vices on tcp/80 (yuck, yuck, yuck), and naturally because it's
the only port open lots of other non http protocol stuff does too,
will filter-happy domestic providers start proxying the web instead of
just filtering the rest of the traffic ..?
Andy
real IPv6 support (but has just about everything else).
That would be a huge benefit to the community and potentially open up some
business opportunities for you.
Andy
---
Andy Dills
Xecunet, Inc.
www.xecu.net
301-682-9972
---
ervers every time they go to a
> new place that's on a different ISP.
For what it's worth, that's what port 587 was created for.
And wouldn't those corporate types require VPN to access the network?
On top of that, most who "block" 25 don't block it but dire
rs the feedback ("we run a cyber cafe, sometimes people come in
with messed up laptops") and implements a whitelisting.
Remember, YOUR customers are what matter.
Andy
---
Andy Dills
Xecunet, Inc.
www.xecu.net
301-682-9972
---
sit providers would want to do anything else, even
without system limits.
My philosophy is rapidly becoming "Let the settlement-free club worry
about all the deaggregated prefixes."
Andy
---
Andy Dills
Xecunet, Inc.
www.xecu.net
301-682-9972
---
lar, but still passes
through the switch fabric.
Best wishes
Andy
customers are not
protected from the technical or commercial failure of CarrierA. The
industry [www.ukporting.com] has responded and is building a framework
to support all-call-query style lookups to handle number ports.
Best wishes,
Andy
On 23 Jan 2008, at 17:24, Paul Vixie wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andy Davidson) writes:
People pay the RIRs.
The RIRs spend money on parties for network operators.
...
according to <http://www.arin.net/about_us/corp_docs/budget.html>
for 2007 and
<http://www.arin.net/about_us/
ge kit nolonger accepting a full table,
the battle is over (and operators lost).
Andy
MLP. This dissuades large networks from joining in with the public
peering game, and is probably harmful to the peering ecology of the
region rather than helpful.
Best wishes
Andy
On 21 Jan 2008, at 01:43, Martin Barry wrote:
$quoted_author = "Andy Davidson" ;
.. think about what happens when your customers' routes start
appearing
through your MLP session as well.
Standard practice would be to localpref customer routes over peering
routes.[...]
On 21 Jan 2008, at 00:16, Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
Andy Davidson wrote:
- Am I peering widely enough ? Should I actually be stuffing a
switch under the floor in my employer's suite and letting my
buddies plug in ? Peeringdb knows about eight exchanges in a
developed economy
ms, but if we're being pragmatic ...
I'd love to hear the opinions of AU operators on these issues, and
think that there's lessons for everyone - if AU operators can show us
how they deploy more cost effective connectivity products, then there
are some regional ISPs in the res
If one had to pay a registry
for PI, then small networks would have to think about the negative
externalities of their decision to deploy using PI.
Best wishes,
Andy
On 15 Jan 2008, at 16:11, Ben Butler wrote:
As a transit consumer - why would I want to carry all this cr*p in my
routing table, I would still be getting a BGP route to the larger
prefix
anyway - let my transit feeds sort out which route they use & traffic
engineering.
Maybe you don't get
available by
following the 'Webcast' link on http://www.uknof.org.uk/uknof9/
The listed times are in GMT, so the kick off would be 5am on the east
coast.
I hope to see some of you there.
Best wishes
Andy
Begin forwarded message:
From: Keith Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date
On 9 Jan 2008, at 20:04, Deepak Jain wrote:
I remember Bill Norton's peering forum regarding P2P traffic and
how the majority of it is between cable and other broadband
providers... Operationally, why not just lash a few additional 10GE
cross-connects and let these *paying customers* comm
On 19 Dec 2007, at 12:24, Jeroen Massar wrote:
Andy Davidson wrote:
[..]
From the RIPE perspective, there are seven "empty" /32s between
my /32 and the next allocation.
I imagine this is fully intentional, and allows the NCC to grow my
v6 address pool, without growing my footpr
my footprint in the v6 routing table.
Andy
On 2 Dec 2007, at 20:19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 09:59:19 EST, Andy Davidson said:
On 29 Nov 2007, at 22:05, Eduardo Ascenco Reis wrote:
The methodology shows a good efficiency (around 40%) reducing BGP
table size, but the estimated number of affect prefixes are also
.
Andy
blic mail operations list might be a good experiment, so I have
just created one
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Join here: http://chilli.nosignal.org/mailman/listinfo/mailop
I'll set the reply-to: to me to prevent further noise.
Best wishes
Andy
On 7 Nov 2007, at 14:01, Tim Jackson wrote:
Contact your account manager, they can get it fixed in about an hour
w/ an internal IT ticket. They were doing the same thing to us.
I don't open a business relationship with everyone that my users want
to email. :-)
On 7 Nov 2007, at 12:50, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
You sure XO hasn't been playing with banner delays, and your MTA is
timing out before establishing an smtp connection?
Yep
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ time telnet dalsmlprd08.dal.dc.xo.com 25
Trying 207.88.96.46...
telnet: Unable to connect t
refused to the example I gave them -
dalsmlprd08.dal.dc.xo.com.
Many thanks
Andy
--
Regards, Andy Davidson // Engineering
Localphone Limited http://www.localphone.com
+44-(0)114-3191919 // Sheffield, UK
On 15 Oct 2007, at 13:33, John Payne wrote:
To answer the OP's question I'd be looking at manually filtering
the more specifics if they are also sending the aggregates through
the IX.
The customer's customer is still going to see *your* routes via the
MLP, unless (without knowing what e
On 14 Oct 2007, at 01:26, Jim Popovitch wrote:
- New Media / Web 2.0
HUH?
I understand what Lorell means - the web 2.0 scaling model is to
throw resources, rather than intelligence at your bottlenecks.
I met some 'web 2' people at a conference quite recently, and they
were telli
On 9 Oct 2007, at 18:48, Leo Vegoda wrote:
On 9 Oct 2007, at 17:47, Andy Davidson wrote:
However, if a different third-party network then sweeps up their
routing table by looking to remove more specifics that seem
'spoofed' using IRR data, the routes you intend to push onto the
On 8 Oct 2007, at 22:43, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have a client that wants us to advertise an IP block assigned by
another ISP. I know that the best practice is to have them request
an AS number from ARIN and peer with us, etc. However, I cannot
find any information that states as law
From: "Daniel Senie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Verizon, it's particularly sad, charges $19.95/month for dialup
> that'll also tie up a POTS line, where it'll offer the lowest DSL
> speeds at $14.95. And Verizon "cherry picks" the places where it
> offers DSL (and moreso for FiOS) so the affluent towns
On 8 Oct 2007, at 13:06, Roland Perry wrote:
Surely the incumbent doesn't impose a cost on the bandwidth along
the local loop - the bottleneck (and cost per gigabyte) is the
backhaul from their locally operated DSLAM to the ISP's own network.
Yes, and it's £1,758,693 ($3.5m) PA for a 622M
, but a general rule is the more you
de-aggregate the more problems you are going to have, so unless you
have a very good reason not to, announce the /22 and nothing longer.
Best wishes,
Andy Davidson.
On 16 Sep 2007, at 15:13, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
We see the browser cache bite us regularly with regard to the way
they dip into the cache for long-stale records today.
Does browser caching still work these days? I thought all web
admins disabled it on their servers because they can't
refuse to look again for the A when I pick it
up and take it somewhere with only v4 connectivity.
We see the browser cache bite us regularly with regard to the way
they dip into the cache for long-stale records today. The support
burden will increase if there are stack transitionary woes as well.
Andy
buying paths A and B from supplier X
and a spare path B from supplier Y too. Supplier X must know they
only get dollar N because they can provide both paths.. and in
addition diversity has to matter more than money because you are in
effect paying for one path twice.
Andy
-a
--
// http://www.andyd.net/
sender and receiver
domains exist, and is unwarranted given the high connectivity of the
Internet. Instead, we would like to ensure that Internet domains stay
connected as long as the underlying network is connected.
Andy
al council investigating but
I thought someone here might be able to point me in the direction of any
legislation?
(I'll summarise any off-list replies)...
Thanks,
--
Andy Loukes
Senior Systems Architect
The Cloud Networks
http://www.thecloud.net/content.asp?section=1&content=32
9.car1.NewYork1.Level3.net
7.
bdr01.ny1.qubenet.net
0.0% 187 67.4 67.4 66.8 69.8 0.4
Over a private DS-3 circuit from and to same buildings the average
latency is probably 4ms less than the above.
Andy.
I can't speak for the overall reachability of the netblock, but you can
find out more at
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/
and find a coordinator here:
http://noh.ucsd.edu/~brian/amprnets.txt
--
~Andy Brezinsky
On Mon, 2007-05-21 at 17:09 -0500, Neal R wrote:
>
>
>44.0.0.0/8
On 16 May 2007, at 17:14, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does anyone have ballpark costs on what colo space costs in England.
Space costs lots and lots in central London where connectivity is
cheaper. There are datacentres away from London which are much less
expensive, but connectivity tends
On 3 Apr 2007, at 03:02, Gadi Evron wrote:
What are your thoughts on basic suggestions such as:
1. Allowing registrars to terminate domains based on abuse, rather
than just fake contact details.
I don't like this because its impossible to define abuse clearly
enough in this context.
If
On 2 Apr 2007, at 21:21, Lasher, Donn wrote:
Rather, I thought a lot more providers would actually be blocking
outbound
25 except to their SMTP servers. Just brought up a new mail server
for a
friend; moved an old (14+ year) domain.. I was amazed at the number of
connections from rr.com, c
> so, what exactly is the problem with registrations? One of the problems I
> see is with a seeming lack of follow-through on fraudulently purchased
> domains. Another is a seemingly long time to remove domains that are 'up
> to no good'.
Agreed with on both points. See below for view of the prob
> You got me there. I will add:
> "You can NEVER make the Pirates go away" but;
> "You can make sure they never enter your seas"
At which point, they take to land. The real issue at heart here is that some
people wish to pursue evil means, and will change tactics and seek out
weaknesses wherever
On 28 Mar 2007, at 00:28, Jim Shankland wrote:
Jumbo frames seem to help a lot when trying to max out a 10 GbE
link, which is what the Internet land speed record guys have been
doing. At 45 Mb/s, I'd be very surprised if it bought you more than
2-4% in additional throughput. It's worth a
On 13 Mar 2007, at 20:31, Roland Dobbins wrote:
On Mar 13, 2007, at 11:19 AM, Daniel Senie wrote:
A universal service charge could be applied to all bills, with the
funds going to subsidize rural areas.
This is already done in the U.S., to no discernible effect.
That isn't *quite* the
On 6 Mar 2007, at 21:51, Jason Arnaute wrote:
But, I am charged between $150 and $180 per megabit/s for non-
redundant, single-homed bandwidth (not sure
which provider they put it on) and even if I commit to 20 or 30
megabits/s it still only drops down to $100 -
$120 per megabit/s.
[...]
On Mon, 2007-01-29 at 12:56 -0800, Andrew Gristina wrote:
> I have two racks in London UK. The colocation is
> currently in London. The contract is up soon and most
> of the feet on the ground in the UK of the company is
> in the greater Birmingham area. So I'm interested in
> colocating about t
On 23 Jan 2007, at 16:48, Sean Donelan wrote:
Why is IP required,
Because using something that works so well means less wheel reinvention.
and even if you used IP for transport why must the meter
identification be based on an IP address?
Idenification via IP address (exclusively) is bad
everything else will still lose a few percentage of
inbound packets ...
Unless you want to outsource your entire hosting to someone on the
list. ;-)
--
Regards, Andy Davidson
http://www.devonshire.it/ - 0844 704 704 7 - Sheffield, UK
On 12 Jan 2007, at 15:26, Gian Constantine wrote:
I am pretty sure we are not becoming a VoD world. Linear
programming is much better for advertisers. I do not think content
providers, nor consumers, would prefer a VoD only service. A
handful of consumers would love it, but many would not
wo of them, eventually through 'LambdaNet' on both.
-a
--
Regards, Andy Davidson
Consultant Systems and Network Engineer, Devonshire IT Limited
http://www.devonshire.it/ - 0844 704 704 7 - Sheffield, UK
ing to talk about this at Toronto ? Trying to justify
taking a week 'off' to visit ... ;-)
--
Regards, Andy Davidson
http://www.devonshire.it/ - 0844 704 704 7 - Sheffield, UK
On 21 Dec 2006, at 12:04, Alexander Harrowell wrote:
Yes, Mac OSX has a whois client in Network Utility, but it's crap.
There is a fully featured command line whois client.
factory:~ andy$ whois
usage: whois [-aAbdgiIlmQrR6] [-c country-code | -h hostname] [-p
port]
ndent
bodies going to setup a route behind a 32-bit ASN so that we can
start public reachability testing ?
Andy
On Tue, 2006-11-28 at 16:44 +, Paul Vixie wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andy Davidson) writes:
> > I am really fed up of calls from UltraDNS - we seem to get them every
> > few days. We don't need their product.
> every month or two somebody will ask me "does
Hi,
I am really fed up of calls from UltraDNS - we seem to get them every
few days. We don't need their product.
We've tried saying no, and additionally we've tried putting people on
hold indefinitely, trying to be enough of a nuisance to drop off their
sales call list (works with UK telcos
Global crossing is reporting that SBC was horizontal boring and knocked
out Quest and SBC fiber. This is 4 km north of Wolden Ave and Main St.
in Red Bluff, CA. Qwest has techs on site and they're digging.
--
~Andy Brezinsky
On Fri, 2006-09-29 at 12:29 -0700, Rick Kunkel wrote:
> Any
keep real
good track of usage other than switch port descriptions.
---
Andy
- Original Message -
From: "Rick Kunkel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 1:30 PM
Subject: Database for customer assignments [WAS Re: Data Center Wiring
Standards]
>
&g
Anyone from sbcglobal.net support around? We're trying to send emails
to some of your customers and your mailserver tells us that it's
accepted for delivery but it never gets there. This is reproducable for
a few addresses. SBC's noc line and tier-1 yahoo dsl support have not
been of any help.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andy Davidson wrote:
24 hours + outage whilst stale dns disappears will never do in
internet retail.
And yet, with 90% of the net implementing the "will never do" scenario,
we manage to get a lot of internet retail done anyhow. I'm obviously
me IP space, and an e-commerce application which
will happily run 'active/active' is the holy grail, I think. The
problem isn't setting this up in IP, it's getting your commerce
application to fit this model (a problem I have today).
Best wishes,
Andy
On Fri, Apr 07, 2006 at 01:13:19PM +0200, Alexander Koch wrote:
> When a random customer (content hoster) asks you to accept
> something out of 8/8 that is Level(3) space, and there is no
> route at this moment in the routing table, do you accept it,
> or does Level(3) have some fancy written
r list or whatever), because otherwise my users complain and
"don't subscribe to poorly-managed lists then" is not an acceptable
answer for them.
Regards,
Andy
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Hi,
Has anyone else seen Juniper support pricing take one hell of a hike in
the past twelve months ?
We've been quoted a rise of 141% on the costs of supporting our ISG2000
units, and a 114% rise on the costs of supporting our Redline^WJuniper
E|X devices.
I've been asked to provide a ca
Joseph S D Yao wrote:
[...]
service except perhaps to their own population, than against what can
you compare the DNS service that you are getting, to see whether it is
giving you what "the world" should be seeing?
DNS looking glasses, in much the same way that we use web-form based BGP
or tr
Time Warner Cable is not Time Warner Telecom, two entirely different
networks/orgs.
If Drew needs to get a hold of Time Warner Cable folks, check out TW GNOC:
+1 703 345 3416
---
Andy Johnson
- Original Message -
From: "Mehmet Akcin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Th
Roland Dobbins wrote:
On Mar 3, 2006, at 10:50 AM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> OTOH, hosts go a lot longer between upgrades and generally don't have
> professional admins. It'll be a long, long time (if ever) until shim6
> is deployed widely enough for folks to literally bet their company on
Mark Newton wrote:
I mean, who accepts prefixes longer than /24 these days anyway?
We've all decided that we "can live without" any network smaller
than 254 hosts and it hasn't made a lick of difference to
universal reachability.
What's to stop someone who wants to carry around less prefixes f
On 21 Feb 2006, at 16:26, Jason Frisvold wrote:
Key words there.. "Large Provider" .. I don't think A/V companies
have any interest whatsoever in smaller providers.. Just not a big
enough customer base I guess...
It would be nice to see an A/V provider willing to take that first
step and off
On 16 Feb 2006, at 14:56, Christopher J. Pilkington wrote:
We have a PI /24 we'd like to advertise out of our primary data center
for production use. (Well, actually, we'll be advertising a more
specific from our /21 assignment, so already not too friendly... but I
digress.)
[...]
I'm think
On 15 Feb 2006, at 18:05, Edward B. DREGER wrote:
RIRs refuse to grant ASNs to dual-homed leaves. Transit providers
_must_ cooperate with each other.
Introducing the greater risk of blackholes, and potentially
increasing the complexity and size of the routing table.
In one of our facil
Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
On 2/14/06, Jon R. Kibler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"A bill just announced in Congress would require every Web site operator
to delete information about visitors, including e-mail addresses, if the
data is no longer required for a "legitimate" business purpose.
O
Hi,
Embarassingly late reply; I've been away.
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 10:48:45AM -0500, Jeremy Stinson wrote:
> We are in the need for a better mechanism for sharing passwords between our
> engineers. Most of these passwords are for our client's systems where some
> of them are controlling
Steve Gibbard wrote:
So from my uninformed vantage point, it looks like they started doing
this more or less right -- two servers or clusters of servers in two
different facilities, a few thousand miles apart on different power
grids and not subject to the same natural disasters. In other wor
Sean Donelan wrote:
Should content suppliers be required to provide equal access to all
networks? Or can content suppliers enter into exclusive contracts?
Erm .. the content 'belongs' to the supplier, why shouldn't they be
allowed to chose who can and can't get access to it.
The electronic
Peter Dambier wrote:
The Ankara root injected a number of older records into the DNS resulting
in false answers to queries. Ankara was also listing as root servers some
DNS that pointed back to ICANN data and did not resolve the Public-Root.
This was very unprofessional behavior on behalf of UNI
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
There are two types of VoIP: voice over a private, tightly controlled
IP network, and voice over the public internet. Now obviously the
latter is a risky proposition, as it imports all the limitations of the
internet into the voice service.
I'm not so sure; som
d drop the customer.
My main point is, if we depend on our transit providers to act as
Internet nannies, we are promoting poor end-user network management.
---
Andy
Roger Marquis wrote:
How is this different from a transit provider allowing their network
to be used for spam? Seems the same h
Matt Bazan wrote:
In need of external 3rd party site monitoring solution. Nothing fancy.
Need to be alerted if site (HTTP/S, SMTP, TCP connect based) goes down
(email, pager). Off list fine, thanks.
http://www.alertsite.com/ give us http availability which we can
configure to alert us in a
I think the point of many on this list is, they are a transit provider,
not a security provider. They should not need to filter your traffic,
that should be up to the end user/edge network to decide for themselves.
Additionally, content filtering is great for those type of end-user
folks,
Hi,
With apologies to the topic fairies ..
Crist Clark wrote:
It matters how you look at income taxes (figures never lie, but
liars figure). The top 3% of earners pay about 40% of all income
taxes. The top 1/12% pay about 10% of the taxes. Why do the super
rich guys want a flat tax? And the ot
All of us independant isp guys are busy polishing up our resumes..
---
Andy
> interesting that nanog is chattering so seriously about the calea
> thing (which does concern me), but seems to be unconcerned about
> another ruling that would seem to be a major anti-competitive
> change
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
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
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
x27;m not quite sure what the issue is.
---
Andy
Drew Weaver wrote:
Hi there, we’ve had a few complaints about connectivity
issues to Microsoft, is anyone else seeing a problem? Usually I get
between 2-3MBps when I download from them, at the moment I get 8k/sec
do
On Sat, Jul 30, 2005 at 09:41:54PM -0400, Robert E.Seastrom wrote:
> "Cisco 1700 series" or "Cisco 2600XM" would be nice answers if their
> price had the decimal point moved one place to the left.
Looks like a Cisco 1760 is $1086.65 'on the street' (well, online
actually).
Whereas the Cisco 83
ed in some way. One MX record doesn't mean one machine
and no load-balancing by any means.
--
Regards, Andy Davidson
http://www.fotoserve.com/
Great quality photo prints, gifts and clothing from digital photos.
is the other way data is sent, which obviously, is much faster,
I've personally seen less ~10ms for a loop around 11000ft.
--
Andy
ines of 20-30ms from the CPE to the DSLAM. When not using interleaved,
I have seen 5-10ms between the CPE and DSLAM. Ofcourse, cable distances
play into this as well I'm sure. And different technologies (SHDSL) will
have different latency figures.
--
Andy
h the actual content of the discussion?
---
Andy
Alex Rubenstein wrote:
What possible technical issue could exist that to don't have to wire the
dslam to a pots splitter?
Actually, even if they did wire it to a pots splitter, and there was no
pots line present, it'd still work.
My speculation is that their billing/accounting system is based o
You mean SNACK engineers, right?
- Andy
> Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 13:35:11 -0600
> From: "Church, Chuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Bill Nash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: nanog@merit.edu
> Subject: RE: Cisco to merge with Nabisco
>
>
> Yes. According t
Consider the possibility that a VoIP customer uses ISP xyz that decides
to start filtering ports/protocols for VoIP, and that customer needs to
make a 911 call from their VoIP phone?
Adi Linden wrote:
http://advancedippipeline.com/60400413
The FCC is investigating -- it's not even clear if it's
On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 12:09:48AM -0800, william(at)elan.net wrote:
> However since there was shown enough of the interest from people on nanog@
> to help in killing bots and knowing about it, may I suggest that people
> who are doing the tracking setup the following:
For the DNSBLs that list t
how I operate my network.
This is purely a systems administration issue to tackle, which I believe
is beyond the scope of this list. I do find it amazing that we cannot go
more than a month without raising some spam-related thread and beating
it to death.
Andy
Hank,
I copied/pasted that URL from your e-mail, and it asked for a
user/pass. When I searched Google, it gave me the same link, but
when I clicked on it, it worked. Looks like NYT allow clickthrough
from Google only.
Andy
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
>
> On Tue, 18 Ja
are of. But with a little work, you
could probably integrate it all into nagios. After all, you can make the
host names or descriptions URLs that link to bandwidth and error graphs or
other tools.
Andy
---
Andy Dills
Xecunet, Inc.
www.xecu.net
301-682-9972
---
ectly configured bursts, the saw-toothing affect did not
prevent delivery of the configured throughput.
This holds up with multiple concurrent transfers. The customer gets
whatever bandwidth is available under their cap, and when I look at their
bandwidth graphs, they have the ability to saturate their bandwidth to
100% of the configured rate. Works for me and mine.
Andy
---
Andy Dills
Xecunet, Inc.
www.xecu.net
301-682-9972
---
1 - 100 of 322 matches
Mail list logo
