RAS> Date: Sat, 3 Jul 2004 02:07:06 -0400
RAS> From: Richard A Steenbergen
RAS> What is with people in this industry, who latch onto an idea
RAS> and won't let go? If someone was talking about 80286 based
RAS> machines in 2004 we would all be in utter disbelief, but you
RAS> can still routinely f
PWG> Date: Sat, 3 Jul 2004 01:00:35 -0400
PWG> From: Patrick W Gilmore
PWG> Any particular reason you would worry about public peering
PWG> points these days?
ANES, perhaps? Those who finally found old NANOG-L and i-a
archives have decided public peering is bad.
H let's see cheap,
On Sat, Jul 03, 2004 at 01:00:35AM -0400, Patrick W Gilmore wrote:
>
> On Jul 2, 2004, at 9:31 PM, Stewart, William C (Bill), RTSLS wrote:
> >Also, if you're dealing with ISPs that use public peering points,
> >those may be a performance concern, but in the US that's mostly not
> >Tier1-Tier1.
>
Indeed, I agree.
I remember earlier times when there were serious concerns over
serious traffic bottlenecks, primarily due to the lag in speed-of-bits-on-the-wire
technology ramp up. I recall the
NSFnet backbone at a whopping 56kb trunk speed prior to the
node transition(s)!
We, collectively,
On Jul 2, 2004, at 9:31 PM, Stewart, William C (Bill), RTSLS wrote:
Also, if you're dealing with ISPs that use public peering points,
those may be a performance concern, but in the US that's mostly not
Tier1-Tier1.
(Linx is a different case entirely, assuming you want your traffic to
be in London
On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 07:09:52PM -0500, Erik Amundson wrote:
> NANOG,
> I have a question regarding information on my ISP's peering relationships.
> Are the speeds of some or all peering relationships public knowledge, and if
> so, where can I find this? By speed, I mean bandwidth (DS3, OC3, 10
On or about July 1 2004, Erik myevilempire.net> Amundson
allegedly asked about peering point bandwidth.
Some North American ISPs will tell you that under non-disclosure,
but almost all of them will point you to their standards for peering,
and you won't find many Tier 1 ISPs that peer at less t
On Fri, 2 Jul 2004, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> So the question is not so much "is 500ms towards the server
> bad", it's "can I build a single server (cluster) that will take
> all the load worldwide when the client software does bad things."
DNS traffic, surprisingly, is not very "fat". It is no HTTP
using RouteViews data
http://www.caida.org/analysis/routing/astypes/
k
Hello everyone,
I'm working on a project to characterize and summarize traffic info
using netflow. I have completed a prototype and have been testing it on
our network but would like to see how it performs with some 'real'
traffic. Is there someone out there that wouldn't mind exporting some
fl
On Fri, 2 Jul 2004, Joe Abley wrote:
> All the failure modes that ISC has seen with anycast nameserver
> instances can be avoided (for the authoritative DNS service as a whole)
> by including one or more non-anycast nameservers in the NS set.
Am I missing something..
So you say:
10.1.0.1 Any
On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 02:38:12PM -0400, Patrick W Gilmore wrote:
>
> On Jul 2, 2004, at 2:32 PM, Jeff Wasilko wrote:
>
> >Can't we just go back to non-anycast, please?
>
> You mean like the roots Er, wait a second
>
> Now, if you suggest a combination, that might be reasonable. (I
On Jul 2, 2004, at 2:32 PM, Jeff Wasilko wrote:
Can't we just go back to non-anycast, please?
You mean like the roots Er, wait a second
Now, if you suggest a combination, that might be reasonable. (I don't
run .org, I just think a blanket statement "anycast is bad" is, well,
bad.)
--
T
On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 11:12:31PM -0400, Joe Maimon wrote:
> Come to think about it, there was a thread here a while back about this
> very thing. root server robustness and all that.
>
> What number/timeframe reported .org hiccup does this make?
It's at least the 2nd. Last big one was 10/16/2
This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet
Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan.
Daily listings are sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If you have any comments please contact Philip Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
Routing Table Report 04:00 +10GMT Sat 03 Jul, 2004
> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Jul 2 10:35:42 2004
> Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 08:29:16 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Dave Dennis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: NANOG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Need 3M System Admin contact
>
>
> Dear NANOG,
>
> Anyone know how to contact responsible mail admin for 3M corp? The
On Fri, 2 Jul 2004 08:29:16 -0700 (PDT)
Dave Dennis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| Anyone know how to contact responsible mail admin for 3M corp?
| The whois contact number 651-736-7182 rings to the legal department
| who are on holiday til Tuesday and 651-733-8122 just infinite rings.
| The 3M cor
Dear NANOG,
Anyone know how to contact responsible mail admin for 3M corp? The whois contact
number 651-736-7182 rings to the legal department who are on holiday til Tuesday
and 651-733-8122 just infinite rings. The 3M corp (spock.mmm.com) is blocking a
domain which I admin for, and even emailin
In a message written on Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 11:16:08AM -0400, Joe Abley wrote:
> In my opinion, the primary purpose of anycast distribution of
> nameservers is reliability of the service as a whole, and not
> performance. Being able to reach a server is much more important than
> whether you ca
On 2 Jul 2004, at 10:43, Leo Bicknell wrote:
Note in the later pages what happens to particular servers under
packet loss. They all start to show an affinity for a subset of
the servers. It's been said that by putting some non-anycasted
servers in with the anycasted servers what can happen is if
On Fri, 2 Jul 2004 10:22:09 -0400, Joe Abley wrote:
>With the fix above, the problem becomes "hey, *some* of the nameservers
>for ORG are dead! We should fix that, but since not *all* of them are
>dead, at least ORG still works."
Sorry, I missed the top of this thread. I cannot mail an ORG cor
In a message written on Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 10:22:09AM -0400, Joe Abley wrote:
> This leaves the anycast servers providing all the optimisation that
> they are good for (local nameserver in toplogically distant networks;
> distributed DDoS traffic sink; reduced transaction RTT) and provides a
>
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 19:09:52 -0500
"Erik Amundson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have a question regarding information on my ISP's peering relationships.
> Are the speeds of some or all peering relationships public knowledge, and if
> so, where can I find this? By speed, I mean bandwidth (DS3, O
On 2 Jul 2004, at 00:18, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
So, I thought of it like this:
1) Rodney/Centergate/UltraDNS knows where all their 35000billion
copies of
the 2 .org TLD boxes are, what network pieces they are connected to at
which bandwidths and the current utilization
2) Rodney/Centergate/
It may be just me, but the choice of version number
makes me think that Jim Fleming may be involved in this.
Regards
Marshall Eubanks
On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 18:34:21 +0530
Suresh Ramasubramanian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> Original Message
> Subject: [IP] Intriguing Pr
Timo Mohre wrote:
Hmmm... IPv9 born again?
http://rfc.net/rfc1606.html
this seems to be a new (and possibly hot air) product though, rather
than rehashing of an old joke.
though, what's surprising is who's going to deploy this "ipv9" across
all the networks they say they'll deploy it.
On Fri, 2004-07-02 at 15:04, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>
[...]
> From ChinaTechNews.com:
>
> China's New Generation Of IPv9 Network Technology Ready
>
> July 2, 2004
> At the New Generation Internet Ten-Digit Network Industrialization &
> Development Seminar held on June 25th at Zhejiang
On Fri, 2004-07-02 at 15:04, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> From ChinaTechNews.com:
>
> China's New Generation Of IPv9 Network Technology Ready
http://www.iana.org/assignments/version-numbers
8<---
Assigned Internet Version Numbers
Decimal KeywordVersion
> China's New Generation Of IPv9 Network Technology Ready
> At the New Generation Internet Ten-Digit Network Industrialization &
> Development Seminar held on June 25th at Zhejiang University, it was
> announced that China's Internet technology, IPv9, had been formally
> adapted
> and popularized
Original Message
Subject: [IP] Intriguing Progress of China's IPv9 Network Technology
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 08:57:02 -0400
From: David Farber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Ip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Stephen Griffiths" <[EMAIL PRO
This report has been generated at Fri Jul 2 21:43:37 2004 AEST.
The report analyses the BGP Routing Table of an AS4637 (Reach) router
and generates a report on aggregation potential within the table.
Check http://www.cidr-report.org/as4637 for a current version of this report.
Recent Table Hist
Hi - I've tried multiple methods to get BOGONs and
blacklisted IP's removed from these domains with very limited success, so could
someone from these companies respond to me offline, if
possible, concerning our IP ranges being denied access to send
e-mails
Many thanks
Simon
Simon
32 matches
Mail list logo
