh Porter said: I'm looking forward to the awful experience of NAT444 promoting IPv6. In NAT444, no one can hear you scream __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
Re: ouch..
Juniper: Who needs to waste time with pathetic marketing videos when you're gear just works. If this is really from Cisco, it must put a smile on the face of Juniper to know their competitor of 10x the revenue is watching their moves so closely... Typically in the Mac vs. PC adds you see the non established player (apple) making pokes at the established. -- Regards, Jason Leschnik. Mob. 0432 35 4224 Uni mail. jml...@uow.edu.au
Re: ouch..
On Thu, 15 Sep 2011, Jason Leschnik wrote: If this is really from Cisco, it must put a smile on the face of Juniper to know their competitor of 10x the revenue is watching their moves so closely... Typically in the Mac vs. PC adds you see the non established player (apple) making pokes at the established. I asked our account manager. I got the following link: http://blogs.cisco.com/news/trust-relationships-and-reputation-how-cisco-differs-from-the-competition/ Yes, it's indeed from Cisco. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
Re: ouch..
On Sep 15, 2011, at 12:51 AM, Jason Leschnik wrote: Juniper: Who needs to waste time with pathetic marketing videos when you're gear just works. If this is really from Cisco, it must put a smile on the face of Juniper to know their competitor of 10x the revenue is watching their moves so closely... Typically in the Mac vs. PC adds you see the non established player (apple) making pokes at the established. OTOH, you do see Micr0$0ft doing everything they can to imitate Apple. I was at Valley Fair mall the other day. Micr0$0ft is apparently building a new store directly across from the Apple store there. They have gone to the trouble and expense of covering the under construction paneling with a full-color mural touting this fact, including employees dressed in brightly colored Apple-store-like T-shirts sporting name badges identical to those worn by the employees in the Apple store. I wonder if Micr0$0ft is going to develop a Zune cash register, too? Owen
Re: vyatta for bgp
Is Vyatta really not suited for the task? I keep checking up on it and holding off looking into it as they don't support multicast yet. Modern commodity sever hardware these days often out-powers big iron enough to make up for not using ASICs, though, at least on the lower end of the spectrum. Does anyone have any more details on Vyatta not scaling? Were you trying to run it as a VM? What were you using for NICs? etc. The hardware matters. Saying Vyatta doesn't cut it could mean anything... On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 7:36 PM, Dobbins, Roland rdobb...@arbor.net wrote: On Sep 14, 2011, at 5:54 AM, Deepak Jain wrote: Some enterprises get MPLS L3 VPN service from their providers, and need boxes that can route packets to it and speak BGP to inject their routes. They are not, per se, connected to the Internet, and thus won't be zorched, at least in the sense you are using it. Hence 'public-facing'. ; --- Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net // http://www.arbornetworks.com The basis of optimism is sheer terror. -- Oscar Wilde -- Ray Soucy Epic Communications Specialist Phone: +1 (207) 561-3526 Networkmaine, a Unit of the University of Maine System http://www.networkmaine.net/
Re: ouch..
On Thu, 15 Sep 2011, Owen DeLong wrote: On Sep 15, 2011, at 12:51 AM, Jason Leschnik wrote: If this is really from Cisco, it must put a smile on the face of Juniper to know their competitor of 10x the revenue is watching their moves so closely... Typically in the Mac vs. PC adds you see the non established player (apple) making pokes at the established. OTOH, you do see Micr0$0ft doing everything they can to imitate Apple. I was at Valley Fair mall the other day. Micr0$0ft is apparently building a new store directly across from the Apple store there. It's funny; they did the exact same thing at Mall of America maybe a year ago. I guess your report confirms it was a strategy, rather than a really absurd coincidence. Jima
Re: vyatta for bgp
Hi, As usual this end-up in what people prefer. Vyatta is as good as the hardware it runs on, the backend they use and the people configuring/maintaining it. The nature of ASIC make it more reliable than a multi-purpose device (aka server) running an OS written for it. It end up being a choice between risk and cost and being that you can get your hand on second hand iron for cheap these days... Why risk it. - Alain Hebertaheb...@pubnix.net PubNIX Inc. 50 boul. St-Charles P.O. Box 26770 Beaconsfield, Quebec H9W 6G7 Tel: 514-990-5911 http://www.pubnix.netFax: 514-990-9443 On 09/15/11 09:05, Ray Soucy wrote: Is Vyatta really not suited for the task? I keep checking up on it and holding off looking into it as they don't support multicast yet. Modern commodity sever hardware these days often out-powers big iron enough to make up for not using ASICs, though, at least on the lower end of the spectrum. Does anyone have any more details on Vyatta not scaling? Were you trying to run it as a VM? What were you using for NICs? etc. The hardware matters. Saying Vyatta doesn't cut it could mean anything... On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 7:36 PM, Dobbins, Rolandrdobb...@arbor.net wrote: On Sep 14, 2011, at 5:54 AM, Deepak Jain wrote: Some enterprises get MPLS L3 VPN service from their providers, and need boxes that can route packets to it and speak BGP to inject their routes. They are not, per se, connected to the Internet, and thus won't be zorched, at least in the sense you are using it. Hence 'public-facing'. ; --- Roland Dobbinsrdobb...@arbor.net //http://www.arbornetworks.com The basis of optimism is sheer terror. -- Oscar Wilde
Re: vyatta for bgp
Ray Download the Podcast The Packet Pushers - Show 31 they talk a little about this topic... If nothing else it's a great listen Cheers! On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 11:05 PM, Ray Soucy r...@maine.edu wrote: Is Vyatta really not suited for the task? I keep checking up on it and holding off looking into it as they don't support multicast yet. Modern commodity sever hardware these days often out-powers big iron enough to make up for not using ASICs, though, at least on the lower end of the spectrum. Does anyone have any more details on Vyatta not scaling? Were you trying to run it as a VM? What were you using for NICs? etc. The hardware matters. Saying Vyatta doesn't cut it could mean anything... -- Regards, Jason Leschnik. Mob. 0432 35 4224 Uni mail. jml...@uow.edu.au
Open Letters to Sixxs
Hello People i have one question: why SIXXS is very strict like that ? forcing a special address format is a idiotic work everyone have a format of address everyone have his way of saying address every country have there language. there's bilion of address definition at this time. signed up for Sixxs for 2 times and resulted in a refuse because of bad address Sixxs, please would you revise your requiremant ? Emailed you for one month and still have no reply ? did you has a coppy of my passport ? did you saw my identity card ? have you called me ? anyway, i have realy not seen any Strict service like you, SIXXS. i can evean pay for your service, if you wish. just fix your policy and by nice with people like everyone is. Thank you. Meftah Tayeb IT Consulting http://www.tmvoip.com/ phone: +21321656139 Mobile: +213660347746 __ Information provenant d'ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version de la base des signatures de virus 6465 (20110915) __ Le message a été vérifié par ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com
Re: Open Letters to Sixxs
ok, that's a positive answer. but let me ask you a question: do HE.NET peer with cogent? level3? that the way i'm looking arround SIXXS and they look like a IPV6 POLICE ! - Original Message - From: Arjan Van Der Oest To: Meftah Tayeb Cc: ipv6-...@lists.cluenet.de ; nanog@nanog.org Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2011 4:20 PM Subject: Re: Open Letters to Sixxs On 15Sep, 2011, at 16:02 , Meftah Tayeb wrote: Hello People i have one question: why SIXXS is very strict like that ? Why sent this to this list. Consider using another tunnelbroker if you're not satisfied with Sixxs. I can recommend Hurricane, www.tunnelbroker.com (this is, by no means, a judgement on Sixxs and their services). -- Met vriendelijke groet, Arjan van der Oest Senior Network Engineer / Security Officer Voiceworks BV - Editiestraat 29 - 1321 NG Almere __ Information provenant d'ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version de la base des signatures de virus 6465 (20110915) __ Le message a été vérifié par ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __ Information provenant d'ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version de la base des signatures de virus 6465 (20110915) __ Le message a été vérifié par ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com
Re: Open Letters to Sixxs
On 15 September 2011 15:12, Meftah Tayeb tayeb.mef...@gmail.com wrote: ok, that's a positive answer. but let me ask you a question: do HE.NET peer with cogent? level3? 4 189 ms 134 ms99 ms 10gigabitethernet7-4.core1.nyc4.he.net [2001:470:0:3e::1] 5 131 ms 152 ms 111 ms 2001:470:0:202::2 6 144 ms 147 ms 238 ms 2001:1900:19:7::4 7 132 ms 241 ms 143 ms vl-4060.car2.NewYork2.Level3.net [2001:1900:4:1::fe] [Jitter is my cable connection, not reflective of the performance of HEs network] As for cogent - Does anyone really care? this is only a problem for reaching a single homed network behind cogent, and anyone running such a network knows that their IPv6 connectivity doesn't work properly anyway and they are the broken ones. Whatever you think of the issues surrounding the peering dispute (I am sure at least comcast agree with cogent that a Tier 1 network should pay what is essentially a Tier 2 network for peering!), the fact remains that HE did get there first with their defacto tier 1 status, and for the time being at least working IPv6 is realistically working IPv6 connection to HE and peers. The more users/content that is behind HE and peers that is not reachable from cogent the better, as it puts more pressure on them to start behaving themselves and peering properly like everyone else. - Mike
Re: Open Letters to Sixxs
Good thinking mike i do have a VoIp carrier single homed with Cogent. any solution? (*NO IPV4!*) - Original Message - From: Mike Jones m...@mikejones.in To: Meftah Tayeb tayeb.mef...@gmail.com Cc: Arjan Van Der Oest ar...@voiceworks.nl; nanog@nanog.org; ipv6-...@lists.cluenet.de Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2011 4:58 PM Subject: Re: Open Letters to Sixxs On 15 September 2011 15:12, Meftah Tayeb tayeb.mef...@gmail.com wrote: ok, that's a positive answer. but let me ask you a question: do HE.NET peer with cogent? level3? 4 189 ms 134 ms99 ms 10gigabitethernet7-4.core1.nyc4.he.net [2001:470:0:3e::1] 5 131 ms 152 ms 111 ms 2001:470:0:202::2 6 144 ms 147 ms 238 ms 2001:1900:19:7::4 7 132 ms 241 ms 143 ms vl-4060.car2.NewYork2.Level3.net [2001:1900:4:1::fe] [Jitter is my cable connection, not reflective of the performance of HEs network] As for cogent - Does anyone really care? this is only a problem for reaching a single homed network behind cogent, and anyone running such a network knows that their IPv6 connectivity doesn't work properly anyway and they are the broken ones. Whatever you think of the issues surrounding the peering dispute (I am sure at least comcast agree with cogent that a Tier 1 network should pay what is essentially a Tier 2 network for peering!), the fact remains that HE did get there first with their defacto tier 1 status, and for the time being at least working IPv6 is realistically working IPv6 connection to HE and peers. The more users/content that is behind HE and peers that is not reachable from cogent the better, as it puts more pressure on them to start behaving themselves and peering properly like everyone else. - Mike __ Information provenant d'ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version de la base des signatures de virus 6465 (20110915) __ Le message a été vérifié par ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __ Information provenant d'ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version de la base des signatures de virus 6465 (20110915) __ Le message a été vérifié par ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com
Re: Open Letters to Sixxs
Pim Van, i am just looking for a alternative way. i don't need this stupid SixXs at all anymore. also, Pim, are you Pim for Multicast? no IGMP? :D :) Thank you - Original Message - From: Pim van Pelt p...@ipng.nl To: Meftah Tayeb tayeb.mef...@gmail.com Cc: ipv6-...@lists.cluenet.de; nanog@nanog.org Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2011 5:28 PM Subject: Re: Open Letters to Sixxs Hoi, Meftah perhaps you mailed the wrong people -- you seem to be specifically addressing SixXS, but you mailed nanog@nanog.org and ipv6-...@lists.cluenet.de, both of which may not be able to authoritatively answer your questions. On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 4:02 PM, Meftah Tayeb tayeb.mef...@gmail.com wrote: why SIXXS is very strict like that ? I suppose it's up to SixXS to define their policy (one account per person comes to mind *) and revise it if they see a need. They are free to accept or reject any user and I do not believe they have an obligation to serve any given user (ie access is a privilege not a right), and I think they have a right to ask for information just as much as users have a right to not use their service if they believe the amount of information SixXS wants to know about them and their intended use is too much. In general I think they are rather transparent about rejection reasons, in your case likely because you neglected to heed the FAQ item on one account per person. I'm not sure bringing this up in the scope of nanog or ipv6-ops is productive. It's not clear to me, except for your plethora of questions, what you are trying to accomplish. I'm sorry you feel that SixXS is not the right place for you. Luckily there's plenty of choice in high quality tunnelbrokers, as others in this thread have pointed out. groet, Pim *) http://www.sixxs.net/faq/account/?faq=oneaccount -- Pim van Pelt p...@ipng.nl PBVP1-RIPE - http://www.ipng.nl/ __ Information provenant d'ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version de la base des signatures de virus 6465 (20110915) __ Le message a été vérifié par ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __ Information provenant d'ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version de la base des signatures de virus 6465 (20110915) __ Le message a été vérifié par ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com
Re: Open Letters to Sixxs
On 9/15/2011 10:02 AM, Meftah Tayeb wrote: Hello People i have one question: why SIXXS is very strict like that ? I concur in all respects with your assessment of SIXXS. Being a volunteer does not give you carte-blanche to act like the rear end of a horse. I don't care if your service is free, your behavior is slowing, not speeding the adoption of IPv6. Grow up. Andrew
Re: Open Letters to Sixxs
I concur in all respects with your assessment of SIXXS. Being a volunteer does not give you carte-blanche to act like the rear end of a horse. Actually it does, it's theirs to do as they wish. Anyone else is free to make what they may consider to be a better service. I don't care if your service is free, your behavior is slowing, not speeding the adoption of IPv6. Grow up. Tunnels are not the future, it's probably just as well they make it hard to create more. IPv6, do it properly, do it now brandon
Re: vyatta for bgp
Thanks for the tip, first time I hear this podcast. On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 9:58 AM, Jason Leschnik lesch...@gmail.com wrote: Ray Download the Podcast The Packet Pushers - Show 31 they talk a little about this topic... If nothing else it's a great listen Cheers! On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 11:05 PM, Ray Soucy r...@maine.edu wrote: Is Vyatta really not suited for the task? I keep checking up on it and holding off looking into it as they don't support multicast yet. Modern commodity sever hardware these days often out-powers big iron enough to make up for not using ASICs, though, at least on the lower end of the spectrum. Does anyone have any more details on Vyatta not scaling? Were you trying to run it as a VM? What were you using for NICs? etc. The hardware matters. Saying Vyatta doesn't cut it could mean anything... -- Regards, Jason Leschnik. Mob. 0432 35 4224 Uni mail. jml...@uow.edu.au -- Ray Soucy Epic Communications Specialist Phone: +1 (207) 561-3526 Networkmaine, a Unit of the University of Maine System http://www.networkmaine.net/
IPV6 over a PPTP Link
Hello, can i ofer ipv6 addresses through a PPTP connection using cisco ? if yes, how please ? Thank you Meftah Tayeb IT Consulting http://www.tmvoip.com/ phone: +21321656139 Mobile: +213660347746 __ Information provenant d'ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version de la base des signatures de virus 6465 (20110915) __ Le message a été vérifié par ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com
Re: IPV6 over a PPTP Link
I did this in the past without troubles. http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nsp/ipv6/27525 Should give you some help. - Jared -- snip -- ! vpdn enable ! vpdn-group 1 ! Default PPTP VPDN group accept-dialin protocol pptp virtual-template 1 ! interface Virtual-Template1 ip unnumbered FastEthernet2/0 ipv6 unnumbered FastEthernet2/0 ipv6 enable ipv6 nd reachable-time 30 no ipv6 nd suppress-ra peer default ip address pool DIAL-IN peer default ipv6 pool DIAL-IN6 ppp encrypt mppe 128 ppp authentication ms-chap ppp ipcp dns 129.250.35.250 129.250.35.251 ! ip local pool DIAL-IN 10.10.15.72 10.10.15.79 ipv6 local pool DIAL-IN6 3ffe:3ffe:0:7080::/62 64 -- snip -- On Sep 15, 2011, at 12:24 PM, Meftah Tayeb wrote: Hello, can i ofer ipv6 addresses through a PPTP connection using cisco ? if yes, how please ? Thank you Meftah Tayeb IT Consulting http://www.tmvoip.com/ phone: +21321656139 Mobile: +213660347746 __ Information provenant d'ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version de la base des signatures de virus 6465 (20110915) __ Le message a été vérifié par ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com
Re: IPV6 over a PPTP Link
ok, that's using RA but i want to do a routed interface so give the PPTP host a static ip and route through it thank you - Original Message - From: Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net To: Meftah Tayeb tayeb.mef...@gmail.com Cc: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2011 6:36 PM Subject: Re: IPV6 over a PPTP Link I did this in the past without troubles. http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nsp/ipv6/27525 Should give you some help. - Jared -- snip -- ! vpdn enable ! vpdn-group 1 ! Default PPTP VPDN group accept-dialin protocol pptp virtual-template 1 ! interface Virtual-Template1 ip unnumbered FastEthernet2/0 ipv6 unnumbered FastEthernet2/0 ipv6 enable ipv6 nd reachable-time 30 no ipv6 nd suppress-ra peer default ip address pool DIAL-IN peer default ipv6 pool DIAL-IN6 ppp encrypt mppe 128 ppp authentication ms-chap ppp ipcp dns 129.250.35.250 129.250.35.251 ! ip local pool DIAL-IN 10.10.15.72 10.10.15.79 ipv6 local pool DIAL-IN6 3ffe:3ffe:0:7080::/62 64 -- snip -- On Sep 15, 2011, at 12:24 PM, Meftah Tayeb wrote: Hello, can i ofer ipv6 addresses through a PPTP connection using cisco ? if yes, how please ? Thank you Meftah Tayeb IT Consulting http://www.tmvoip.com/ phone: +21321656139 Mobile: +213660347746 __ Information provenant d'ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version de la base des signatures de virus 6465 (20110915) __ Le message a été vérifié par ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __ Information provenant d'ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version de la base des signatures de virus 6465 (20110915) __ Le message a été vérifié par ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __ Information provenant d'ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version de la base des signatures de virus 6465 (20110915) __ Le message a été vérifié par ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com
Re: ouch..
Once upon a time, Jima na...@jima.tk said: On Thu, 15 Sep 2011, Owen DeLong wrote: I was at Valley Fair mall the other day. Micr0$0ft is apparently building a new store directly across from the Apple store there. It's funny; they did the exact same thing at Mall of America maybe a year ago. I guess your report confirms it was a strategy, rather than a really absurd coincidence. They could be following the (possibly urban legend) Burger King model. Supposedly, McDonald's would spend a bunch of time and money doing market research, surveys, and such before placing a new restaurant. Burger King would wait for McDonald's to spend the time and money, and then open a new restaurant across the street. -- Chris Adams cmad...@hiwaay.net Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.
Re: ouch..
Original Message - From: Jason Leschnik lesch...@gmail.com If this is really from Cisco, it must put a smile on the face of Juniper to know their competitor of 10x the revenue is watching their moves so closely... Typically in the Mac vs. PC adds you see the non established player (apple) making pokes at the established. And we all remember how that worked out *last* time: http://www.macmothership.com/gallery/newads2/seriouslyIBM_l.jpg Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274
Re: ouch..
Once upon a time, Jima na...@jima.tk said: On Thu, 15 Sep 2011, Owen DeLong wrote: I was at Valley Fair mall the other day. Micr0$0ft is apparently building a new store directly across from the Apple store there. It's funny; they did the exact same thing at Mall of America maybe a year ago. I guess your report confirms it was a strategy, rather than a really absurd coincidence. They could be following the (possibly urban legend) Burger King model. Supposedly, McDonald's would spend a bunch of time and money doing market research, surveys, and such before placing a new restaurant. Burger King would wait for McDonald's to spend the time and money, and then open a new restaurant across the street. Oh, wow; been a few years since I heard that one. I'll admit, it seems at least remotely viable. No, in the MoA case I'd say it's more about obvious, direct competition; of all the (according to the site) 4.3 miles of potential storefront at Mall of America, Microsoft chose *directly across the hallway* from the long-standing Apple Store. (Okay, that might be hyperbole -- it may have been a shop or two down, as well; I forget.) Jima
Re: IPV6 over a PPTP Link
So, in order to do that, I recommend you do the backend authentication via RADIUS to handle this provisioning and routing. Cisco has documentation on the AV pairs that are necessary to send in the RADIUS response that goes to your PPTP device. Make sure that you are using something with a beefy enough CPU to perform this as PPTP/IPv6 may be in the slow-path depending on the device. You want as much to be offloaded to the hardware as feasible. - Jared On Sep 15, 2011, at 1:38 PM, Meftah Tayeb wrote: ok, that's using RA but i want to do a routed interface so give the PPTP host a static ip and route through it thank you - Original Message - From: Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net To: Meftah Tayeb tayeb.mef...@gmail.com Cc: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2011 6:36 PM Subject: Re: IPV6 over a PPTP Link I did this in the past without troubles. http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nsp/ipv6/27525 Should give you some help. - Jared -- snip -- ! vpdn enable ! vpdn-group 1 ! Default PPTP VPDN group accept-dialin protocol pptp virtual-template 1 ! interface Virtual-Template1 ip unnumbered FastEthernet2/0 ipv6 unnumbered FastEthernet2/0 ipv6 enable ipv6 nd reachable-time 30 no ipv6 nd suppress-ra peer default ip address pool DIAL-IN peer default ipv6 pool DIAL-IN6 ppp encrypt mppe 128 ppp authentication ms-chap ppp ipcp dns 129.250.35.250 129.250.35.251 ! ip local pool DIAL-IN 10.10.15.72 10.10.15.79 ipv6 local pool DIAL-IN6 3ffe:3ffe:0:7080::/62 64 -- snip -- On Sep 15, 2011, at 12:24 PM, Meftah Tayeb wrote: Hello, can i ofer ipv6 addresses through a PPTP connection using cisco ? if yes, how please ? Thank you Meftah Tayeb IT Consulting http://www.tmvoip.com/ phone: +21321656139 Mobile: +213660347746 __ Information provenant d'ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version de la base des signatures de virus 6465 (20110915) __ Le message a été vérifié par ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __ Information provenant d'ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version de la base des signatures de virus 6465 (20110915) __ Le message a été vérifié par ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __ Information provenant d'ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version de la base des signatures de virus 6465 (20110915) __ Le message a été vérifié par ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com
Re: IPV6 over a PPTP Link
great suggestion i didn't want to use it for a high load of users, just for 2 linked routers but anyway, i did it through a 6in4 tunnel over PPTP Thank you - Original Message - From: Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net To: Meftah Tayeb tayeb.mef...@gmail.com Cc: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2011 9:27 PM Subject: Re: IPV6 over a PPTP Link So, in order to do that, I recommend you do the backend authentication via RADIUS to handle this provisioning and routing. Cisco has documentation on the AV pairs that are necessary to send in the RADIUS response that goes to your PPTP device. Make sure that you are using something with a beefy enough CPU to perform this as PPTP/IPv6 may be in the slow-path depending on the device. You want as much to be offloaded to the hardware as feasible. - Jared On Sep 15, 2011, at 1:38 PM, Meftah Tayeb wrote: ok, that's using RA but i want to do a routed interface so give the PPTP host a static ip and route through it thank you - Original Message - From: Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net To: Meftah Tayeb tayeb.mef...@gmail.com Cc: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2011 6:36 PM Subject: Re: IPV6 over a PPTP Link I did this in the past without troubles. http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nsp/ipv6/27525 Should give you some help. - Jared -- snip -- ! vpdn enable ! vpdn-group 1 ! Default PPTP VPDN group accept-dialin protocol pptp virtual-template 1 ! interface Virtual-Template1 ip unnumbered FastEthernet2/0 ipv6 unnumbered FastEthernet2/0 ipv6 enable ipv6 nd reachable-time 30 no ipv6 nd suppress-ra peer default ip address pool DIAL-IN peer default ipv6 pool DIAL-IN6 ppp encrypt mppe 128 ppp authentication ms-chap ppp ipcp dns 129.250.35.250 129.250.35.251 ! ip local pool DIAL-IN 10.10.15.72 10.10.15.79 ipv6 local pool DIAL-IN6 3ffe:3ffe:0:7080::/62 64 -- snip -- On Sep 15, 2011, at 12:24 PM, Meftah Tayeb wrote: Hello, can i ofer ipv6 addresses through a PPTP connection using cisco ? if yes, how please ? Thank you Meftah Tayeb IT Consulting http://www.tmvoip.com/ phone: +21321656139 Mobile: +213660347746 __ Information provenant d'ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version de la base des signatures de virus 6465 (20110915) __ Le message a été vérifié par ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __ Information provenant d'ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version de la base des signatures de virus 6465 (20110915) __ Le message a été vérifié par ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __ Information provenant d'ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version de la base des signatures de virus 6465 (20110915) __ Le message a été vérifié par ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __ Information provenant d'ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version de la base des signatures de virus 6466 (20110915) __ Le message a été vérifié par ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __ Information provenant d'ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version de la base des signatures de virus 6466 (20110915) __ Le message a été vérifié par ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com
routing issue for verizon dsl customers in western massachusetts
Hello all, I posted this to the tech@lopsa mailing list and was advised to repost it here. If anyone can help, I would be very happy to avoid having to deal with hours more of Verizon level 1 tech support. Over the past week, we've discovered that there is an issue with the way some Verizon DSL customers are being routed in Western Massachusetts that is preventing them from reaching my employers public IPs. The problem is only limited to Verizon DSL customers, everyone else can reach these IP addresses just fine. After many hours on the phone with Verizon tech support, I finally managed to get myself and one of my coworker's home dsl connections switched from a redback router to a juniper router which resolved the issue, but only for us. I was told that everyone else in the area that is being affected by the issue have to individually call Verizon tech support, go through the same multi-hour troubleshooting steps, and if the technician is bright enough to recognize what is going on, get their issue escalated up to the central office where (in 2-4 business days) they will be switched over to the juniper router. Obviously, this is not the ideal solution. I'd really like to make the higher ups at Verizon aware of this issue and come up with a solution for all of the affected customers, but because I only have a residential account and my employer doesn't use Verizon, I've been stymied in all of my attempts so far. Does anyone here have any contacts at Verizon that I could get in touch with?
Re: routing issue for verizon dsl customers in western massachusetts
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Brian Gold bg...@simons-rock.edu wrote: Hello all, I posted this to the tech@lopsa mailing list and was advised to repost it here. If anyone can help, I would be very happy to avoid having to deal with hours more of Verizon level 1 tech support. Over the past week, we've discovered that there is an issue with the way some Verizon DSL customers are being routed in Western Massachusetts that is preventing them from reaching my employers public IPs. The problem is only limited to Verizon DSL customers, everyone else can reach these IP addresses just fine. After many hours on the phone with Verizon tech support, I finally managed to get myself and one of my coworker's home dsl connections switched from a redback router to a juniper router which resolved the issue, but only for us. I was told that everyone else in the area that is being affected by the issue have to individually call Verizon tech support, go through the same multi-hour troubleshooting steps, and if the technician is bright enough to recognize what is going on, get their issue escalated up to the central office where (in 2-4 business days) they will be switched over to the juniper router. Obviously, this is not the ideal solution. I'd actually it's not a bad solution.. if verizon is looking to lose lots of money on tech support calls... :) really like to make the higher ups at Verizon aware of this issue and come If you buy verizon services at your day job you can probably make noise through your sales droids better than here (sadly)... verizon likes to jump when customers have problems, if the customer is a large corporation or other 'important' customer. up with a solution for all of the affected customers, but because I only have a residential account and my employer doesn't use Verizon, I've been stymied in all of my attempts so far. Does anyone here have any contacts at Verizon that I could get in touch with?
Re: Open Letters to Sixxs
On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 17:01:33 +0200, Meftah Tayeb said: Good thinking mike i do have a VoIp carrier single homed with Cogent. any solution? Sure. Make sure you have alternate plans for when Cogent gets into another peering tiff. Not *if*, but *when*. And you probably want to have a long, detailed, technical discussion with your Voip carrier about what *they* intend to do when Cogent gets into a peering tiff. And while you're at it, see if you can find out what *other* surprises their network design has in it - I'm willing to bet a large pizza with everything but anchovies that single homed with Cogent is *not* the only massive deficiency in their network - it's probably the equivalent of finding a brown MM backstage at a Van Halen concert... (Yes, there's corner cases where single homing to a Tier-1 makes business sense, if the pipe is really cheap and you can survive the revenue hit caused by a routing/peering spat. I don't think VOIP carrier is one of those corner cases) pgppG2PLTm5MZ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: IPV6 over a PPTP Link
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 09:18:26PM +0200, Meftah Tayeb wrote: great suggestion i didn't want to use it for a high load of users, just for 2 linked routers but anyway, i did it through a 6in4 tunnel over PPTP If that's your goal, you should just use GRE or IPIP if the IPs are static on each end. You may be able to create the local user on the device if one end is a dynamic IP, but I don't have experience there with PPTP on IOS. -- Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from ja...@puck.nether.net clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine.
Re: routing issue for verizon dsl customers in western massachusetts
On Sep 15, 2011, at 3:39 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote: On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Brian Gold bg...@simons-rock.edu wrote: Over the past week, we've discovered that there is an issue with the way some Verizon DSL customers are being routed in Western Massachusetts that is preventing them from reaching my employers public IPs. The problem is only limited to Verizon DSL customers, everyone else can reach these IP addresses just fine. After many hours on the phone with Verizon tech support, I finally managed to get myself and one of my coworker's home dsl connections switched from a redback router to a juniper router which resolved the issue, but only for us. [...] If you buy verizon services at your day job you can probably make noise through your sales droids better than here (sadly)... verizon likes to jump when customers have problems, if the customer is a large corporation or other 'important' customer. That is just the problem! The college does not buy any Verizon network stuff directly, so we don't really have any access to their support. (We have a few cell phones, but not enough to be important.) Brian Gold (who first posted) happens to have their DSL to his house, and he was one of five who have reported the problem, so that gave him a slight in. But the only techs he could reach as an end user were not high enough up to fix this problem in a general way. After pressing them for literally hours, he was able to get transfered to their NOC, and get the problem resolved for his one address. But, they would not give him the NOC contact, and he had to repeat this multi- hour process to get it fixed for an other user. Verizon's DSL support suggested that we get our bandwith provider involved, and so they tried to pitch in, but they don't have any Verizon NOC contact either, especially since this issue is purely within a small corner of Verizon's DSL network, not on any of Verizon's links to our provider. This issue hits only a few Verizon DSL users in NW Mass. It does not really seem like a routing problem, because the affected users can reach many of the servers in our AS, but not some addresses. Unfortunately, the blocked addresses include our web server and our mail server, so our staff who live out there noticed the issue pretty quickly. Traceroutes from Brian's house show that for our blocked hosts, the users don't get beyond Verizon's NAT. The Verizon tech's fix of re-patching Brian's DSL line in to a different router feels to me like there is a config problem in the other router, but the tech we got is not authorized to alter the config. It would be nice if we could reach someone who could actually edit the broken config and make it right. Anyone from Verzion's NOC for Western Mass reading this? Or, does anyone else have useful contact info for them? FWIW, Simon's Rock is 208.81.88.0/21, AS 19345. Here are a failed and a good trace from Brian's house, to different servers on our campus : FAILS: Tracing route to wilbur.simons-rock.edu [208.81.88.15] over a maximum of 30 hops: 11 ms1 ms1 ms 192.168.10.1 2 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 192.168.1.1 353 ms 104 ms 116 ms 10.14.1.1 4 *** Request timed out. 5 *** Request timed out. 6 *** Request timed out. 7 *** Request timed out. WORKS: Tracing route to dev.simons-rock.edu [208.81.88.25] over a maximum of 30 hops: 11 ms1 ms1 ms 192.168.10.1 2 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 192.168.1.1 387 ms54 ms54 ms 10.14.1.1 499 ms 109 ms 103 ms at-0-3-0-1711.WMA-CORE-RTR2.verizon- gni.net [130.81.10.77] 516 ms18 ms16 ms so-7-3-1-0.NY5030-BB-RTR2.verizon- gni.net [130.81.20.6] 619 ms17 ms17 ms 0.xe-3-1-0.BR3.NYC4.ALTER.NET [152.63.2.81] 718 ms21 ms18 ms 204.255.168.194 8 108 ms 188 ms 116 ms pos5-0-2488M.cr1.BOS1.gblx.net [67.17.94.57] 924 ms28 ms23 ms pos0-0-0-155M.ar1.BOS1.gblx.net [67.17.70.162] 10 121 ms 160 ms 127 ms 64.213.79.250 1177 ms77 ms78 ms 208.81.88.25 Trace complete. Anyways, thanks for any suggestions you can offer. Steve Bohrer Network Administrator ITS, Bard College at Simon's Rock 413-528-7645
Re: routing issue for verizon dsl customers in western massachusetts
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 4:13 PM, Steve Bohrer skboh...@simons-rock.edu wrote: On Sep 15, 2011, at 3:39 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote: On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Brian Gold bg...@simons-rock.edu wrote: Over the past week, we've discovered that there is an issue with the way some Verizon DSL customers are being routed in Western Massachusetts that is preventing them from reaching my employers public IPs. The problem is only limited to Verizon DSL customers, everyone else can reach these IP addresses just fine. After many hours on the phone with Verizon tech support, I finally managed to get myself and one of my coworker's home dsl connections switched from a redback router to a juniper router which resolved the issue, but only for us. [...] If you buy verizon services at your day job you can probably make noise through your sales droids better than here (sadly)... verizon likes to jump when customers have problems, if the customer is a large corporation or other 'important' customer. That is just the problem! The college does not buy any Verizon network stuff directly, so we don't really have any access to their support. (We have a few cell phones, but not enough to be important.) Brian Gold (who first posted) happens to have their DSL to his house, and he was one of five who have reported the problem, so that gave him a slight in. But the only techs he could reach as an end user were not high enough up to fix this problem in a general way. After pressing them for literally hours, he was able to get transfered to their NOC, and get the problem resolved for his one address. But, they would not give him the NOC contact, and he had to repeat this multi-hour process to get it fixed for an other user. Verizon's DSL support suggested that we get our bandwith provider involved, and so they tried to pitch in, but they don't have any Verizon NOC contact either, especially since this issue is purely within a small corner of Verizon's DSL network, not on any of Verizon's links to our provider. This issue hits only a few Verizon DSL users in NW Mass. It does not really seem like a routing problem, because the affected users can reach many of the servers in our AS, but not some addresses. Unfortunately, the blocked addresses include our web server and our mail server, so our staff who live out there noticed the issue pretty quickly. Traceroutes from Brian's house show that for our blocked hosts, the users don't get beyond Verizon's NAT. I wasn't aware verizon implemented CGN already... way to be a 'first mover' in this field verizon! The Verizon tech's fix of re-patching Brian's DSL line in to a different router feels to me like there is a config problem in the other router, but the tech we got is not authorized to alter the config. It would be nice if we could reach someone who could actually edit the broken config and make it right. Anyone from Verzion's NOC for Western Mass reading this? Or, does anyone else have useful contact info for them? you probably want someone in the NOC which is (I think) stil in Reston, va... I don't think they have separate noc's per region. The first-line tech folks you chat with on the phone really arent' able (even to login really) to fix devices in the field :( anyways, this looks crappy :( but yeah for CGN being all it's cracked up to be! -chris FWIW, Simon's Rock is 208.81.88.0/21, AS 19345. Here are a failed and a good trace from Brian's house, to different servers on our campus : FAILS: Tracing route to wilbur.simons-rock.edu [208.81.88.15] over a maximum of 30 hops: 1 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 192.168.10.1 2 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 192.168.1.1 3 53 ms 104 ms 116 ms 10.14.1.1 4 * * * Request timed out. 5 * * * Request timed out. 6 * * * Request timed out. 7 * * * Request timed out. WORKS: Tracing route to dev.simons-rock.edu [208.81.88.25] over a maximum of 30 hops: 1 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 192.168.10.1 2 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 192.168.1.1 3 87 ms 54 ms 54 ms 10.14.1.1 4 99 ms 109 ms 103 ms at-0-3-0-1711.WMA-CORE-RTR2.verizon-gni.net [130.81.10.77] 5 16 ms 18 ms 16 ms so-7-3-1-0.NY5030-BB-RTR2.verizon-gni.net [130.81.20.6] 6 19 ms 17 ms 17 ms 0.xe-3-1-0.BR3.NYC4.ALTER.NET [152.63.2.81] 7 18 ms 21 ms 18 ms 204.255.168.194 8 108 ms 188 ms 116 ms pos5-0-2488M.cr1.BOS1.gblx.net [67.17.94.57] 9 24 ms 28 ms 23 ms pos0-0-0-155M.ar1.BOS1.gblx.net [67.17.70.162] 10 121 ms 160 ms 127 ms 64.213.79.250 11 77 ms 77 ms 78 ms 208.81.88.25 Trace complete. Anyways, thanks for any suggestions you can offer. Steve Bohrer Network Administrator ITS, Bard College at Simon's Rock 413-528-7645
RE: The Cidr Report - 4byte ASN handling
I thought AS-plain notation was the standard for 4-byte ASN's? Also to cidr
report folks, in the web version, clicking on the ASN for these takes you to
the page for AS3 (MIT)
46.18.104.0/21AS3.746
195.54.52.0/23 AS3.523
195.54.52.0/24 AS3.523
195.54.53.0/24 AS3.523
route-viewssh ip bgp 195.54.52.0
BGP routing table entry for 195.54.52.0/24, version 218523
Paths: (34 available, best #34, table Default-IP-Routing-Table)
Not advertised to any peer
3257 3356 3255 3.523 3.523 3.523
89.149.178.10 from 89.149.178.10 (213.200.87.91)
Origin IGP, metric 10, localpref 100, valid, external
Community: 3257:8091 3257:30042 3257:50001 3257:54900 3257:54901
-Original Message-
From: cidr-rep...@potaroo.net [mailto:cidr-rep...@potaroo.net]
Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 6:00 PM
To: cidr-rep...@potaroo.net
Cc: ap...@apops.net; af...@afnog.org; nanog@nanog.org; eof-l...@ripe.net;
routing...@ripe.net
Subject: The Cidr Report
This report has been generated at Fri Sep 9 21:12:28 2011 AEST.
The report analyses the BGP Routing Table of AS2.0 router and generates a
report on aggregation potential within the table.
Check http://www.cidr-report.org for a current version of this report.
Recent Table History
Date PrefixesCIDR Agg
02-09-11373096 219901
03-09-11373636 219796
04-09-11373666 219877
05-09-11373566 219844
06-09-11373748 219894
07-09-11373965 219992
08-09-11373797 219481
09-09-11373405 220098
AS Summary
38831 Number of ASes in routing system
16392 Number of ASes announcing only one prefix
3564 Largest number of prefixes announced by an AS
AS6389 : BELLSOUTH-NET-BLK - BellSouth.net Inc.
108360672 Largest address span announced by an AS (/32s)
AS4134 : CHINANET-BACKBONE No.31,Jin-rong Street
Aggregation Summary
The algorithm used in this report proposes aggregation only when there is a
precise match using the AS path, so as to preserve traffic transit policies.
Aggregation is also proposed across non-advertised address space ('holes').
--- 09Sep11 ---
ASnumNetsNow NetsAggr NetGain % Gain Description
Table 374093 219958 15413541.2% All ASes
AS6389 3564 229 333593.6% BELLSOUTH-NET-BLK -
BellSouth.net Inc.
AS4766 2508 974 153461.2% KIXS-AS-KR Korea Telecom
AS18566 1912 378 153480.2% COVAD - Covad Communications
Co.
AS22773 1451 108 134392.6% ASN-CXA-ALL-CCI-22773-RDC -
Cox Communications Inc.
AS4755 1547 228 131985.3% TATACOMM-AS TATA
Communications formerly VSNL
is Leading ISP
AS4323 1627 397 123075.6% TWTC - tw telecom holdings,
inc.
AS10620 1661 591 107064.4% Telmex Colombia S.A.
AS1785 1825 778 104757.4% AS-PAETEC-NET - PaeTec
Communications, Inc.
AS19262 1394 400 99471.3% VZGNI-TRANSIT - Verizon Online
LLC
AS7552 1415 431 98469.5% VIETEL-AS-AP Vietel
Corporation
AS28573 1302 344 95873.6% NET Servicos de Comunicao S.A.
AS18101 950 144 80684.8% RELIANCE-COMMUNICATIONS-IN
Reliance Communications
Ltd.DAKC MUMBAI
AS24560 1177 386 79167.2% AIRTELBROADBAND-AS-AP Bharti
Airtel Ltd., Telemedia
Services
AS8151 1411 659 75253.3% Uninet S.A. de C.V.
AS4808 1077 339 73868.5% CHINA169-BJ CNCGROUP IP
network China169 Beijing
Province Network
AS7303 1051 316 73569.9% Telecom Argentina S.A.
AS7545 1581 860 72145.6% TPG-INTERNET-AP TPG Internet
Pty Ltd
AS3356 1103 449 65459.3% LEVEL3 Level 3 Communications
AS30036 1327 692 63547.9% MEDIACOM-ENTERPRISE-BUSINESS -
Mediacom Communications Corp
AS3549 1080 449 63158.4% GBLX Global Crossing Ltd.
AS14420 715 92 62387.1% CORPORACION
Re: ouch..
Microsoft had a direct dig at vmware recently (good video IMO) http://vmlimited.ctp.trafficmgr.com/ Matt On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 4:23 AM, Jima na...@jima.tk wrote: Once upon a time, Jima na...@jima.tk said: On Thu, 15 Sep 2011, Owen DeLong wrote: I was at Valley Fair mall the other day. Micr0$0ft is apparently building a new store directly across from the Apple store there. It's funny; they did the exact same thing at Mall of America maybe a year ago. I guess your report confirms it was a strategy, rather than a really absurd coincidence. They could be following the (possibly urban legend) Burger King model. Supposedly, McDonald's would spend a bunch of time and money doing market research, surveys, and such before placing a new restaurant. Burger King would wait for McDonald's to spend the time and money, and then open a new restaurant across the street. Oh, wow; been a few years since I heard that one. I'll admit, it seems at least remotely viable. No, in the MoA case I'd say it's more about obvious, direct competition; of all the (according to the site) 4.3 miles of potential storefront at Mall of America, Microsoft chose *directly across the hallway* from the long-standing Apple Store. (Okay, that might be hyperbole -- it may have been a shop or two down, as well; I forget.) Jima -- *mattlog.net*
Re: ouch..
Now just where would the fun in THAT be? ;) Scott On 9/14/11 11:00 AM, James Jones wrote: Funny they forget to mention that Cisco doesn't have 100g any where. Sent from my iPhone On Sep 14, 2011, at 7:41 AM, Leigh Porter leigh.por...@ukbroadband.com wrote: -Original Message- From: Always Learning [mailto:na...@u61.u22.net] Sent: 14 September 2011 14:39 To: N. Max Pierson Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: ouch.. On Wed, 2011-09-14 at 08:33 -0500, N. Max Pierson wrote: Either way, it's pathetic. If someone is going to slander in the fashion the site has done, they should at least put a contact form somewhere for some feedback :) Slander means falsehood. Cisco tells lies ? -- With best regards, Paul. England, EU. Lies? So who has 100G MX series cards then..? -- Leigh __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
Re: routing issue for verizon dsl customers in western massachusetts
On Sep 15, 2011, at 4:52 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote: I wasn't aware verizon implemented CGN already... way to be a 'first mover' in this field verizon! Maybe they are tying it out here in the sticks, where the glitches only hit single-digit numbers of users? (Though, I'd think if it was actually new, then they might have a higher-order tech paying attention to the glitches.) Oh well. Close enough, mostly. Steve
Anyone from Covad here?
Covad (or should I say Megapath now..), You have DNS servers that are failing to resolve anything at this time: 64.105.172.26 and 64.105.172.27 are both failing. This is a Bad Thing as these are the servers that the majority of our Covad customers use. Sincerely, Bobby Glover Director of Information Services SVI Incorporated
Re: Anyone from Covad here?
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 07:20:04PM -0700, Robert Glover wrote: Covad (or should I say Megapath now..), You have DNS servers that are failing to resolve anything at this time: 64.105.172.26 and 64.105.172.27 are both failing. This is a Bad Thing as these are the servers that the majority of our Covad customers use. Called it in to the right guy. Marcus
Re: Disappointing ARIN - A great advertisement for the USA ?
I hate to beat/stab a dead horsey, but I found this by happenstance: https://www.arin.net/resources/whoisrws/whois_diff.html which describes some of the differences between RWS output and traditional output. For the scripty-minded folks out there: $ wget -O - -q http://whois.arin.net/rest/ip/128.2.35.50.txt NetRange: 128.2.0.0 - 128.2.255.255 CIDR: 128.2.0.0/16 OriginAS: AS9 NetName:CMU-NET NetHandle: NET-128-2-0-0-1 Parent: NET-128-0-0-0-0 NetType:Direct Assignment RegDate:1984-04-17 Updated:2010-05-03 Ref:http://whois.arin.net/rest/net/NET-128-2-0-0-1 I reckon that for a simple script replacement of: whois ip the above would get you buy fairly neatly (you could account for the differences between old/new formats with the link above as well, if so inclined). -chris On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 11:15 PM, Ryan Gelobter rya...@atwgpc.net wrote: I e-mailed Marco (md) the creator of 'whois' back in July when this started and he stated he was going to try to work around the rWHOIS issue in the next release. Sadly there hasn't been a new release yet but I am hopeful.
Re: Disappointing ARIN - A great advertisement for the USA ?
I hate to beat/stab a dead horsey, but I found this by happenstance: https://www.arin.net/resources/whoisrws/whois_diff.html which describes some of the differences between RWS output and traditional output. For the scripty-minded folks out there: $ wget -O - -q http://whois.arin.net/rest/ip/128.2.35.50.txt ... i used to dial 411. now i have to build a machine from tinkertoys to open the fridge and get information. i am sure someone thought this was progress. you gotta love it. randy
