I don't know that NLayer was depeered yesteray for a fact, although
someone I trust did report that to me. I do know for a fact that
Limelight was. No offense to the good folk at nLayer, but most of the
people who I work for care a good bit more about Limelight
Didn't know about VW Fiber.
Paul,
This is the scenario. Peer B is send lots of outbound to Peer A.
Peer A depeers Peer (well former Peer) B. Why? Well, Peer A is having
ratio problems with other Peers C-F. Keep reading...
After depeering, some of (now former) Peer B's outbound traffic to
Peer A will now flow over li
On Jan 31, 2007, at 5:10 AM, matthew zeier wrote:
Steve Gibbard wrote:
If you actually want to do this, you've got four choices:
- Policy route, as mentioned below.
- Get the customer their own connection to Cogent.
- Have a border router that only talks to Cogent and doesn't
receive full
One interesting point - they plan to use Broadband over Power Line
(BPL) technology to do this. Meter monitoring is the killer app for
BPL, which can then also be used for home broadband, Meter reading is
one of the top costs and trickiest problems for utilities.
- Dan
On Jan 22, 2007, a
On Jan 10, 2007, at 12:33 PM, William B. Norton wrote:
Why are folks turning away 10G orders?
Some of this depends on how much you are willing to pay. The issue is
as much 10G orders at today's transit prices as it is the capacity.
We're used to paying less per unit for greater capacity
Until supply catches up to demand, only price and power will matter
to most folks, along with an acceptable level of facility redundancy
(Tier III for most).
- Daniel Golding
k on modalities for address
distribution (i.e. give some grants). Aside from the practical utility, some
real science around this topic would be of great intellectual benefit.
- Daniel Golding
my upstreams, getting IP space, applying to ARIN for a /22 of PI space,
eventually numbering out of the PA space - how much money have I spent?
- Daniel Golding
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Michael Nicks
> Sent: Friday,
made for
ownership of IP addressing and subsequently trading address space as a
commodity, with ARIN as a commodity exchange and clearinghouse.
Is this reaction people hating lawyers
more than ARIN, or what?
- Daniel Golding
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
nerate
revenue.
I'm sure if you look really hard, you can find something else to be outraged
about. OpenDNS isn't it. I'm at a loss to explain why people are trying so
hard to condemn something like this.
- Daniel Golding
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTE
sible to determine who a tier 2 (i.e. Cogent) leases fiber from?
>
> Rob
Cogent, for example, is a Tier 2, but that's not a good reason to either buy
or not buy transit from them. There ARE good reasons (both ways) but that's
not one of them.
Daniel Golding
-Bell/anti-neutrality POV. Of course, an employee of Verizon or AT&T, or
a smaller iLEC (or an MSO) would be wonderful, but not required. There will
be three other panelists with a variety of opinions.
Please email me if you are interested.
Thanks,
Daniel Golding
ven on the weekend. Outage reports are operational, unlike many
threads. More, please.
Daniel Golding
Marty Said...
> At 08:11 PM 4/19/2006, Alex Rubenstein wrote:
>
>
> >>On many of the public colo houses earnings calls, they told
> >>analysts that they are trying to keep contracts to one year
> >>so they can raise prices year over year, that power pricing is
> >>fluid and many facilities are b
les rep.
Of course, there are plenty of silly RFP questions like "who do you peer
with and where" - with no mention of capacities or utilization!
--
Daniel Golding
nsit providers. Folks who single-home to Cogent
deserve whatever Darwin delivers to them.
Do what Peter Cohen said and run an RFP. Every competent network engineer
should be able to write an Internet transit RFP.
--
Daniel Golding
On 3/6/06 6:14 PM, "Stephen Sprunk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thus spake "Daniel Golding" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> On 3/6/06 10:25 AM, "Stephen Sprunk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> So, unless there's policy change, most en
certain sector of those involved with IP address allocation.
ARIN (and/or RIPE, APNIC) should really use a bit of their budget surplus to
provide a few grants to economics professors who are experts in commodity
market issues. As engineers, we grope in the dark concerning fairly well
established scientific principles we are unfamiliar with. Its like
reinventing the wheel. :(
--
Daniel Golding
f the folks who are involved with ARIN are sadly short sighted
in this regard. They dismiss both the idea of an address market upon v4
exhaustion and the idea of clear title to address blocks. While I can't
state unequivocally that this is the answer, it does seem to merit further
study.
--
Daniel Golding
ED] -*- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -*- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sending mail to spambait addresses is a great way to get blocked.
> Ditto for broken OOO autoresponders and foolish AV software backscatter.
--
Daniel Golding
know what's best". This
attitude combined with Shim6's (many) limitations speed it toward
irrelevance.
--
Daniel Golding
Money.
On 2/24/06 11:05 AM, "Owen DeLong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Because so far, DOC still thinks they control the oversight functions of
> some aspects of what used to be under the NSF and the USG wants to continue
> pretending that they control the internet.
>
> Owen
>
>
> --On Febru
In terms of the larger question
ConEd Communications was recently acquired by RCN. I'm not sure if the
transaction has formally closed. I suspect there are serious transition
issues occurring. "Financial Stability", "Employee Churn", and "Ownership"
are, unfortunately, tough things to factor
Sean,
This is a question of hierarchy of risk and scarce resource allocation.
Fiber infrastructure is relatively well protected (by the ground), hard to
damage (requires big machines), and has service restoration capabilities
(routing protocols, optical ring protection, et al). A large scale
(re
rofit out of done deals is a sign of desperation
from companies that have lost the ability to innovate.
- Daniel Golding
On 1/19/06 6:44 PM, "Paul Vixie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> proving once again that "peering ratios" only matter if the other guy's
>
On 1/6/06 9:54 PM, "Steve Gibbard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 6 Jan 2006, william(at)elan.net wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 6 Jan 2006, Wil Schultz wrote:
>>
>>> Apparently they have lost two authoritative servers. ETA is unknown.
>>
>> You forgot to mention that they only have two authorit
noted on your site so users of
> the 'service' will know what sorts of 'problems' they might be
> encountering due to their reliance on this 'service'?
I wonder how many problems cymru has had in that period? I'm guess not so
many...
--
Daniel Golding
N'T paying you money. The
funny thing is that your customers ARE paying you money for access to Google
and Yahoo. Broadband gets a lot less compelling without content, so don't
push it.
--
Daniel Golding
SFI
relationships in North America? I realize this is more like a consent decree
than true regulation, but its an interesting move by the regulators.
Regulation is generally a bad thing, but publishing SFI requirements - and
even SFI relationships - won't hurt anyone, IMHO.
--
Daniel Golding
On 10/28/05 7:37 PM, "Crist Clark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Eric Louie wrote:
>> Now, one really needs to wonder why the agreement could not be reached
>> *prior* to the depeering on 10/5
>>
>> It's not rocket science.
>
> As people have pointed out repeatedly, this was surely not rocket
On 10/28/05 5:45 PM, "JC Dill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Christopher Woodfield wrote:
>>
>> "...the companies have agreed to the settlement-free exchange of
>> traffic subject to specific payments if certain obligations are not met."
>>
>> So it does look like Cogent bent somwhat...I'm
On 10/17/05 4:51 PM, "Tony Li" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Fred,
>
>> If we are able to reduce the routing table size by an order of
>> magnitude, I don't see that we have a requirement to fundamentally
>> change the routing technology to support it. We may *want* to (and
>> yes, I would like to
On 10/12/05 3:13 PM, "Randy Bush" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> geoff's predictions for a very lively market in v4 space will
> seriously come into play.
Maybe its time to have a serious talk about IPv4 commodity trading schemes.
Anyone interested in this enough to have a BOF at ARIN/NANOG?
T
sibility not to bite the hand that feeds it - the
laise faire, unregulated Internet.
Shame on them. Google is not suffering at all from this.
> Ross Hosman
>
>
--
Daniel Golding
On 10/6/05 10:37 AM, "Patrick W. Gilmore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Oct 6, 2005, at 10:19 AM, tony sarendal wrote:
>
>> This is not the first and certainly not the last time we see this kind
>> of event happen.
>> Purchasing a single-homed service from a Tier-1 provider will
>> guarante
On 10/6/05 10:30 AM, "Randy Bush" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Is being a tier-1 now a good or bad sales argument when
>>> selling internet access ?
>> Its a great sales argument. That's why everyone claims to be
>> one. It just sounds SO good. And its not like the Peering
>> Police are going t
On 10/6/05 6:43 AM, "tony sarendal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Is being a tier-1 now a good or bad sales argument when selling
> internet access ?
Its a great sales argument. That's why everyone claims to be one. It just
sounds SO good. And its not like the Peering Police are going to enf
On 10/6/05 1:41 AM, "Patrick W. Gilmore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Oct 5, 2005, at 4:13 PM, Daniel Golding wrote:
>
>> They can. Cogent has transit and is preventing traffic from
>> traversing its
>> transit connection to reach Level(3). Leve
ansit.
We will now return this thread to the normal stream of "why is Cogent
broken", "Level(3) is a bunch of meanies", and "my traceroutes feel FUNNY".
;)
- Daniel Golding
On 10/5/05 3:02 PM, "Matthew Crocker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is it really that hard to understand?
>
> As a paying Cogent customer I expect to be able to get to the
> Internet through them. Isn't that the business they are in?
>
Break your contract for non-performance and call it a d
Getting back on-topic - how can this be? I thought only service providers
(with downstream customers) could get PI v6 space. Isn't this what policy
proposal 2005-1 is about? Can someone (from ARIN?) explain the current
policy?
- Daniel Golding
On 9/9/05 2:16 PM, "Steven J. Sobo
attacks have
really occurred, so we must act without that knowledge.
This is a great book for two audiences: enterprise network engineers who are
getting asked if their new MPLS VPN is secure (for some definition of
secure) and carrier network engineers trying to answer that question.
- Daniel Gold
small number. Contrast that with the US
where the population is far more spread out.
This is an issue of both distribution and density, not just density.
>
> Not that this necessarily means anything, but I thought your
> sentiments above could do with some numbers. I don't see a strong
> correlation between broadband penetration and population density here.
>
>
> Joe
>
--
Daniel Golding
ptions in
> the specification. It can also uncover a broken design, but I hope
> and believe this is relatively rare. (And it's not like a broken
> design is automatically unimplementable, so implementation is
> certainly not guaranteed to bring out design problems.)
to keep asking questions, Abhishek. Just remember that the
inmates of this particular asylum get testy now and again :)
Thanks,
Daniel Golding
(*There are additional questions on where you should do this blocking.
That's an entirely separate can of worms)
On 8/18/05 6:38 AM, "Abhish
On 8/15/05 4:46 PM, "Randy Bush" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
I'm not nearly confident enough to decide on behalf of almost
billion other people how they should benefit from the Internet
and how not to.
>>> thanks for that!
>> Indeed. Also see
>> http://www.iab.org/documents/doc
On 8/7/05 4:54 PM, "Christopher L. Morrow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> On Sun, 7 Aug 2005, William Warren wrote:
>
>>
>> I think i did not make myself clear. The corrections off-list are
>> valid..:) However the modems are accessed by the providers using
>> RFC1918 space and not public IP
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
bole to scare people?
Of course, making IPv4 a fungible commodity would help with this (yes, I'm a
broken record). When prices get too high, you know its time for v6.
>
>
> Regards,
> Daniel
--
Daniel Golding
I suspect the problem is not the operation aspects of the discussion, but
rather the nasty and sometimes personal invectives flying around. They were
particularly prevalent in the "Cisco gate" thread, and generally absent in
the other threads.
Just my 2 cents. YMMV
- Dan
On 8/2/05 11:28 AM, "[
On 7/29/05 12:56 PM, "John C. A. Bambenek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Remind me why I bother with information security when industry and the
> government seems to want to ensure things can be pwn3d as easily as
> possible...
>
If the "digital pearl harbor" does come to pass, this won't
is listed on the quote for pretty much every new piece of
gear you buy from a vendor.
Take it from Ice-T - "don't hate the player, hate the game". Words to live
by.
[snip]
> Geo.
>
> George Roettger
> Netlink Services
Daniel Golding
PR point of view, they probably should
have let things ride and allowed the Blackhat talk to occur. They look like
bullies now, which is never good. Hindsight is 20/20, though.
That being said, their policy of offering free updates for certain bug fixes
to those who don't pay them for support is generous. See that hand feeding
you? Don't bite it.
--
Daniel Golding
Since the talk was actually delivered - does anyone have a transcript or a
torrent for audio/video?
- Dan
On 7/27/05 8:10 PM, "Jeff Kell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Cisco's response thus far:
>
>http://www.cisco.com/en/US/about/security/intelligence/MySDN_CiscoIOS.html
>
> Jeff
There are a couple possibilities.
Mice and Men and INS both make software that can "front-end" BIND servers
via a secure web interface. You can also utilize a secure DNS appliance to
serve your customer DNS - Infoblox, Bluecat, and INS all make these. They
generally have a pretty rich multi-user
? $5? $10? I doubt the big ISPs that burn millions of addresses per
> year will be interested in that. Suddenly the transition to IPv6 (or
> recursive NAT...) is going to look very attractive.
>
> So basically the tradeoffs between market forces and regular
> reclaming are similar: e
worth the investment required.
- Daniel Golding
On 7/6/05 11:41 AM, "Scott McGrath" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> You do make some good points as IPv6 does not address routing scalability
> or multi-homing which would indeed make a contribution to lower OPEX
e
the lambada") belong on the appropriate NSP lists...
--
Daniel Golding
On 6/24/05 5:55 PM, "Aaron Glenn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I apologize for the off-topic post, but I'm at my wits end trying to
> "rediscover" a peice of equipment I came
lead this effort.
(BTW, for those responding or posting to this thread or others which are
similar, please include a "non-op" tag in the subject line so that folks who
don't want to read about political machinations can procmail us efficiently)
- Daniel Golding
On 6/21/05 3:03 AM
Norton
>>Philip Smith
>>Josh Snowhorn
>>Dave Wodelet
>>Lixia Zhang
>
> could you annotate which of these candidates actually work
> at an isp or large content provider?
>
> randy
>
--
Daniel Golding
Network and Telecommunications Strategies
Burton Group
ch group at asrg.sp.am I
> sure would like it if people were working on reputation systems to
> plug the gaping hole left by all these authentication schemes.
>
> Regards,
> John Levine, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for
> Dummies",
> Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, Mayor
> "More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly.
--
Daniel Golding
Network and Telecommunications Strategies
Burton Group
Yes, there was lots of teeth gnashing and screams of agony allegedly because
MS refused to license the technology on the terms that folks wanted. MS was
more than willing to let folks have it at no cost, they just weren't willing
to give the naysayer everything they wanted, so everyone went home.
On a related note, those interested in NOC display technology may also want
to check out the recent Wall Street Journal article (sorry, I don't have a
link) that suggests that we are about to see a huge drop in large LCD/Plasma
display pricing as several new factories are coming on-line.
I'm not
; routes on existing paths, but make it more difficult to get a new
> prefix working on a never-before-seen origination path pattern?
>
> like steve, i haven't yet formed an opnion on soBGP or sBGP (other
> than the fact that they've obviously been around for a while and
> obviously aren't being implemented by anyone yet). so my comments are
> more general.
>
> t.
--
Daniel Golding
Network and Telecommunications Strategies
Burton Group
-haired bosses will ask their sysadmins to make sure
> that it can't happen in their department.
>
> Hollywood movies change people's behavior. Federal laws do not.
>
> --Michael Dillon
>
--
Daniel Golding
Network and Telecommunications Strategies
Burton Group
o get 70% of the benefit
for 10% of the effort.
- Dan
On 5/23/05 2:33 PM, "Edward Lewis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 14:00 -0400 5/23/05, Daniel Golding wrote:
>
> My reply is mostly tongue-in-cheek. I think it's always healthy to
> explore alternatives.
&g
I suspect the right thing to do is to ask why soBGP and sBGP have failed?
And yes, they've failed. Just like DNSSec, we aren't seeing even limited
adoption. Why? Too complex, too many moving parts, too much reliance on iffy
third parties and requires mass adoption.
I suggest that the community
Do all of Comcast's markets block port 25? Is there a correlation between
spam volume and the ones that do (or don't)?
In any event the malware is already ahead of port 25 blocking and is
leveraging ISP smarthosting. SMTP-Auth is the pill to ease this pain/
- Dan
On 4/26/05 2:49 PM, "Hank Nus
On that note, I suggest that folks from the NANOG community get involved
with CircleID. Its a great site with articles on everything from DNS and
addressing issues to domain naming and ICANN. It sometimes misses the
network operator perspective - a few articles or comments by some of the
folks on
Aside from individual OS behavior, doesn't this seem like very bad advice?
What sort of DNS cache poisoning attack could possibly work against a
workstation that has a caching resolver but no DNS server? If a hacker
really wished to do a name resolution attack against workstations, wouldn't
they
=96168964
>>
>
>
> At least in my neighborhood, Comcast appears to be running BIND 9.2.4rc6
>
> --Prof. Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
>
>
--
Daniel Golding
Network and Telecommunications Strategies
Burton Group
n the roots and TLD servers.
It might be interesting to pull query data on a root server and correlate it
with known dynamic IP address pools to spot a trend.
- Dan
On 4/15/05 9:54 AM, "Patrick W Gilmore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Apr 15, 2005, at 8:59 AM, Daniel Go
f well-configured laptops.
>>
>> I guess one could argue that the chance of misconfiguration go up as
>> the number of systems goes up.
>>
>> --
>> TTFN,
>> patrick
>
> I didn't say "I hope a few cluefull people don't do this."
t;> Doesn't mean that FT didn't know this would be a problem when they took
>> the step, though.
>
> Well, FT took the step as you say.. they are the instigator here.
>
> But, they are in their right to do so and would have given proper written
> notice
> to Cogent so this isnt as much a surprise to them as is being suggested
> either.
>
> Steve
>
--
Daniel Golding
Network and Telecommunications Strategies
Burton Group
This is a matter of human nature, I suppose. Everyone is terribly pleasant
when they hear what they want. The true test is what happens when folk hear
the "wrong" answer.
I've depeered and I've been depeered. I've seen folks on the receiving end
of bad peering news handle it with consummate prof
On the attack, are we? Its a free market. If folks don't like what
unregulated, non-monopoly ISPs are doing, they can go elsewhere.
I dislike the moralizing. This is business, not a battle of good vs evil.
- Dan
On 3/30/05 7:51 PM, "Eric A. Hall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On 3/30/200
And I appreciate Gadi's efforts. I hope they will soon be willing to make
this methodology public, as their work continues. And to take down some
phishing sites of course :)
- Dan
On 3/29/05 8:12 AM, "Gadi Evron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We provided Daniel with all the information he reque
ethodology. "Digested" is insufficient when ISPs
and hosters are being called out by name.
- Dan
On 3/28/05 2:19 PM, "Gadi Evron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Daniel Golding wrote:
>> Forgive me for being skeptical, but...
>
> I would prefer you being s
t; * By previous requests here is an explanation of what "ASN" is, by Joe
>St Sauver:
>http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~joe/one-pager-asn.pdf
>
--
Daniel Golding
Network and Telecommunications Strategies
Burton Group
ere?
>
> For those that don't know... I am now the COO of UnitedLayer. It sounds
> like, since I am not going to pay the "extortion" fee to Bandwidth
> Advisors, that their consultants won't know about our pricing and
> services. Even if I did pay the fee, that means that their clients
> can't get the best deal as I need to raise my fees to client to cover
> the "small residual payment" going to "Bandwidth Advisors".
>
> Tim
--
Daniel Golding
Network and Telecommunications Strategies
Burton Group
Was it part of a plea agreement?!
Maybe this is like the FBI employing forgers and burglars to get advice on
stopping crime?
Well, probably not... :(
- Dan
On 2/24/05 9:30 AM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Former chief privacy officer of Gator has been appointed to the
relay. ISPs filter port 25 outbound, but leave 587
open with the idea that users would have to authenticate against distant
mail servers on that port. Everything works well.
587 running SMTP auth (and relaying for authenticated users) and port 25 for
local (non relay) delivery without authentication should be the default on
all servers.
--
Daniel Golding
Network and Telecommunications Strategies
Burton Group
doesn't need to phone home for config. The device is
>>> programmed (router) and it registers with the call manager.
>>> If you analyze the transactions it's about 89% SIP and 11% SDP.
>>
>> Vonage devices initiate an outbound TFTP connection back to Vonage to
>> snarf their configs on initial connection and also
>> (presumably) on reboot.
>
> I tested the reboot. I didn't see it. I agree in general
> and think that providers shouldn't block tftp, IMHO.
>
--
Daniel Golding
Network and Telecommunications Strategies
Burton Group
I've gotten a couple emails on this. To summarize:
1) some malware uses tftp. However much malware now uses other ports, such
as 80
2) There are numerous buffer overflow bugs with tftp. This would seem to be
better resolved with rACLs or ACLs towards loopback/interface blocks. (and,
of course,
Considering the fairly high quality security guides that have come out of
the NSA in recent years, this is probably the right choice.
- Dan
On 2/15/05 3:30 PM, "Fergie (Paul Ferguson)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> ...and following up on my last post, it would appear that the
> U.S. gummi
Why block TFTP at your borders? To keep people from loading new versions of
IOS on your routers? ;)
Not trying to be flippant, but what's the basis for this?
- Dan
On 2/15/05 1:45 PM, "Eric Gauthier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 11:53:59AM -0600, Adi Linden wrote:
g" by companies inventing
solutions to "fix" the problem which may not exist. (Mac Anti-virus
software, anyone? ;)
Is anyone aware of actual "pharming" in the wild? Please reply off-list and
I will summarize answers to the list.
Thanks,
--
Daniel Golding
Network and Telecommunications Strategies
Burton Group
of some VoIP providers. Of course, even
paranoids have enemies, as they say :)
--
Daniel Golding
Network and Telecommunications Strategies
Burton Group
On 2/15/05 1:22 PM, "Majdi Abbas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 11:53:59AM -0600, Adi Linden
/www.nanog-reform.org. If you
agree with the contents, please endorse it by "signing".
Thanks. We will now return to our regularly scheduled thread, which seems to
be intent on convincing people to violate their NDA's with a major network
equipment vendor :)
Thanks,
Daniel Golding
Additional information on MAC accounting from Hakan Lindholm...
(specifically, the SNMPv2c object to pull 64bit MAC accounting counters)
- Dan
-- Forwarded Message
From: Hakan Lindholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 20:36:45 +0100 (CET)
To: Daniel Golding <[EMAIL
Andrew,
The 32 bit counters are a significant problem when using gigabit ethernet
public peering interfaces. Needless to say, MAC accounting was not designed
for gigabit speeds. Frequent polling is, sadly the only solution. If you
write your own scripts, make sure to account for counter wrapping.
Is there an RFC or other standards document that clearly states that static
bogon filter lists are a bad idea? While this seems like common sense, there
was just an RFC published on why IP addresses for specific purposes (like
NTP) shouldn't be encoded into hardware.
Using a dynamic feed needs t
eer.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 22:25:37 + (GMT), Stephen J. Wilcox
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 19 Jan 2005, andrew matthews wrote:
>>>
>>>> Anyone have any suggestions on graphing peering on a cisco router? I'm
On 1/12/05 12:05 PM, "Joe Abley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On 12 Jan 2005, at 11:53, Hannigan, Martin wrote:
>
>>> You mean you'd *request* a different path from different providers.
>>
>> Provisioning a circuit from two different ^providers^, other than
>> your OC3 provider.
>
> I re
On 1/12/05 8:46 AM, "Erik Haagsman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2005-01-12 at 12:37, David Gethings wrote:
>> On Wed, 2005-01-12 at 12:25 +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>>> IPv6 is also very useful in providing non-IPv4 management.
>> Well if we're offering protocols other than IP
It would be fairly useful if Cisco had a published document that detailed
the minimum configuration for each major router line to support BGP with 1
to 4 full views. Of course, this would have to be periodically updated. By
this, I mean a separate overlay document for their entire router product
Kim,
Its terribly important that your routers' management traffic be encrypted
all the way to the device. For this reason, the best practice is to use
ssh2. There are some other hacks that can be used, but they are hacks, and
are not scalable.
Bastion hosts are a good thing and can be a great pl
The (many) authors of the NANOG-Reform proposal would like to put out this
brief clarification to address some concerns from the community...
Clarification: There has been concern that this proposal would limit NANOG
mailing list reading/posting privileges or meeting attendance privileges.
How much has the second number changed? Is this the result of worsening
aggregation or simply more address space being advertised?
Core routers won't even blink at 200k routes. I wonder how many enterprise
3x00/7x00 routers will fall over due to memory issues.
Also, as we have learned previous
else got anything else? send to martin, myself, both of us, or
>> the nanog@ mailing list if you want to put something on the sunday night
>> agenda.
>
> (steve feldman clarified that he's speaking not moderating.)
>
> (we've not heard yet whether betty or susan from merit will also be speaking.)
> --
> paul vixie
> martin hannigan
> (moderators)
--
Daniel Golding
Network and Telecommunications Strategies
Burton Group
1 - 100 of 205 matches
Mail list logo
