> On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 20:24:51 +, "R.P. Aditya" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I have a bunch of cat5 buried about 1 ft below the surface
> connecting multiple buildings on a campus (short runs) and lightning
> strikes nearby have caused surges along one or more o
I have a bunch of cat5 buried about 1 ft below the surface connecting multiple
buildings on a campus (short runs) and lightning strikes nearby have caused
surges along one or more of the cables and burnt out switch ports. I would
like to protect the switch ports -- there seem to be lots of product
> On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 11:19:16 -0400, "Jon R. Kibler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Greetings,
> Anyone know anything about IP 128.232.0.31? # host 128.232.0.31
> 31.0.232.128.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer
> dns-probe.srg.cl.cam.ac.uk.
[...]
> Anyone know anything about this IP?
Keep going, th
ll
bite you when you turn on strict RPF on your peering interfaces
Seriously, if you do turn RPF on on peering interfaces, please let
your peers know (plea from circa 1999)
Aditya
> On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 20:50:57 -0600, "Jason Graun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Is anybody automating router/switch configs in any manner other then
> telnet scripts or Ciscoworks? I am just trying to get some ideas.
are you talking about access routers or backbone/core/peering routers?
- for c
> On Mon, 10 Feb 2003 10:27:39 -0800 (PST), Bill Woodcock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Look, just do it, and you'll see that there aren't any problems in
> this area.
For those looking to "just do it", it's not very complicated or
expensive to try -- and the quality is very, very good esp. if you
On Wed, Jul 10, 2002 at 06:19:39PM -0400, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
>
> Hrm looks like I beat Sean Donelan...
>
> http://www.caiso.com/awe/systemstatus.html
> http://www.caiso.com/outlook.html
>
> Is it time for a rolling blackout again?
Cal-ISO issues a "Stage 2" emergency.
Next targeted
On Tue, Jun 04, 2002 at 02:02:36PM -0700, Randy Bush wrote:
> as peers do not give eachother transit, you don't need to announce
> the IX to eachother to get traceroute to work. you just carry it
> in your own network.
Weren't they talking about customers at a "downstream" ISPs which don't
conn
On Tue, Jun 04, 2002 at 04:47:51PM -0400, Leo Bicknell wrote:
>
> In a message written on Tue, Jun 04, 2002 at 03:47:00PM -0400, Richard A Steenbergen
>wrote:
> > Exchange point blocks SHOULDN'T be transited by anyone, therefore you
> > should not hear them from your peers.
>
> I would say th
In case no one has already posted it, you might check out the following
document:
http://www.cisco.com/public/cons/isp/documents/uRPF_Enhancement.pdf
which talks about knobs for Cisco's RPF that will allow it to "work" with
multihomed situations. There is also stuff in there about how to prop
On Wed, Apr 24, 2002 at 08:55:15PM +0100, Avleen Vig wrote:
>
> This subject has probably been talked to death, so I apologise in advance
> for bringing it up!
>
> Is there any DNS server currently availible that can reply to DNS lookups
> based on the source IP address?
>
> Yes, this would be
On Fri, Apr 12, 2002 at 04:50:20PM -0700, Roy wrote:
> Registering is not "bad", its just not beneficial. Given that the routes I want
> to announce are within my assigned range, why is it a good thing to register
> them? If the transit provider always add entries when I ask for them, it seems
I assume the switch happened? In any case, there are no DNS servers listed for
the in-addr records of these two blocks; is this by design?
Adi
On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 01:08:37PM -0500, renster wrote:
>
> Thanks Bill!
>
> Just one clarification - participants were told this would happen on
>
13 matches
Mail list logo
