http://biz.yahoo.com/djus/021113/0217000178_2.html
-- Alex Rubenstein, AR97, K2AHR, [EMAIL PROTECTED], latency, Al Reuben --
--Net Access Corporation, 800-NET-ME-36, http://www.nac.net --
We see instability from certain prefixes originated by CW around this
time (indeed, they seem to be showing up across many of our views). See
CW is divesting itself of a lot of real estate these
days. It struck a deal with Primus concerning its
voice customers (last week), now its DSL customers to
New Edge.
Moreover, the BBC reports today that CW is cutting 3500 jobs
worldwide and also announced heavy losses. CW announced
that
hello to all,
i would appreciate your your knowledge and experiences regarding freely
available tools for network monitoring and management (all cisco now, some
other stuff later). i would prefer free tools as i have no budget :)
i am looking for the following (it will be running on either
On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, Peter Salus wrote:
CW is divesting itself of a lot of real estate these
days. It struck a deal with Primus concerning its
voice customers (last week), now its DSL customers to
New Edge.
New Edge is also getting their non-enterprise (i.e. T1, frac DS3)
customers. We
Hello,
Are there some ISPs who filter prefixes longer than /19 or a /20?. I
thought they filtered only prefixes which are longer than /24?
Harsha.
Title: Message
Group,
I'm looking to get
input on a moring checklist for NOC equipment. What I would like to put
together is a list that I can give to my techs and have them check things like
power supply alarms, hard disk alarms, etc. I guess somewhat like a
colocation taking care of
Is anyone else seeing occasional flapping between qwest and bbn this
morning? I've got TT's open w/Qwest and since the ticket-taker I spoke
to had 0 clue, I assume my T1's will go down for testing anytime. *sigh*
--
/-
If you're multihomed you can generally obtain provider indepdent
space from your RIR.
Most people who do this filtering do it on the RIR boundaries
for their minimum allocation.
If you are annoucing your provider assigned space
as a /24, they tend to announce the (/14 -
Hi Harsha,
this occurs quite often as a topic for discussion here.. the answer is they do
it because they can and unless you have an RIR allocation theres no guarantees
and to be fair the RIRs do state that. and good/bad agree/disagree some ISPs
filter more than others and theres not a lot you
Since it seems to be public, no harm in sharing it.
http://biz.yahoo.com/djus/021113/1031000599_1.html
I am sure a lot of customer will feel better. Stronger balance sheet
means Switch and Data will be a definite survivor and so will PAIX.
Looks like we're coming back to a peering location
I've found there are many providers that have completely disconnected
autonomous systems. For example Yipes (6517) uses L3 on the west coast
and Williams on the east coast.
66.7.129.0/24 is advertised under their AS through WCG and
209.213.209.0/24 is advertised under their AS through L3.
And
RD Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 14:46:05 -0500 (EST)
RD From: Ralph Doncaster
RD And the number of connected autonomous systems with
RD de-aggregated prefixes appears to be even more common than a
RD disconnected AS.
I see many weed-filled yards. Must mean weeds are acceptable,
even desirable,
CW is moving any customers that are not directly connected to a CW
owned node to New Edge. I am a CW T-1 Customer in the Phoenix, AZ
market on the N3 network and we will not be moving anywhere.
--- Jonathan Disher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, Peter Salus wrote:
CW is
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 02:28:07PM -0600, Daniel Golding wrote:
As long as you are familiar with the pitfalls, there is nothing
inherently wrong with using a single AS in multiple locations, and
advertising discrete blocks of address space in each one. The best reason
to do this is for a
DG Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 14:28:07 -0600 (CST)
DG From: Daniel Golding
DG Of course, it required you to point default routes out your
DG upstreams, as you will not see the prefixes from one
DG discontiguous island, in another, thanks to BGP loop
DG detection.
router bgp asn
neighbor w.x.y.z
On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, Daniel Golding wrote:
[...]
As far as aggregation - they are a couple reasons to not aggregate, but
the vast majority of it is sloth.
[...]
I've never seen anyone here complain that Yipes de-aggregates
66.7.128.0/18 into /24's like 66.7.129.0/24. Until the bigger
Of course, it required you to point default routes out your upstreams, as
you will not see the prefixes from one discontiguous island, in another,
thanks to BGP loop detection.
ouch. bad practice defaulting like that, however to static route your individual
blocks wouldnt be a problem
inherently wrong with using a single AS in multiple locations, and
advertising discrete blocks of address space in each one. The best reason
to do this is for a network that you eventually plan to merge - it
eliminates issues of having to make major BGP configuration changes.
Nothing
On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
Just making sure Ralph knows this, since I'm sure achieving 99% peering
by getting 10GE into NYIIX is the goal for his OC192 over 2600 network. :)
Trying to run OC192 over a 2600 router would make more business sense than
giving away 250mbps
I don't know how much of it is ignorance, or resource constraints. I've
worked with companies that have used disconnected AS's because they couldn't
justify multiple AS's and they needed to multihome in multiple isolated
locations. I've also worked with companies that deliberately de-aggregate
Title: Message
One suggestion that I have is that you
have an offsite/net monitoring service that at least monitors your monitoring
system. That way if every decides to go down, and you monitoring system cannot
get to the internet you know about it. There are a lot more things but I think
I suppose that depends on how many static routes you would need, and how
many routers you would have to touch.
If you have 10 sites like this, and add or remove several blocks every day
(an extreme, of course), then you could end up manipulating many statics
on numerous routers, which, aside
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 03:49:53PM -0500, Ralph Doncaster wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
Just making sure Ralph knows this, since I'm sure achieving 99% peering
by getting 10GE into NYIIX is the goal for his OC192 over 2600 network. :)
Trying to run OC192
Aren't some reasons for using disconnected as's regulatory based ie the
bells etc?
On Wed, 13 Nov 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
inherently wrong with using a single AS in multiple locations, and
advertising discrete blocks of address space in each one. The best reason
to do this is
On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, Daniel Golding wrote:
I suppose that depends on how many static routes you would need, and how
many routers you would have to touch.
If you have 10 sites like this, and add or remove several blocks every day
(an extreme, of course), then you could end up manipulating
Actually, most of the RBOC/ILEC's use completely seperate AS's. FCC
Regulation being a legitimate reason to request a whole bushel of AS's
from ARIN.
Try doing an ARIN whois on bellsouth, and you get...
Bellsouth.Net (AS7891) BELLSOUTH-NET-BLK27891 - 7894
Bellsouth.Net (AS8060)
Does anyone in here now of a South Florida Network Operators
Group, or something similar, and if not, would they be interested in starting
one.
Dale Levesque
Aren't some reasons for using disconnected as's regulatory
based ie the
bells etc?
As far as I've seen they do the right thing and use multiple ASNs.
Kris
On Wed, 13 Nov 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
inherently wrong with using a single AS in multiple
locations, and
Title: Re: South Florida Network Operators
Group
Dale,
South Florida Telecom Forum is about the only thing close in the
area. Or the Cisco Users Group down here. I think there is
definitely more interest in the area for something, but perhaps not as
many operators based here. A great number are
ASN per LATA to abide by the Telco Act of 1996...
SBC is rapidly shrinking the need down to a handful. 4 ASNs are in use at
IXs today. Next year that should be cut in half.
http://www.sbcbackbone.net/peering/
-ren
At 03:14 PM 11/13/2002 -0600, Daniel Golding wrote:
Actually, most of the
FYI..rf
FCC Approves Comcast-ATT Cable Merger
By David Ho
Associated Press Writer
Wednesday, November 13, 2002; 3:55 PM
The $29.2 billion merger of Comcast and ATT Broadband was approved
by federal regulators Wednesday, clearing the way for creation of the
nation's largest cable
On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, Andy Ellifson wrote:
CW is moving any customers that are not directly connected to a CW
owned node to New Edge. I am a CW T-1 Customer in the Phoenix, AZ
market on the N3 network and we will not be moving anywhere.
We are also connected to the N3 network (2 T1's to
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 10:45:15AM -0800, Harsha Narayan wrote:
[snip]
But it appears that there are many cases where customers prefer
to take a prefix from the ISP rather than an RIR even if it is a
/19 or a /20 - for example from the /11 of a big ISP, there are 50
/19s and /20s which
Equinix and SD (PAIX) will be the new peering exchanges.
I hate to think how many exchange points that leaves out. Telehouse
and Terramark come to mind. Even if there are some dominant players,
domestic neutral exchange points are still a diverse, vibrant market.
Question is, outside of 6
35 matches
Mail list logo
