On Aug 15, 2007, at 5:34 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
Yes, and this convention still generates nuisance root traffic
whenever the application fails to comprehend . is a special
target. This is true even when _defined_ as a special target for
the specific resource record, as with
On Wed, Aug 15, 2007, Fred Baker wrote:
And finally why only do this during extreme congestion? Why not
always
do it?
I think I would always do it, and expect it to take effect only under
extreme congestion.
Well, emprically (on multi-megabit customer-facing links) it takes
effect
On Aug 15, 2007, at 10:13 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
Well, emprically (on multi-megabit customer-facing links) it takes
effect immediately and results in congestion being avoided (for
values of avoided.) You don't hit a hm, this is fine and hm,
this is congested; you actually notice a much
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007, Fred Baker wrote:
On Aug 15, 2007, at 8:39 PM, Sean Donelan wrote:
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007, Fred Baker wrote:
So I would suggest that a third thing that can be done, after the other
two avenues have been exhausted, is to decide to not start new sessions
unless there is some
i wasn't reading this thread at all since i thought it was about discovering
policy, like the subject says. horror of horrors, it's about dns internals,
which means the thread is not only mislabelled, but also off-topic. i think
it could go to [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], or perhaps
So that's why I keep returning to the need to pushback traffic a couple
of ASNs back. If its going to get dropped anyway, drop it sooner.
ECN
An Internet variable speed limit is a nice idea, but there are some
serious trust issues; applications have to trust the network implicitly not
to issue gratuitous slow down messages, and certainly not to use them for
evil purposes (not that I want to start a network neutrality flamewar...but
what
On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 12:58:48PM -0700, Tony Li wrote:
On Aug 15, 2007, at 9:12 AM, Stephen Wilcox wrote:
Remember the end-to-end principle. IP backbones don't fail with
extreme
congestion, IP applications fail with extreme congestion.
Hmm I'm not sure about that... a 100% full
On Thu, Aug 16, 2007 at 10:55:34AM +0100, Alexander Harrowell wrote:
An Internet variable speed limit is a nice idea, but there are some
serious trust issues; applications have to trust the network implicitly
not to issue gratuitous slow down messages, and certainly not to use them
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Wguisa71
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 11:31 PM
To: NANOG
Subject: Network Inventory Tool
Guys,
Does anyone known some tool for network documentation with:
I would second this. We're evaling it right now, takes a little getting
used to but the capabilities are pretty impressive. There is a pretty
steep cost to play initially. Once the first chunk of existing devices
are licensed adding more isn't as painful, at least thats how I'm
selling it
Section 5.1 of the updated version of 2821 allows A or
when there is no MX. This allowance must become obsolete and
the process ends when there is no MX record.
This idea is fundamentally flawed.
There is an assumption in the Internet that email is a universal
service. In
In many cases, yes. I know of a certain network that ran with
30% loss for a matter of years because the option didn't
exist to increase the bandwidth. When it became reality,
guess what they did.
How many people have noticed that when you replace a circuit with a
higher capacity one, the
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007, Alexander Harrowell wrote:
An Internet variable speed limit is a nice idea, but there are some
serious trust issues; applications have to trust the network implicitly not
to issue gratuitous slow down messages, and certainly not to use them for
Yeah, that's why I was
How does akamai handle traffic congestion so seamlessly? Perhaps we should
look at existing setups implemented by companies such as akamai for
guidelines regarding how to resolve this kind of issue...
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How many people have noticed that when you replace a circuit with a
higher capacity one, the traffic on the new circuit is suddenly greater
than 100% of the old one. Obviously this doesn't happen all the time,
such as when you have a 40%
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007, Randy Bush wrote:
So that's why I keep returning to the need to pushback traffic a couple
of ASNs back. If its going to get dropped anyway, drop it sooner.
ECN
Oh goody, the whole RED, BLUE, WRED, AQM, etc menagerie.
Connections already in progress (i.e. the ones with
yes.
On Aug 16, 2007, at 12:29 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
So that's why I keep returning to the need to pushback traffic a
couple
of ASNs back. If its going to get dropped anyway, drop it sooner.
ECN
So that's why I keep returning to the need to pushback traffic a couple
of ASNs back. If its going to get dropped anyway, drop it sooner.
ECN
Oh goody, the whole RED, BLUE, WRED, AQM, etc menagerie.
wow! is that what ECN stands for? somehow, in all this time, i missed
that. live and
Yeah, that's why I was limiting the need (requirement) to only 1-few
ASN hops upstream. I view this as similar to some backbones offering
a special blackhole everything BGP community that usually is not
transitive. This is the Oh Crap, Don't Blackhole Everything but Slow
Stuff Down BGP
Alexander Harrowell wrote:
Yeah, that's why I was limiting the need (requirement) to only 1-few
ASN hops upstream. I view this as similar to some backbones offering
a special blackhole everything BGP community that usually is not
transitive. This is the Oh Crap, Don't Blackhole Everything
On 8/16/07, Randy Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yeah, that's why I was limiting the need (requirement) to only 1-few
ASN hops upstream. I view this as similar to some backbones offering
a special blackhole everything BGP community that usually is not
transitive. This is the Oh Crap,
On Aug 16, 2007, at 7:46 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In many cases, yes. I know of a certain network that ran with 30%
loss for a matter of years because the option didn't exist to
increase the bandwidth. When it became reality, guess what they did.
How many people have noticed that when
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007, Randy Bush wrote:
Alexander Harrowell wrote:
Yeah, that's why I was limiting the need (requirement) to only 1-few
ASN hops upstream. I view this as similar to some backbones offering
a special blackhole everything BGP community that usually is not
transitive. This is the
Hi, I try adding google.com to my dns server to get more visitors but
google.com still show search engine. Please advise how to do so more visitor in
return? May the Gods be with you!
Hi, I try adding google.com to my dns server to get more visitors but
google.com still show search engine. Please advise how to do so more visitor in
return? May the Gods be with you!
Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How many people have noticed that when you replace a circuit with a
higher capacity one, the traffic on the new circuit is suddenly
greater than 100% of the old one. Obviously this doesn't happen all
the time, such
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007, Deepak Jain wrote:
Depends on your traffic type and I think this really depends on the
granularity of your study set (when you are calculating 80-90% usage). If you
upgrade early, or your (shallow) packet buffers convince to upgrade late, the
effects might be different.
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007, Fred Baker wrote:
world, they're perfectly happen to move it around the world. Hence, moving a
file into a campus doesn't mean that the campus has the file and will stop
bothering you. I'm pushing an agenda in the open source world to add some
concept of locality, with
On 8/16/07, Rod Beck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How much is power as a percent of data centre operating expense? What sort
of a range do you see?
We are building a high capacity cable to Iceland, which has already become
a major aluminum smelting centre due to its cheap geothermal and
Fred Baker writes:
Hence, moving a file into a campus doesn't mean that the campus has the file
and
will stop bothering you. I'm pushing an agenda in the open source world to
add
some concept of locality, with the purpose of moving traffic off ISP
networks when I can. I think the user
The TCPs don't slow down. They use the bandwidth you have
made available instead.
in your words, the traffic on the new circuit is suddenly
greater than 100% of the old one.
Exactly!
To be honest, I first encountered this when Avi Freedman upgraded one of
his upstream connections from
How much is power as a percent of data centre operating expense? What sort
of a range do you see?
A serial entrepreneur friend just closed his colo business.
He labeled it reselling electricity, at a loss..
If you have sea water available for cooling, that will
further cut your power
hi,
I 'google' algorithm for radius based accounting.
but can't find anything.
My question is: what's the best algorithm for
constrcting broadband access record from radius
accouting packets?
To my knowledge, some system takes:
Record Accouting-on packet arriving time -
On Thu, Aug 16, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm pushing an agenda in the open source world to add
some concept of locality, with the purpose of moving traffic off ISP
networks when I can. I think the user will be just as happy or
happier, and folks pushing large optics will
My question is: what's the best algorithm for
constrcting broadband access record from radius
accouting packets?
Read the RFC. No, I am being serious.
Record Accouting-on packet arriving time -
record Accouting-Off packet's Acct-Session-Time
and Acct-Delay-Time -
The
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you write:
Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET wrote:
Down is there isn't power to it until it gets repaired. So its not
answering period. A nslookup shows timed-out. A dig shows
connection timed out; no servers could be reached (When querying ONLY
against the down
37 matches
Mail list logo
