On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
At 02:49 AM 02-03-05 +0100, Daniel Roesen wrote:
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 01:27:31AM +, James A. T. Rice wrote:
What exactly are you attempting to do here? Those announcements will get
dropped on the floor at least in this AS right away:
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
At 02:49 AM 02-03-05 +0100, Daniel Roesen wrote:
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 01:27:31AM +, James A. T. Rice wrote:
What exactly are you attempting to do here? Those announcements will get
At 06:00 PM 01-03-05 -0500, Larry J. Blunk wrote:
ftp://ftp.arin.net/info/asn.txt
Lists AS number, the whois AS name, and POC handle for each AS.
Jeff
If you are also interested in AS info outside the ARIN region,
the following file may be of interest --
At 03:01 AM 3/2/2005, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
At 06:00 PM 01-03-05 -0500, Larry J. Blunk wrote:
ftp://ftp.arin.net/info/asn.txt
Lists AS number, the whois AS name, and POC handle for each AS.
Jeff
If you are also interested in AS info outside the ARIN region,
the following file may be of
On Tue 01 Mar 2005 (22:36 -0500), Joe Maimon wrote:
Barry Shein wrote:
On March 1, 2005 at 14:17 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Segrave) wrote:
I don't understand this complaint - we process AOL TOS Notifications
daily and I find perhaps 1 in a hundred or so are not valid complaints.
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 16:54:23 -0500
From: Nils Ketelsen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587?
[ ... ]
I do not know about your E-Mail Policy, but normally it is either
allowed to use an external mailserver or not. If it is
advancedIPpipeline is running another article this morning
in their series of articles covering the Vonage service
disruptions that [allegedly] invlove an ISP port blocking
SIP connectitity between Vonage's client equipment and
Vonage's servers. While there is a bit more decriptive
detail in
Those are good points. Someone last week mentioned what I thought was a
great list of priorities for an ISP:
1. Keep the network running
2. Remove those violating policies
3. Route packets
(or something along those lines)
A 30/50/90 kbps unicast stream isn't going to affect #1. I
One the points that I left unsaid, however, is that
there may be many, many reasons -- both technically
and business-wise -- why an ISP would want to port-
filter, or for a better generalization, suppress
some traffic. For instance, blocking p2p traffic,
or a known worm, whatever. And there very
Hit me offlist if you have experience with this
actually working for you.
-Drew
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
Well - there's a way out, sort of.
1. Route .forwarded email out a separate IP (besides cutting down on
accepting and forwarding spam)
or
2. Find some way - like an X-Forwarded-For header, that AOL can tag on.
--srs
Your third option
Church, Chuck wrote:
Another thing for an ISP considering blocking VoIP is the fact that
you're cutting off people's access to 911. That alone has got to have
some tough legal ramifications. I can tell you that if my ISP started
blocking my Vonage, my next cell phone call would be my
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 10:25:56 +0530
From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 09:28:31 -0500, Vinny Abello [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can attest that we do not see the same here as you are seeing (1 in 100).
I'd agree more with the 1/3 being stupid AOL users
Yeah, I forgot about the regulation thing. I suppose I'd give the ISP a
call first, but I'd expect it to be working within a few hours. But now
that cable modem providers themselves are providing VoIP/dialtone,
wouldn't those be regulated by the FCC? I know that my cable modem ISP
(Charter)
Hi all
I used ingress-loose-template from cisco and applied
to my bgp ingress filter.
I got the following part of the log files and not sure
it is right filter or not
Can you help?
BGP: 1.2.3.4 rcvd UPDATE about 168.187.178.0/24 --
DENIED due to: filter;
BGP: 1.2.3.4 rcvd UPDATE about
Otherwise, I think that it can be helpful in identifying issues.
We use it to help advise us with respect to the IADB accreditation
database, and what we have found is that yes, there are a lot of
complaints for legitimate opt-in mail, but a demonstrable change in
*volume* (rather than the
Gert Doering wrote:
2005-03-04:
14:00 UTC: 10-element AS-set
14:30 UTC: withdrawal
16:00 UTC: 25-element AS-set
16:30 UTC: withdrawal
Please do not announce AS-sets that contain 5539. We are not part of
your experiment, and we don't want to see our AS appear in
Yeah, I forgot about the regulation thing. I suppose I'd give the
ISP a call first, but I'd expect it to be working within a few
hours. But now that cable modem providers themselves are providing
VoIP/dialtone, wouldn't those be regulated by the FCC?
The phone service is, the ISP isn't.
Pardon my interruption of the ongoing discussion of SMTP trust models
and FUSSPs (which I think is very important BTW), but if there is
somebody from Comcast here that can help us solve an immediate
related issue, please contact me or one of my postmasters off list?
Normal channels have been
Subject: Re: More on Vonage service disruptions...
Yeah, I forgot about the regulation thing. I suppose I'd give the ISP
a call first, but I'd expect it to be working within a few hours. But
now that cable modem providers themselves are providing VoIP/dialtone,
wouldn't those be
At 09:46 AM 3/2/2005, you wrote:
advancedIPpipeline is running another article this morning
in their series of articles covering the Vonage service
disruptions that [allegedly] invlove an ISP port blocking
SIP connectitity between Vonage's client equipment and
Vonage's servers. While there is a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
A question to ponder - what would happen to your network , from both a
technical and financial perspective if all of your customers circuit
switched voice traffic suddenly became ip?
Offer a Quality of Service product to enhance voice over IP
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Subject: Re: More on Vonage service disruptions...
Yeah, I forgot about the regulation thing. I suppose I'd give the
ISP a call first, but I'd expect it to be working within a few
hours. But now that cable modem providers themselves are providing
VoIP/dialtone,
Ah, and therein lies the rub.
Any sort of QoS frob that is implemented for VoIP
(or any other traffic for that matter) _must_ be
truly honored end-to-end, and at every intermediate
hop in between, for it to be guaranteed -- otherwise
when traffic that you may designate as higher quality
is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2005-03-02, at 19.38, James A. T. Rice wrote:
This seems to suggest that you are just picking ASns at random to
inject into the paths, and that you don't have a set of ASs which you
have the assignees permission to use.
Would't this then
At 01:24 PM 3/2/2005, you wrote:
Subject: Re: More on Vonage service disruptions...
Yeah, I forgot about the regulation thing. I suppose I'd give the ISP
a call first, but I'd expect it to be working within a few hours. But
now that cable modem providers themselves are providing
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Yo Joe!
On Tue, 1 Mar 2005, Joe Maimon wrote:
Apparently the ratio of valid/invalid AOL notifications is a usefull indicator
on the cleanliness of the relevant network.
Or it just may tell you the clue level of the recipients. I run a
mail
Ouch . . . http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/03/01/rebdus_power_failure/.
Sincerely,
Joe Johson
www.JoeLovesDreamweaver.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
James A. T. Rice wrote:
This seems to suggest that you are just picking ASns at random to inject
into the paths, and that you don't have a set of ASs which you have the
assignees permission to use.
In which case please keep AS8330, AS8550, and AS8943 out of your
experiments too.
Using not yet
Sure, the other two buildings still work. Hex has had a history of
power problems. I'm in Sovereign and it's been OK so far.
Of course we have other buildings as anything can break (e.g. 25 Broadway)
We host ecommerce sites turning over million of pounds,
pay redbus a significant amount
The subject is of most concern at the edge.
There are multiple long-haul providers, but often
the consumer has only one option for multi-megabit connectivity.
The entity currently enjoying the edge monopoly attempts to
create vertical service alignment, to maximize profit.
They DON'T want to
Actually, anticompetitive, and restraint-of-trade come in as better
arguments. They go along with blocking port 587/110, keeping users from
getting at legitimate, well-run remote mail servers. The end user paid for
packet service, and the Internet generally permits any protocol to be run.
So...how much of the revenue stream is built around the actual
facilities (i.e. copper, fiber, etc) ownership monopoly? Shouldn't
senior staff recognize the short-sightedness of building one revenue
stream from two distinct sources: one content delivery and one plant
ownership? Sell access
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Todd Vierling) [Tue 01 Mar 2005, 19:18 CET]:
On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[..]
These core operators sign up to a multilateral mail peering agreement
and provide email transit services for other operators.
The next layer is the non-core email service
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 11:15:51 -0500 (EST), Todd Vierling [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Your third option is best. (Excuse the signature-pun. :)
SRS does not require SPF, and provides auditability for forwarded mail:
http://spf.pobox.com/srs.html
In which case dont futz about with SES
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Drew Weaver wrote:
| Hit me offlist if you have experience with this actually
| working for you.
I'd be interested in seeing a summary of responses on-list if you
wouldn't mind.
- --
~ /\
~ \ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN
~ X
Hello all,
BGP design question. My scenario is very much like an online gaming
company with servers on multiple continents.
Details :
1. I have datacenters/servers in many POPs globally.
2. I am a stub AS with multiple ISPs available at each POP.
3. I do not have the resources to buy
Patrick Muldoon wrote:
What is more stable where you are, your broadband connection or your
telephone line to your LEC? (if you still have one). I know in my case
at home, the phone line was much more reliable, then my cable modem. I
can count the times on 1 hand that I had been without Dial
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote:
Ah, and therein lies the rub.
Any sort of QoS frob that is implemented for VoIP
(or any other traffic for that matter) _must_ be
truly honored end-to-end, and at every intermediate
hop in between, for it to be guaranteed -- otherwise
Ok, I realize I might have given the wrong impression here. Sorry.
So here's what we are doing: by artificially inserting ASes into the
AS-set of an announcement, the ISP that makes the announcement can
control where the announcement is propagated and thus discover paths
followed by its
Well, the most specific prefix wins in the forwarding
selection process, but I won't make any comments on
best current practice since best is somewhat
relative to the idea of max-aggregation but
this reference might help:
G. Huston
Request for Comments: 3221
Commentary on Inter-Domain
41 matches
Mail list logo
