>> So... is mail not getting in/out from Nanog right now,
>> or is the fairly major fiber cut in San Jose not newsworthy
>> on the operational list anymore?
>
>I'm gonna guess that people were too distracted with "Oh crap, where'd
>the internet go?"
I couldn't get to outside email from insi
I'm gonna guess that people were too distracted with "Oh crap, where'd
the internet go?"
So since there's the question, for those not in the know, the word is
that there was a cut through half of a 1000 strand cable owned by
Level3, affecting 502 fibers.
It's my understanding that they've been s
> - Forwarded message from George William Herbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
>
> So... is mail not getting in/out from Nanog right now,
> or is the fairly major fiber cut in San Jose not newsworthy
> on the operational list anymore?
Should be :)
L3 fiber cut in SJC/Sunnyvale area, 552 pa
So... is mail not getting in/out from Nanog right now,
or is the fairly major fiber cut in San Jose not newsworthy
on the operational list anymore?
-george william herbert
[EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > You can ping to 126.66.0.30/8.
> and how does one ping a /8?
> randy
Just send 2^(24) ping packets! (not?)
-P
On Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 06:25:00PM +0100, Brandon Butterworth wrote:
> But we could trade putting content on V6 for them if they make their
> network do multicast for us.
>
> Deal?
IPv6 multicast with embedded RP? Deal!
Regards,
Daniel
--
CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROT
Thanks to all who replied, actually 791 doesn't specify that a host
needs to implement these things; it lays out IP and how to use a
network mask / gateway.
RFC1122 (thanks to you off-listers) section 3.3.1.6 specifically
(using the RFC's famed "MUST" verbiage) states that a host use a
configurab
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 03:09:53PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 13:55:58 CDT, Scott Altman said:
> > > Is there an RFC or other standard that specifies that IPv4 connected
> > > devices must support the concepts of Subnet
On Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 03:09:53PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 13:55:58 CDT, Scott Altman said:
> > Is there an RFC or other standard that specifies that IPv4 connected
> > devices must support the concepts of Subnet Mask and Default Gateway?
>
> No, because there's plen
* Iljitsch van Beijnum:
> Is there any particular reason why a service over IPv6 couldn't be
> load balanced by putting a good number of records in the DNS?
This doesn't work for most dynamic content because it lacks session
affinity.
On Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 12:17:55PM -0400, Daniel Golding wrote:
> Why do so many v6 folks fill their arguments with notes of alarmism? Why
> don't we just make an orderly migration when it is called for, rather than
> using hyperbole to scare people?
I rather infer, Daniel, that the issue is "how
On Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 04:10:46AM -0700, Bill Woodcock wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Sabri Berisha wrote:
> > With the use of anycast DNS servers on the internet, TCP is no longer an
> > option for DNS.
>
> Bzzzt. Try again.
Naw; c'mon, guys: we did this one *last* month; I still
On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 13:55:58 CDT, Scott Altman said:
> Is there an RFC or other standard that specifies that IPv4 connected
> devices must support the concepts of Subnet Mask and Default Gateway?
No, because there's plenty of applications (embedded systems, for example),
where you have no need or
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Scott Altman wrote:
>
> Apologies upfront for my not being able to successfully google this on my
> own...
>
> Is there an RFC or other standard that specifies that IPv4 connected
> devices must support the concepts of Subnet Mask and Default Gateway?
>
> I have a kludgy (
Apologies upfront for my not being able to successfully google this on my own...
Is there an RFC or other standard that specifies that IPv4 connected
devices must support the concepts of Subnet Mask and Default Gateway?
I have a kludgy (<- technical term) vendor that has developed a custom
AP th
FCC just decided ILECs don't need to share lines.
http://www.fcc.gov/meetings/080505/sharing.pdf (1.8M PDF)
Sigh.
Rgds,
-drc
> Why do so many v6 folks fill their arguments with notes of alarmism?
old bad habits. the sky has been falling for a decade now.
the problem is it makes it hard to separate signal from noise.
e.g. after many years of telling us 3gpp was about to be a major
address space eater, we stopped list
On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 12:17:55 EDT, Daniel Golding said:
> Why do so many v6 folks fill their arguments with notes of alarmism? Why
> don't we just make an orderly migration when it is called for, rather than
> using hyperbole to scare people?
We tried that a few years ago. Nobody moved. So we com
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 06 Aug, 2005
> Why should content providers be at all interested in driving v6 usage?
Only if there are people on V6 that can't get to our V4 services,
otherwise we're just doing it for the good of the net
> They are interested in meeting demand, innovating, collecting
> ad revenue, etc. The ROI to the given
Marguerite Reardon writes in the C|Net News
Broadband Blog:
[snip]
The Federal Communications Commission on Friday did away with old rules that
require phone companies to share their infrastructure with Internet service
providers. The new framework puts DSL service in line with cable modem
se
On 8/4/05 6:49 PM, "Steve Feldman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I meant to ask this at a nanog or this IETF... why don't some of the
>> larger content providers (google, msn, yahoo, to name 3 examples) put
>> records in for their maint content pieces? why don't they get v6
>> connecti
--On August 5, 2005 12:50:08 PM +0200 Sabri Berisha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 12:05:08PM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
Hi,
I'm not sure how much room additional records take up, but I
think it's a little under 30 bytes. At this rate, there is no way
yo
On 8/4/05 4:46 PM, "Daniel Roesen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Famous last words when driving down a long road towards a firm wall of
> concrete. You want to rush then? Do you wait for the pain to fully
> extend? I prefer orderly, planned, concious migrations, not a state of
> "uhm, we cannot
--On August 5, 2005 11:13:13 AM +0200 Iljitsch van Beijnum
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Is there any particular reason why a service over IPv6 couldn't be load
balanced by putting a good number of records in the DNS? Since most
IPv6-capable browsers have decent support for trying mult
On 5 Aug 2005, at 07:54, Sabri Berisha wrote:
On Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 04:10:46AM -0700, Bill Woodcock wrote:
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Sabri Berisha wrote:
With the use of anycast DNS servers on the internet, TCP is no
longer an
option for DNS.
Bzzzt. Try again.
Christian Malo wrote:
> Seems like cogent has been having issues this morning. I'm seeing high
> latency all over the place.
>
>
> Anyone has any idea what's going on?
The aliens are attacking, the sky is falling down!
You might want to add at least a traceroute and a location explaining at
lea
forget it, the issue is related to issues with a transit provider.
*shrug*
-chris
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Christian Malo wrote:
>
> Seems like cogent has been having issues this morning. I'm seeing high
> latency all over the place.
>
>
> Anyone has any idea what's going on?
>
>
> -chris
>
>
Seems like cogent has been having issues this morning. I'm seeing high
latency all over the place.
Anyone has any idea what's going on?
-chris
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Joe Abley wrote:
> > Creating a seperate instance or path though all that for IPv6 is probably
> > going to be hard if it is all setup for everything to go one way.
>
> I know people who have set up such things using reverse proxies (listen on v6
> for query, relay request to
This report has been generated at Fri Aug 5 21:45:43 2005 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
On Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 11:51:53AM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Sabri Berisha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...]
> > With the use of anycast DNS servers on the internet, TCP is no
> > longer an option for DNS.
>
> Erm, bollocks.
>
> Just because a few nameservers are anycasted doesn't me
On Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 04:10:46AM -0700, Bill Woodcock wrote:
>
> On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Sabri Berisha wrote:
> > With the use of anycast DNS servers on the internet, TCP is no longer an
> > option for DNS.
>
> Bzzzt. Try again.
/--[cabernet]--[merlot]--[ri
Sabri Berisha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> With the use of anycast DNS servers on the internet, TCP is no
> longer an option for DNS.
Erm, bollocks.
Just because a few nameservers are anycasted doesn't mean that the
vast majority of non-anycasted servers may not use TCP.
Optimising the co
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joel Jaeggli) wrote:
> >With the use of anycast DNS servers on the internet, TCP is no longer an
> >option for DNS.
>
> oddly enough there's been some research on this subject. you might not in
> fact be able to conclude that if your routing is sufficiently stable.
Actually,
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Sabri Berisha wrote:
With the use of anycast DNS servers on the internet, TCP is no longer an
option for DNS.
oddly enough there's been some research on this subject. you might not in
fact be able to conclude that if your routing
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Sabri Berisha wrote:
On Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 12:05:08PM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
Hi,
I'm not sure how much room additional records take up, but I
think it's a little under 30 bytes. At this rate, there is no way
you're going to run out of 512 bytes with le
Daniel Roesen wrote:
I would guesstimate about 8 Terabyte per day, judging from the traffic
I saw towards a virgin /21 (1 GByte per day).
/18 attracts 19kbps on average, with day averages between 5 and 37
kilobits per second. That would translate to only 50 to 400 megabytes a day.
So
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Sabri Berisha wrote:
> With the use of anycast DNS servers on the internet, TCP is no longer an
> option for DNS.
Bzzzt. Try again.
-Bill
On Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 12:05:08PM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
Hi,
> I'm not sure how much room additional records take up, but I
> think it's a little under 30 bytes. At this rate, there is no way
> you're going to run out of 512 bytes with less than 10 records.
> Then th
On 5-aug-2005, at 11:33, Bruce Campbell wrote:
Is there any particular reason why a service over IPv6 couldn't be
load balanced by putting a good number of records in the DNS?
_Eventually_, DNS packet size and a desire to avoid truncation at
that level would stop you. Nothing stoppin
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Bruce Campbell wrote:
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
could you comment on christopher's observation that, given the likely
volume of v6 traffic, you would not have a v6 load worth balancing?
Is there any particular reason why a service over IPv6 couldn
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
could you comment on christopher's observation that, given the likely
volume of v6 traffic, you would not have a v6 load worth balancing?
Is there any particular reason why a service over IPv6 couldn't be load
balanced by putting a good number
Joel Jaeggli wrote:
LVS which rather a lot of people use for load balancing supports ipv6
and has since 2002
This is what I binned in favour of Redline.
I don't know whether you're balancing HTTP or something else, but if you
are balancing web traffic, then you may get much better performanc
On 5-aug-2005, at 10:59, Randy Bush wrote:
Until such devices support IPv6, to reiterate Steve's point, it's
not an
option to consider approaching connectivity suppliers with IPv6
enquiries.
could you comment on christopher's observation that, given the likely
volume of v6 traffic, you wo
Randy Bush wrote:
Until such devices support IPv6, to reiterate Steve's point, it's not an
option to consider approaching connectivity suppliers with IPv6 enquiries.
could you comment on christopher's observation that, given the likely
volume of v6 traffic, you would not have a v6 load worth ba
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Andy Davidson wrote:
Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
will the v6 access really be enough to require LB's? or are they there for
other reasons (global lb for content close to customers, regionalized
content) perhaps reasons which would matter 'less' in an initial v6 world
wher
> Until such devices support IPv6, to reiterate Steve's point, it's not an
> option to consider approaching connectivity suppliers with IPv6 enquiries.
could you comment on christopher's observation that, given the likely
volume of v6 traffic, you would not have a v6 load worth balancing?
of cou
Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
will the v6 access really be enough to require LB's? or are they there for
other reasons (global lb for content close to customers, regionalized
content) perhaps reasons which would matter 'less' in an initial v6 world
where you were getting the lb's fixed by their v
On 5-aug-2005, at 0:09, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
2. We know cable companies, dsl providers and mobile companies can
use this many IPs, but they generally seem to make use of NAT and
IPv6. If everyone in this category who could justify a /8 applied
and received them we might be in real
On Thu, 4 Aug 2005, Scott Francis wrote:
On 8/3/05, Robert E. Seastrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Beer, unsupported assertions, and lack of rigorous audit methodology
can be blended together to make one's code more secure?
what unsupported assertions? The project's record speaks for itsel
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, David Conrad wrote:
>
> ?
>
> % whois -h whois.arin.net 126.0.0.0
>
> OrgName:Asia Pacific Network Information Centre
> ReferralServer: whois://whois.apnic.net
>
> NetRange: 126.0.0.0 - 126.255.255.255
> CIDR: 126.0.0.0/8
> On Aug 5, 2005, at 12:35 AM, Bill Woodc
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Joe Abley wrote:
>
>
> On 4 Aug 2005, at 21:51, Simon Lyall wrote:
>
> > Creating a seperate instance or path though all that for IPv6 is
> > probably
> > going to be hard if it is all setup for everything to go one way.
>
> I know people who have set up such things using reve
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, David Conrad wrote:
> % whois -h whois.arin.net 126.0.0.0
> OrgName:Asia Pacific Network Information Centre
> > And this helps them justify a /8 _in the US_ how?
Ah, I'd misunderstood, from all the talk about ARIN, I thought somehow
ARIN was involved.
>> They are one of the largest ISPs in Japan.
> And this helps them justify a /8 _in the US_ how?
dunno. that would probably be hard. which is why they
got it from apnic.
randy
?
% whois -h whois.arin.net 126.0.0.0
OrgName:Asia Pacific Network Information Centre
OrgID: APNIC
Address:PO Box 2131
City: Milton
StateProv: QLD
PostalCode: 4064
Country:AU
ReferralServer: whois://whois.apnic.net
NetRange: 126.0.0.0 - 126.255.255.255
CIDR: 12
On Thu, 4 Aug 2005, David Conrad wrote:
> They are one of the largest ISPs in Japan.
And this helps them justify a /8 _in the US_ how?
-Bill
> The business of the rir's is providing ip addresses to their members. if
> withholding the remaining address space became more important than
> supporting the needs of the community of interest, then they've obviously
> failed their membership.
not for long, as their membership elects/appoin
Hi,
If you can justify a /8, ARIN will allocate one to you (not that
I speak for ARIN or anything, but that's how things work).
Presumably Softbank BB justified the /8 APNIC allocated to them.
I don't know about APNIC, but ARIN's rules are generally
structured to make justification of a /
hi randy!
>indeed, this was a very interesting, if somewhat odd, presentation.
>e.g. the growth graphs had no labels on the y axes:-).
oops. we'll have to tell kousuke-san. :-)
>my impression was that it was essentially a request to extend the
>time of the trial because it was moving more slowl
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
t>, "Stephen J. Wilcox" writes:
>
>2. We know cable companies, dsl providers and mobile companies can use this ma
>ny
>IPs, but they generally seem to make use of NAT and IPv6. If everyone in this
>category who could justify a /8 applied and received them we might
61 matches
Mail list logo
