On Fri, 8 Oct 2004, Nils Ketelsen wrote:
On Thu, Oct 07, 2004 at 09:43:47PM +0100, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
[switching/routing traffic from a passive tap]
Hi Peter,
if you are feeding this into a switch you should be able to switch it
just like the real traffic.. ie plug your
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 09 Oct, 2004
I understand the usage and application of MED and community attributes.
But we watch some interesting policy/attribute fluctuation of MED and
community.
We analyze BGP updates sent out by RouteViews peers. We observed a lot
of AADupType2 instabilities. We define AADupType2 event as: A route
On Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 11:40:54AM -0700, Zhen Wu wrote:
We are thinking of the motivation of doing this?
Traffic enginneering.
Why the ISPs configured their network so that the MED values
oscillate?
Is there actually persistant oscillation, or just frequent change
with some peers at some
On Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 08:49:22PM +0200, Daniel Roesen wrote:
On Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 11:40:54AM -0700, Zhen Wu wrote:
We are thinking of the motivation of doing this?
Traffic enginneering.
I should have elaborated: to encourage the peer to perform cold-potato
routing towards you.
Best
If anyone responsible at Hotmail is listening, please email me off list.
We have an issue that needs some work, and the usual channels are
getting us nowhere.
Thanks.
--
Drew Linsalata
The Gotham Bus Company, Inc.
Colocation and Dedicated Access Solutions
http://www.gothambus.com
Not sure how applicable to NANOG this is, but the below thread has
started on another list that I am on, and I thought someone listening
here from RR.COM might be able to help. If you think you can assist or
at least want to find out more about these issues, please contact me
off list and
Howdy,
After some senseless Googling, I'm at a loss. I'm looking for a very
comprehensive, up-to-date example of an AUP that covers spam. When I say
modern, I mean that I want it to include not just direct spamming, but
abuse of remote open-relays, abuse of remote trojaned boxes, sending
Forwarded to admins at RR, since I'm not 100% sure who's on here from there.
-MH
At 01:26 PM 10/8/2004, Jeff Wheeler wrote:
Not sure how applicable to NANOG this is, but the below thread has started
on another list that I am on, and I thought someone listening here from
RR.COM might be able to
The general consensus seems to be that companies that choose to obey the
law will simply disclose everything their software does in many, many
paragraphs of legal language that few people will actually read. This will
allow them to claim they have consent for whatever it is that they do.
Scott Morris wrote:
Oh, how festive. Anyone got that Bill (Gates) Blocker filter ready? :)
Left to their own devices, congressmen should NOT be allowed to write bills
about things they don't understand. Well... Ok, that's too restrictive.
No bills would ever get written.
We'll still see the
Only when they do something about it.
Trouble? When they have 40K extra users to pay for bandwidth (easily
eats up a T1 or two), it's damage enough. Besides, would you like
someone to launch cyber A-Bombs (phaa) from your network?
1. Worrying about personal privacy of their users, not wanting
This report has been generated at Fri Oct 8 21:44:22 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
13 matches
Mail list logo
