You should not have any issues with a /22, most providers will accept
/24 as the maximum length. refer to http://www.nanog.org/filter.html
Regards
Raymond
chk 543 wrote:
Is there a standard prefix length most providers filter
on, or is there a way to find out what each provider filters on?
top posting to keep you alert!
there are folks who syncronize clocks so that logs make sense.
and those that do, tend to pick a common TZ... there is nothing
like syncronizing logs from routers in Nepal, India, China, and LA
UTC can be your friend...
wrt acces to clock source - i'd be
When I wrote my book, I mostly looked at Cisco for this, and
apart from Cisco to FreeBSD and Linux. The logic is that on a
Cisco, you can build a good tunnel box (6to4 or manual
tunnels) on a C7200 or some other box that has a decent CPU
that can do the tunneling in software. Quite
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
... is it reasonable to assume clock synchronization in the rest
of our design?
In general, it is not. I can't think of any existing protocol that
does, actually.
Kerberos.
--
Jeff McAdams
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety
Just stumbled upon this article
http://www.networkworld.com/news/tech/2007/090507-tech-uodate.html
Suggested here is that Dual Stack is more attractive than tunneling. Is
the advise here based on real life experience or is it a matter of what
is good for the goose may not be good for the
On 18-sep-2007, at 23:51, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 23:29:38 +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum said:
they can't do it in hardware or with decent speed in software) but
there are no cheap(er) Juniper boxes that are suitable for deployment
as a 5 - 200 Mbps tunnel box, in my
:~ whois 97.81.31.19
Unknown AS number or IP network. Please upgrade this program.
Is this a function of whois hardcoded to no do lookups for this
address space? I can't seem to find any info about the range, beyond
registered but unallocated. I figured whois would at least return
something
On 19-sep-2007, at 11:58, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are you saying that 6to4 relay servers should be dedicated to that
task?
No, of course not. However, even though today IPv6 traffic is fairly
minimal for pretty much everyone, it has the potential to grow
quickly
# whois 97.81.31.19 0.0% 1
58.3 58.3 58.3 58.3 0.0?
Charter Communications NETBLK-CHARTER-NET (NET-97-80-0-0-1)
97.80.0.0 - 97.90.255.255
Charter Communications KNG-TN-97-81-24 (NET-97-81-24-0-1)
My whois program returns:
97.81.31.19
Host unreachable
97.81.24.0 - 97.81.31.255
Charter Communications
12405 Powerscourt Dr.
St. Louis
MO
63131
United States
IPAddressing
+1-314-288-3889
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Abuse:
+1-314-288-3111
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
KNG-TN-97-81-24
Created: 2007-04-11
On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 09:03:35AM +0100, Andy Davidson wrote:
On 19 Sep 2007, at 06:22, chk 543 wrote:
Is there a standard prefix length most providers filter on, or is
there a way to find out what each provider filters on? We have been
assigned a /22 and are wondering if we will have
On Wed, Sep 19, 2007, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
location would be enough. If I had some old 7200s lying around I'd
use those, in locations where replacing drives isn't a huge deal a
BSD box (Linux if you insist) would be a good choice because they
give you a bigger CPU for your
Hi,
On 19/09/2007, at 4:28 PM, NetSecGuy wrote:
:~ whois 97.81.31.19
Unknown AS number or IP network. Please upgrade this program.
Is this a function of whois hardcoded to no do lookups for this
address space? I can't seem to find any info about the range, beyond
registered but
On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 10:28:52AM -0400, NetSecGuy wrote:
:~ whois 97.81.31.19
Unknown AS number or IP network. Please upgrade this program.
Is this a function of whois hardcoded to no do lookups for this
[snip]
You are running some old version of whois - thanks for providing
no OS or
--- NetSecGuy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
:~ whois 97.81.31.19
Unknown AS number or IP network. Please upgrade this
program.
Is this a function of whois hardcoded to no do
lookups for this
address space? I can't seem to find any info about
the range, beyond
registered but unallocated.
Adrian Chadd wrote:
On Wed, Sep 19, 2007, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
location would be enough. If I had some old 7200s lying around I'd
use those, in locations where replacing drives isn't a huge deal a
BSD box (Linux if you insist) would be a good choice because they
give you a bigger
Guys,
I hate to send this to nanog, and please direct all replies offlistbut
this is a flat out last ditch effort to keep from losing a customer.
I need about 12u of space @ 380 S. Lake Destiny Rd, Orlando FL and AC
power for it (details on that not yet known, 10 dell PE1950s), and I
On Wed, Sep 19, 2007, Seth Mattinen wrote:
If there's interest I'll hack up a FreeBSD nanobsd image with ipv6
support, a routing daemon (whatever people think is good enough)
and whatever other stuff is enough to act as a 6to4 gateway.
You too can build diskless core2duo software routers for
Point taken.
I assumed my version of whois was up to date and my google results
only showed it being unallocated.
FWIW, OSX my default whois was 4.7.17, which I assumed was up to date.
Updated to 4.7.20 and charter appears.
Apologies for the time waster.
On 9/19/07, Joe Provo [EMAIL
On Wed, Sep 19, 2007, Alex Thurlow wrote:
How much traffic can a modern intel board with a core 2 duo handle
with $EL_GENERIC_UNIX_OS ?
The PCI-Express bus tops out at 2.5 Gbps I believe, and they (Vyatta
router salespeople to be specific) say you should be able to reach
that. At 850
I'm in Louisiana and just lost my OC12 to Bwing/L3. Circuit didn't die,
actually received a BGP message to terminate the session.
Anyone else seeing anything or got an update? ALL the numbers I have to L3
are busy...
on 2007-09-19 13:25 W. Kevin Hunt said the following:
I’m in Louisiana and just lost my OC12 to Bwing/L3. Circuit didn’t die,
actually received a BGP message to terminate the session.
Anyone else seeing anything or got an update? ALL the numbers I have to
L3 are busy...
Same same for our
On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 12:25:53PM -0500, W. Kevin Hunt wrote:
I'm in Louisiana and just lost my OC12 to Bwing/L3. Circuit didn't die,
actually received a BGP message to terminate the session.
Anyone else seeing anything or got an update? ALL the numbers I have to L3
are busy...
Seeing
Is anyone reporting Level3 outages in Ohio or DC ?
One of my clients is down, and L3 is not answering the phones (!)
traceroute 65.89.42.1
(From Cogent in Tyson's Corner)
traceroute to 65.89.42.1 (65.89.42.1), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets
1 dmz-mct2.multicasttech.com (63.105.122.1) 0.367
Same thing in Chicago.
Brian Knoll
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Ross Vandegrift
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 12:34 PM
To: W. Kevin Hunt
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: Level3 or Broadwing or other issues in Dallas ?
On
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007, Jerry B. Altzman wrote:
on 2007-09-19 13:25 W. Kevin Hunt said the following:
I?m in Louisiana and just lost my OC12 to Bwing/L3. Circuit didn?t die,
actually received a BGP message to terminate the session.
Anyone else seeing anything or got an update? ALL the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
FYI -/
- Original Message
Subject: [Outages] FW: SMC INITIAL OUTAGE NOTIFICATION: MULTIPLE
fBroadwing Markets
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 12:50:58 -0500
From: W. Kevin Hunt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
City/State:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007, W. Kevin Hunt wrote:
I'm in Louisiana and just lost my OC12 to Bwing/L3. Circuit didn't die,
actually received a BGP message to terminate the session.
Looks like a change management Oops. I'm sure they are putting things
back as fast as they can.
It's back up in Ohio, as of 2:05 PM EDT.
On Sep 19, 2007, at 1:33 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
Is anyone reporting Level3 outages in Ohio or DC ?
One of my clients is down, and L3 is not answering the phones (!)
traceroute 65.89.42.1
(From Cogent in Tyson's Corner)
traceroute to
I can ping 65.89.42.1 from here and it seems to be going through level3.
traceroute to 65.89.42.1 (65.89.42.1), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets
1 wookie-02.core..net () 0.454 ms 0.458 ms 0.320 ms
2 wookie-01-fe-2-0.core..net (xx) 0.678 ms 0.648 ms
0.559 ms
3
Yep - Chicago also.
On Wednesday 19 September 2007 12:25:53 W. Kevin Hunt wrote:
I'm in Louisiana and just lost my OC12 to Bwing/L3. Circuit didn't die,
actually received a BGP message to terminate the session.
Anyone else seeing anything or got an update? ALL the numbers I have to L3
are
On Sep 18, 2007, at 1:30 PM, David Conrad wrote:
HI,
On Sep 18, 2007, at 5:45 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
Please please please, for the sake of a semi-'standard', please
only use
the following forms in those cases:
www.domain
www.ipv6.domain
www.ipv4.domain
Don't come up with any other
Barrett Lyon wrote:
On Sep 18, 2007, at 1:30 PM, David Conrad wrote:
[..]
On Sep 18, 2007, at 5:45 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
Please please please, for the sake of a semi-'standard', please only use
[..]
What RFC (or other standards publication) is this documented in?
Where did the www.ipv6
Nanogers- Specifically Enterprise nogers. Not sure if you are aware of
this IETF draft on RH0. Its in last call. So if you want to voice your opinion
on whether you feel everyone should stop the traffic
that has RH0 headers
from moving on or just ignore
34 matches
Mail list logo
