IPV6 Anycast for streaming

[Voice of the Blind ™ Network Operation]

Hello,
is a anycasted Prefix a good idea for Streaming?
here's what we're thinking about:
1. get a /48 from a LIR or a RIR and anounce it through Hurricanne
through several Tunnel server including Singapor, New york and
Amsterdam
2. run 3 diferent Icecast server  in each of the locations where
frankfurd would be the Master Server while the 2 others would be a
slave relay
3. Assign same Ipv6 address to each of the icecast server where we
would be using other prefix to do Inter server communication
so if someone is in North America would go through new york, if is in
south east asia would be throug SG, otherwise africa/Europ would go
through Frankfurd
is that a good idea for streaming performance ?
any other suggestion is welcome
Thank you

-- 
Voice of the Blind ™ Network Operation
http://www.vobradio.org/
Phone: +1-347-759-5883

Re: Comcast outage

[Robert Haylock]

Grant,

Yes - I did from early in the AM till about midday, but of course
didn't see your query till it returned, and an SMS to comcast's status
line returned no answer... (maybe that was out too)

All back now...

Rob

On 11 August 2012 10:52, Grant Ridder  wrote:
> Does anyone know about or experiencing a Comcast outage in the Santa Clara
> area?
>
> -Grant

Re: DNSChanger Prefixes are re-allocated and advertised ...

[Florian Weimer]

* Barry Greene:

> FYI - Two prefixes from the DNS Changer/Rover Digital take down have
> been re-allocated. One of the prefixes - 85.255.112.0/20 - was
> advertised Friday morning. There is a blog post with some of the
> details here:

Wow, that was fast.  So the police order actually made sense and was
probably necessary.

RE: next hop packet loss

[Keith Medcalf]

Works fine in Firefox for me, and always has (within the limits of the shoddily 
designed website that is).  Nonetheless, I'd never buy anything from them since 
they are an anti-security organization.  Their Web site uses so much gratuitous 
javascript crap and hard-coded assumptions about character cell sizes and pixel 
density that it is completely unuseable.  I have no reason to believe that any 
other product they sell is any better designed -- if you can't create a web 
site that does not require increasing attack surface in order to use it, then I 
would assume that all their products work and are designed the same way, and 
that deployment of any of their products increases attack surface rather than 
decreasing it.

On the other hand they are probably four-colour-glossy-brochure and buzzword 
compliant.  Then again I'm an curmudgeonly old fart that can't even spell dot 
Snot.

---
()  ascii ribbon campaign against html e-mail
/\  www.asciiribbon.org


> -Original Message-
> From: Jim Ray [mailto:j...@neuse.net]
> Sent: Saturday, 11 August, 2012 10:36
> To: smbmanagedservi...@yahoogroups.com
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org; david.herr...@twcable.com
> Subject: RE: [SMBManagedServices] RE: next hop packet loss
>
> Get a load of this:
>
> New version of Firefox works fine. Methinks Mozilla released a turd.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: smbmanagedservi...@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:smbmanagedservi...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of James_TDS
> Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 11:47 AM
> To: smbmanagedservi...@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [SMBManagedServices] RE: next hop packet loss
>
> As I said I suspect Checkpoint is "breaking the Internet" in an attempt
> to block various DDOS attacks. The failure of tracert and ICMP is not
> isolated to Checkpoint and Above.net as I had a similar problem with a
> local TW customer on a static IP. Because their in house router was down
> and not responding to anything TW would drop the Tracert long before it
> even came close to my client. I gave them heck about this as it made it
> impossible to remotely monitor the customer because when the customer
> calls and says the "Internet is down" the first thing I do is tracert to
> their IP. When I see the route die in another city that tells me the ISP
> is having issues vs. the route dying one hop out from my customer's IP.
> They gave me some crap about active routing and such. Put anything on
> that IP and have it respond to pings and the route will complete.
>
> As I said Telnet checkpoint.com 80 fails for me but SLChecker works so
> again it's probably some DDOS thing and they are checking user agents
> before replying and I assume SLCheck mimics IE or something. Handy tool.
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: smbmanagedservi...@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:smbmanagedservi...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jim Ray
> Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 8:23 AM
> To: smbmanagedservi...@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [SMBManagedServices] RE: next hop packet loss
>
> I am stumped why http://www.checkpoint.com won't resolve with Firefox
> yet will with Internet Explorer and Safari. I know Microsoft won't let
> you do what you need to do with Firefox yet am surprised with Check
> Point.
>
> Above.net is not echoing ICMP, though, before one reaches Check Point.
>
> >From the NANOG group, I found out it is possible to use command line
> switch to specify type of traffic and to get around ICMP issue.
> Apparently, TCP works; however, another person said UDP is preferred
> embodiment.
>
> This test resolved web site yet resulted in lost connection:
>
> telnet www.checkpoint.com 80
> GET / HTTP/1.1
> Host: www.checkpoint.com
>
> I captured packets with Wireshark yet did not see anything that jumped
> out at me as root cause for failure.
>
> Meanwhile back at the ranch, my friend brought over business card for
> Check Point representative, and I plan to pick up the phone and call
> thereby bypassing TCP/IP in its entirety.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: smbmanagedservi...@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:smbmanagedservi...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of James_TDS
> Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 10:50 AM
> To: smbmanagedservi...@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [SMBManagedServices] RE: next hop packet loss
>
> Go back a few post and see where I mentioned that the hop in question
> was not responding to the ICMP request, it wasn't down they just refuse
> to echo.
>
> Probably a more valid test would have been:
>
> telnet checkpoint.com 80
> GET
>
> However I just tested that as well and Checkpoint doesn't respond
> correctly. Not sure what they are doing on the frontend but they are
> breaking Internet "rules" probably in an effort to not be DDOS'd. I
> checked again with SLChecker and it responds correctly so they are
> likely not responding to Telnet because it doesn't send a user agent ID.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: smbmanagedservi...@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:smbmanagedservi...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf

Comcast outage

[Grant Ridder]

Does anyone know about or experiencing a Comcast outage in the Santa Clara
area?

-Grant

RE: [SMBManagedServices] RE: next hop packet loss

[Jim Ray]

Get a load of this:

New version of Firefox works fine. Methinks Mozilla released a turd.


-Original Message-
From: smbmanagedservi...@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:smbmanagedservi...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of James_TDS
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 11:47 AM
To: smbmanagedservi...@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [SMBManagedServices] RE: next hop packet loss

As I said I suspect Checkpoint is "breaking the Internet" in an attempt
to block various DDOS attacks. The failure of tracert and ICMP is not
isolated to Checkpoint and Above.net as I had a similar problem with a
local TW customer on a static IP. Because their in house router was down
and not responding to anything TW would drop the Tracert long before it
even came close to my client. I gave them heck about this as it made it
impossible to remotely monitor the customer because when the customer
calls and says the "Internet is down" the first thing I do is tracert to
their IP. When I see the route die in another city that tells me the ISP
is having issues vs. the route dying one hop out from my customer's IP.
They gave me some crap about active routing and such. Put anything on
that IP and have it respond to pings and the route will complete.

As I said Telnet checkpoint.com 80 fails for me but SLChecker works so
again it's probably some DDOS thing and they are checking user agents
before replying and I assume SLCheck mimics IE or something. Handy tool.



-Original Message-
From: smbmanagedservi...@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:smbmanagedservi...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jim Ray
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 8:23 AM
To: smbmanagedservi...@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [SMBManagedServices] RE: next hop packet loss

I am stumped why http://www.checkpoint.com won't resolve with Firefox
yet will with Internet Explorer and Safari. I know Microsoft won't let
you do what you need to do with Firefox yet am surprised with Check
Point. 

Above.net is not echoing ICMP, though, before one reaches Check Point.

>From the NANOG group, I found out it is possible to use command line
switch to specify type of traffic and to get around ICMP issue.
Apparently, TCP works; however, another person said UDP is preferred
embodiment.

This test resolved web site yet resulted in lost connection:

telnet www.checkpoint.com 80
GET / HTTP/1.1
Host: www.checkpoint.com

I captured packets with Wireshark yet did not see anything that jumped
out at me as root cause for failure.

Meanwhile back at the ranch, my friend brought over business card for
Check Point representative, and I plan to pick up the phone and call
thereby bypassing TCP/IP in its entirety.


-Original Message-
From: smbmanagedservi...@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:smbmanagedservi...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of James_TDS
Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 10:50 AM
To: smbmanagedservi...@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [SMBManagedServices] RE: next hop packet loss

Go back a few post and see where I mentioned that the hop in question
was not responding to the ICMP request, it wasn't down they just refuse
to echo. 

Probably a more valid test would have been:

telnet checkpoint.com 80
GET

However I just tested that as well and Checkpoint doesn't respond
correctly. Not sure what they are doing on the frontend but they are
breaking Internet "rules" probably in an effort to not be DDOS'd. I
checked again with SLChecker and it responds correctly so they are
likely not responding to Telnet because it doesn't send a user agent ID.


-Original Message-
From: smbmanagedservi...@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:smbmanagedservi...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jim Ray
Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 8:39 AM
To: smbmanagedservi...@yahoogroups.com
Cc: Herring, David
Subject: [SMBManagedServices] RE: next hop packet loss

Hey, I get the idgit award for this one. Time Warner's next hop that was
dropping packets was really a situation where next hop was not
responding to ICMP from tracert. Neither of us was able to diagnose the
problem until last night when I found out Safari pulled up
http://www.checkpoint.com from same network and Firefox on PC did not.

So, apparently, Check Point does not like Firefox. Internet Explorer
worked.

Meanwhile back at the ranch, I have learned about TCP switch in tracert
thanks to peers here and on NANOG and have gotten down and dirty with
Wireshark.

Regards,

Jim Ray, President
Neuse River Networks
2 Davis Drive, PO Box 13169
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
919-838-1672 x100
www.NeuseRiverNetworks.com


-Original Message-
From: Herring, David [mailto:david.herr...@twcable.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 7:54 AM
To: Jim Ray; Adrian Bool
Subject: RE: next hop packet loss

  Got it.. no worries.. I know we are not always the best either!

  What would be great- that you let the below be known to your user
group?
  I know we let them know when we thought it was Business class
problem...



David Herring
Channel Manager | Channel Partner Program, East Region TWC Business
Class
101 Inn

Re: APEWS spam blacklist?

[Michael J Wise]

On Aug 8, 2012, at 6:41 AM, Tim Burke wrote:

> Anyone have a contact involved with the APEWS blacklist? They have had a /19 
> of ours blacklisted for almost two years and there seems to be no way to 
> contact them to get this resolved.


In a word, no.
Much sage advice here:




Aloha,
Michael.
-- 
"Please have your Internet License 
 and Usenet Registration handy..."

RE: raging bulls

[Chu, Yi [NTK]]

What prevents someone to fake an earlier timestamp?  Money can bend light, sure 
can a few msec.

yi

-Original Message-
From: Naslund, Steve [mailto:snasl...@medline.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 9:53 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: raging bulls

It seems to me that all the markets have been doing this the wrong way.
Would it now be more fair to use some kind of signed timestamp and
process all transactions in the order that they originated?  Perhaps
each trade could have a signed GPS tag with the absolute time on it. It
would keep everyone's trades in order no matter how latent their
connection to the market was.  All you would have to do is introduce a
couple of seconds delay to account for the longest circuit and then take
them in order.  They could certainly use less expensive connections and
ensure that international traders get a fair shake.

Steven Naslund

-Original Message-
From: Eugen Leitl [mailto:eu...@leitl.org]
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 2:02 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: raging bulls

On Tue, Aug 07, 2012 at 05:15:51PM -1000, Michael Painter wrote:
> Eugen Leitl wrote:
>> http://www.wired.com/business/2012/08/ff_wallstreet_trading/all/
>>
>> Some interesting, network-relevant content there (but for the
>> neutrino and drone rubbish).
>
> 'Rubbish' might be a pretty strong word when you're talking about the
players in this space.

If you want to shave off ms, using a source that takes at least minutes
to accrue enough signal for a single bit is definitely not what you
want. And drones across the Atlantic is way too Rube Goldbergesque to
contemplate.

> My favorite from the article:
> "But perhaps not even Einstein fully appreciated the degree to which
> electromagnetic waves bend in the presence of money. "

Maybe they should invest into a dense, a really low LEO sat
constellation, and go by way of LoS laser.






This e-mail may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for the 
sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not 
the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the 
message.

APEWS spam blacklist?

[Tim Burke]

Anyone have a contact involved with the APEWS blacklist? They have had a /19 of 
ours blacklisted for almost two years and there seems to be no way to contact 
them to get this resolved.