I have contacted Mr. Tarrall privately about this matter (since I happen to
work for the ISP in question for my day job...); more than that, I probably
can't say without violating NDAs, except that I believe there may have been
a breakdown in communications.
My *personal* opinion is that wise
My *personal* opinion is that wise ISPs only punt customers to ARIN once
they reach the point where they can, in fact, have a normal ARIN netblock
assigned directly to them (currently a /20, unless I slept through another
change...)
The guidelines have a strong preference for
Technically, you can't sell them to someone else.
-Dave
On Thu, Jun 27, 2002 at 07:37:34AM -0400, Ralph Doncaster mooed:
There's lots of old C's that aren't being announced any more. You might
be able to find one that someone can lend you to use.
Strangley a search for portable class C
Yeah old news, The AMS-IX announced today that both ports
had been re-enabled. I hope that means AMS-IX was paid.
Regards,
Neil.
Neil J. McRae wrote (on Jun 27):
Yeah old news, The AMS-IX announced today that both ports
had been re-enabled. I hope that means AMS-IX was paid.
Nah, another last-minute 2-week stay of execution most likely.
Kill it and be done with already. The only ones making money out of
KPNQ are the
Not as well connected as I once was and so I can only try from a couple of
upstreams, but I have lost all LINX transit traffic... www.linx.net is also
failing - which is not a good sign.
Anyone know different or better ?
Peter
One of the switches went into useless mode.
--
Neil J. McRae - Alive and Kicking
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 26 Jun 2002 13:53:38 -0400, Pawlukiewicz Jane [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
Is there a way to download _part_ of a BGP table from a router?
Sure, using SNMP. The question is whether you'll get the part you
want... if you use SNMPv2/3 and get-bulk, and only ask for the columns
you are
JB Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 01:13:50 -0600
JB From: Joel Baker
JB My *personal* opinion is that wise ISPs only punt customers
JB to ARIN once they reach the point where they can, in fact,
JB have a normal ARIN netblock assigned directly to them
JB (currently a /20, unless I slept through another
Jeff Workman([EMAIL PROTECTED])@2002.05.23 16:41:08 +:
Hello,
Has anybody on this list figured out an effective way to eliminiate, or at
least severely limit, the amount of spam that arrives in your NOC? I am
aware of solutions such as Spamassassin, Vipul's Razor, and the various
On Thu, Jun 27, 2002 at 01:56:26AM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
My *personal* opinion is that wise ISPs only punt customers to ARIN once
they reach the point where they can, in fact, have a normal ARIN netblock
assigned directly to them (currently a /20, unless I slept through another
Ralph,
Two points, here.
One is, Sprint won't peer with you. I'm not even sure who you work for, but
rest assured, they will not peer with you. Time spent on this might be
better utilized reading some of Bill Norton's excellent intro to peering
papers, or, if you work for a company that is
Andre,
What Avi meant is that when you use routing policy (like routemaps or the
equivalent) to set additive MEDs between POPs, only do it on egress from all
POPs or ingress to all POPs. Don't do it on routes both ways. Look at slide
35 - it has all the MEDs being added as from routemaps, as
Small ISP or no, how far off are you from begin multi-homed? Growing pains
in the Internet are very real--time and money. If you're growing only
another /24 in the next 6-12, then you may be able to squeeze that our of
your current provider (i.e. buy time to see if DSL will pull in the revenue
b == blitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
b For that and other reasons, Wcom will be bailed out, at taxpayer expense if
b necessary, for national security reasons.
WorldCom still runs UUNET as well. We carry a significant portion
of the backbone, and have many customers that have no other
I'm looking for
folks to participate as speakers or panel members at MPLScon in October in
Denver. For obvious reasons, finding peoplewho work
forcarriersand cancommit to traveling to Denver has been
extremely difficult.
If there are any
folks on this list who are interested in talking
On Thu, 27 Jun 2002 11:18:50 -0600, Joel Baker wrote:
On Thu, Jun 27, 2002 at 01:56:26AM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
My *personal* opinion is that wise ISPs only punt customers to ARIN once
they reach the point where they can, in fact, have a normal ARIN netblock
assigned directly to them
I know Sprint won't peer with anyone small. I said in my inital post I
don't stand a chance - but who knows, at the rate OC48 prices are dropping
maybe next year I will meet the requirements. Attention K-Mart shoppers,
WorldCom OC48's on sale in isle 5. ;-)
The second point is, whomever you
At the request of my employer, I will be making no further posts on this
topic. Disclaimers are apparently insufficient, though I would politely
remind everyone reading that I spoke on my behalf only, and not that of
the company.
--
RD Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 14:57:59 -0400 (EDT)
RD From: Ralph Doncaster
RD I know Sprint won't peer with anyone small. I said in my
RD inital post I don't stand a chance - but who knows, at the
RD rate OC48 prices are dropping maybe next year I will meet the
RD requirements. Attention K-Mart
Jeff Nelson wrote:
- Small ISP or no, how far off are you from begin multi-homed? Growing pains
Pretty far off. The reason we went with Viawest is that we're colo-ed
in a very good facility (Level3's colo in downtown Denver) and Viawest
is multi-homed through TouchAmerica, Level3, and
I was wondering if any of y'all could give me pointers to services I could
use to log into a network during flight on a private airplane. For example
a person is in flight cross-country and needs to do a videoconference,
send email from his network to interested parties, or any of the normal
On Thu, Jun 27, 2002 at 02:57:59PM -0400, Ralph Doncaster wrote:
I know Sprint won't peer with anyone small. I said in my inital post I
don't stand a chance - but who knows, at the rate OC48 prices are dropping
maybe next year I will meet the requirements. Attention K-Mart shoppers,
The FCC prohibits communication using a cellular telephone while in an
aircraft in US airspace. In Canada, I don't believe there is such a
regulation.
From doing research on this topic earlier this year, I came across news
articles that say that several aircraft manufacturers have tested the
The obstruction to the AGIS ASN was removed by the bankruptcy courts. ;-)
--On Thursday, 27 June 2002 16:30 -0400 Patrick W. Gilmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
This is not news. Remember when AGIS had peering requirements that AGIS could not
meet?
snip
--
TTFN,
patrick
--
Joseph T.
I seem to recall a program on the Discovery Channel [ ;Pp ] where cellphone,
FM/AM radio, walkman and CD player emitted radiation possibly could interfere
with some old equipment on old aircraft (ie probably precautionary rather than
real risk) .. I forget the detail but on an affected plane it
I was mainly thinking of satellite systems, but failed to remember the
latency problems associated with them so the videoconferencing example
wouldn't work. (not enough coffee today... :) So for latency tolerent
apps does satellite work well when traveling at air speeds? If the
footprint
Yo Scott!
Several services will do what you want. They are ALL expensive.
One of them is Orbcomm:
http://www.orbcomm.com
They have several FAA TSOed (a.k.a. certified) redios for aircraft
usage. With Orbcomm you can send and receive email, weather fax, etc.
Echo Flight is one
I'm fairly certain the cell networks won't crash - as demonstrated in some
calls made last fall. It's more like they won't be able to bill for the time
or keep track of your calls.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Scott Weeks
Sent:
The problem isn't logging, billing, or crashing the network. The
problem is
that the Cells are designed to have a certain area of coverage based on
the
assumption that the remote station is a ground-based station. When you
elevate
a station, that station becomes capable of transmitting it's
Yo Scott!
On Thu, 27 Jun 2002, Scott Weeks wrote:
Also, that the cellular network could crash if cell phones are used at
altitude seems like a big security hole to me.
Boeing has repeatedly stated that it is not stupid enough to make
airplanes that will fail because someone in the back has
On Thu, 27 Jun 2002, Joe Abley wrote:
|-I couldn't find the energy to go swimming in the Canadian Air
|-Regulations, but I did find this in the AIP Canada:
|-
|- COM 5.14 Pilot Cellular Phone Use During a Radio Communications Failure
|-
|- In the event of an in-flight radio communications
Thus spake Keith Woodworth [EMAIL PROTECTED]
A slight addition to this (maybe OT) thread but my wife was being
medivac'd on a small jet to a larger medical facility a few years ago, one
of the medical fellows on board used his cell phone a couple of times on
board while in flight. I asked
Leigh Anne Chisholm wrote:
The FCC prohibits communication using a cellular telephone while in an
aircraft in US airspace. In Canada, I don't believe there is such a
regulation.
The GTE airfones installed in most large planes have data ports if you
must connect a computer. But be prepared
-Envelope-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 22:08:37 + (GMT)
From: Hermann Wecke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: nanog [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: How do I log on while in flight?
In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN;
This probably isn't certified for flight use, but:
http://www.kvh.com/products/product.asp?id=60
would provide the uplink with usable bandwidth. The downlink requires:
http://www.kvh.com/products/product.asp?id=13 for auto tracking.
Tony (who is not affiliated in any way with the manufacturer)
At 08:00 PM 6/27/2002 -0400, Ralph Doncaster wrote:
Pick a strategy and run with it. Being a broadband provider in
SE Canada, I suggest sniffing out public peering in NYC and CHI
for a start. IIRC, Hotmail and Y! are at AADS and will peer with
most anyone -- there's a good chunk of
RD Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 20:00:11 -0400 (EDT)
RD From: Ralph Doncaster
RD For Chicago an OC3 connection to AADS would cost more than
RD the long-haul back to Toronto.
Given as an example. However the cost/benefit plays out...
RD I also prefer ethernet peering instead of ATM.
Agreed.
I'm already working on NYC. For Chicago an OC3 connection to AADS would
cost more than the long-haul back to Toronto.
Interestingly, it's arguable that once you pay for the OC3 (let's say $5k,
for sake of arguement) and the AADS port (another $5k), you're at $64/meg,
and thats assuming a
AR Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 20:53:44 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
AR From: Alex Rubenstein
AR Assuming a more real world utilization of 120 mb/s, at best,
At very best. ATM cell tax in mind, I'd expect lower.
I just checked Last-Modified on AADS' pricing page, and it looks
like it was
On Thu, 2002-06-27 at 19:28, Larry Rosenman wrote:
Around 14:00 CDT (GMT -0500), we noted most of our traffic ingress was
through Savvis, not it's normal path. Turning down our BGP session with
them, traffic returns to it's normal path.
Anyone else seeing weird stuff from Savvis?
It
sattelite links do not rule out videoconferencing, ip phones etc. large
portions of the world live with 700ms or higher round trip times for both
voice and data.
joelja
On Thu, 27 Jun 2002, Scott Weeks wrote:
I was mainly thinking of satellite systems, but failed to remember the
42 matches
Mail list logo
