Re: Watch your replies (was Kremen....)

Le 2006-09-13 à 15:43, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit : P.S. are the standards of this list so unclear that Darcy and I have to discuss this? Who is right? http://nanog.cluepon.net/index.php/Posting_Style_Conventions Joe

Re: [Fwd: Kremen VS Arin Antitrust Lawsuit - Anyone have feedback?]

Le 2006-09-13 à 11:43, D'Arcy J.M. Cain a écrit : Notice that no one is getting worked up about circuit number portability. I don't know about that. I have always harboured a desire to visit ZOWISAP0001 in person. I hear Zoowie Island is quite lovely at this time of year. This is not a

Re: Kremen's Buddy?

Le 2006-09-12 à 19:52, Richard A Steenbergen a écrit : Ever notice the only folks happy with the status quo are the few who have already have an intimate knowledge of the ARIN allocation process, and/or have the right political connections to resolve the "issues" that come up when dealin

Re: Kremen's Buddy?

Le 2006-09-12 à 17:21, Daniel Golding a écrit : "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" could be replaced with "From each according to the ARIN fee schedule, to each according to our impossible to decipher allocation templates". I find the references to all

Re: Kremen's Buddy?

Le 2006-09-12 à 15:10, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit : It makes me wonder just how much space like that there is out there artifically increasing IP scarcity. The fact that there is a lot of space assigned/allocated and not used in any easily observable way is well known

proposed NANOG charter amendments

[this message has been cross-posted to nanog@ and nanog-futures@, with followups set accordingly, as we used to say back when Usenet was read by humans. If you're interested in discussing any of this, and you're not on nanog-futures@ already, see ] ** If

Re: [Fwd: RE: Kremen VS Arin Antitrust Lawsuit - Anyone have feedback?]

On 11-Sep-2006, at 13:44, Chris Jester wrote: Also, what about ARINS hardcore attitude making it near impossible to aquire ip space, even when you justify it's use? I have had nightmares myself as well as MANY of my collegues share similar experiences. I have talked to many people who hav

Re: Verizon Looking Glass

On 5-Sep-2006, at 09:31, Tim Donahue wrote: Does anyone know if Verizon has a publicly accessable looking glass? There is not one listed on bgp4.net nor could I find one searching Google. It might pay to specify exactly which AS number you're particularly interested in peeking into. Joe

Re: BCP Question: Handling trouble reports from non-customers

On 1-Sep-2006, at 18:48, Steve Gibbard wrote: On Fri, 1 Sep 2006, Owen DeLong wrote: I think my previous post may have touched on a more global issue. Given the number of such posts I have seen over time, and, my experiences trying to report problems to other ISPs in the past, it seems

Re: Spain was offline

On 1-Sep-2006, at 15:07, Martin Hannigan wrote: Well, let's rephrase that. Anyone can't get a TLD zone? While there are many smaller TLD zones that don't get updated very often and which have wide-open AXFR to all and sundry, I'm betting that the majority of zones that people on this lis

Re: Spain was offline

On 1-Sep-2006, at 13:47, Martin Hannigan wrote: I can't get a TLD zone? *You* can do anything, Marty! You are the man! :-) But back to the root servers. Are you agreering with me that if I announce F and I root's netblocks inside of my own network that everyone would be ok with that? I'm

Re: Spain was offline

On 1-Sep-2006, at 02:11, Martin Hannigan wrote: >You seem to be suggesting that ISPs run stealth slaves for these >kinds of zones. This may have been a useful pointer for ISPs in days >gone by, but I think today it's impractical advice. How so? Anyone can get a zone and turn up [a-m] on-net a

Re: Spain was offline

On 31-Aug-2006, at 05:13, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Do you have your own mirrors of TLDs that are important to your users, i.e. .com, your .xx country domain, etc.? You seem to be suggesting that ISPs run stealth slaves for these kinds of zones. This may have been a useful pointer for ISPs

Re: Is it my imagination or are countless operations impacted today with mysql meltdowns

On 27-Aug-2006, at 14:00, Barry Shein wrote: Can I make a suggestion about inappropriate postings which I GUARANTEE would help a lot?! Can we have a DESIGNATED WHINER, or small list of whiners, who has a CANNED MESSAGE and the option to add some text specific to the message? And can take furt

Announcing a NANOG Wiki

The ad-hoc, semi-organised and random collection of people who maintain the NANOG mailing list FAQ have been working for the past little while on relocating the information contained in that document to a wiki, so that it can be maintained by the community in general in the general Way of

Re: newbie howto

On 21-Aug-2006, at 11:15, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ok, so perhaps i'm not a "newbie"... the nanog web site indicates that registration opens in midAugust. on my calender, 21aug is clearly past the mid-point, yet i see no way to register to attend nanog 38.

Re: ISP wants to stop outgoing web based spam

On 9-Aug-2006, at 12:02, Ken Simpson wrote: Maybe I'm just an ignorant e-mail postmaster. I thought that nearly all e-mail was (E)SMTP-based (LMTP excepted). If it doesn't use the SMTP protocol, it's not reaching any mailbox. HTTP is a web browser protocol. WebMail gets converted by the web

Re: Detecting parked domains

On 3-Aug-2006, at 04:05, Duane Wessels wrote: I am looking for a way that you, or anyone else, could indicate a domain should not be considered "in service" although the name is registered and has an A record pointing to an active server so when I check that name it doesn't require a hum

Re: Ultradns using anycast?

On 27-Jul-2006, at 13:11, Jeroen Massar wrote: Or how to get someone at UltraDNS or PIR to take ownership of a issue and resolve it? What about google(ultradns noc) and feeling lucky. Not forgetting puck.nether.net/netops/nocs.cgi and various other resources mentioned in the FAQ and in a c

Re: Deaggregation Disease

On 21-Jul-2006, at 11:20, Saku Ytti wrote: On (2006-07-21 10:48 -0400), Joe Abley wrote: As it happens, Tony Li, Rex Fernando and I wrote up a proposal for a new attribute which might help in some of these situations. (It's a crude mechanism, but not as crude as NO_EXPORT).

Re: Deaggregation Disease

On 21-Jul-2006, at 10:48, Joe Abley wrote: It would help immensely with getting that document published if people could read that draft, and let me know if it looks like something they would implement if it was implemented. Private mail would be great. Uh, "something they would d

Re: Deaggregation Disease

On 21-Jul-2006, at 09:17, Rob Evans wrote: There seem to be a whole load of ASNs that have deaggregated. AS5416, AS5639, AS6140, AS9121, AS13049, AS16130, AS17849, AS18049 (that's as far as I got before getting bored). Some of these are advertising the covering prefix too, so they're certai

Re: Best practices inquiry: filtering 128/1

On 11-Jul-2006, at 02:06, Florian Weimer wrote: * Patrick W. Gilmore: Actually, I take that back. Why wouldn't you just get a feed from Cymru ?? I don't think Team Cymru offers a "feed" of what is supposed to be in the routing table. No, but they

Re: Copper thefts in california

On 7-Jul-2006, at 16:41, Sean Donelan wrote: In addition to the traditional backhoe threat, as the price of copper increased so has the threat of people stealing telephone trunk cables containing copper wire. At least when this happens in other places there's the prospect of attractive bas

Re: Fanless x86 Server Recommendations

On 29-Jun-2006, at 14:25, Ray Van Dolson wrote: We're looking to acquire a couple small servers that can act as routers for us at remote locations. How small? :-) http://www.compulab.co.il/x270/html/x270-cm-datasheet.htm Joe

Re: h.gtld-servers.net offline...

On 15-Jun-2006, at 09:41, Will Hargrave wrote: Unless I am mistaken, h.gtld-servers.net is offline and has been for an hour or two. I can't see the containing prefix, 192.54.112.0/24. I think you're mistaken about the server being off-line, since I can see it just fine from many places.

Re: wrt joao damas' DLV talk on wednesday

On 13-Jun-2006, at 14:37, Randy Bush wrote: I don't profess to speak for ISC here, but it may be worth noting that ISC staff continue to spend a lot of time travelling to operator meetings, workshops, root server installations and RIR and ICANN meetings. Outreach and community participation is

Re: wrt joao damas' DLV talk on wednesday

On 13-Jun-2006, at 13:27, Randy Bush wrote: the isc web page now says Before it is accepted into the dlv.isc.org zone, ISC will perform checks to ensure the keys are being used in the requested zone, that the persons making the request are who they claim to be and that they ar

Re: Extreme Networks BD 6808 errors -- help to interpret.

(followups set) On 10-Jun-2006, at 06:09, Mattias Ahnberg wrote: Mattias Ahnberg wrote: I've recently stumbled over an error in the logs of one of my Black Diamond 6808's. Due to redundant MSMs this hasn't had any practical effect yet, but I have just initiated a ticket on the matter. I

Re: Phantom packet loss is being shown when using pathping in connection with asynchronous routing - although there is no real loss.

On 7-Jun-2006, at 12:35, Joseph S D Yao wrote: I can't tell you what is going on. But I can ask, (a) why are you doing asymmetrical routing in the first place? For any non-trivial path, it seems to me that asymmetry in forward and return paths is normal. Symmetrical paths are the except

Re: Phantom packet loss is being shown when using pathping in connection with asynchronous routing - although there is no real loss.

On 6-Jun-2006, at 08:19, Gunther Stammwitz wrote: I have customers who are complaining about packet loss and they are providing me with MTRs and pathpings (that's some sort of traceroute that pings every hop it sees several times - comes with windows xp) (if it comes with win xp, then tha

Second PGP key signing party on Tuesday morning

On 3-Jun-2006, at 10:49, Joe Abley wrote: On 2-Jun-2006, at 15:44, Joe Abley wrote: NANOG attendees who use PGP are encouraged to meet up and sign keys at the meeting next week. The time and precise location are still being confirmed with Merit and the PC, but in the mean time here&#

Re: PGP key signing at NANOG 37 meeting in San Jose

On 2-Jun-2006, at 15:44, Joe Abley wrote: NANOG attendees who use PGP are encouraged to meet up and sign keys at the meeting next week. The time and precise location are still being confirmed with Merit and the PC, but in the mean time here's the place to paste your public keys:

PGP key signing at NANOG 37 meeting in San Jose

Hi, NANOG attendees who use PGP are encouraged to meet up and sign keys at the meeting next week. The time and precise location are still being confirmed with Merit and the PC, but in the mean time here's the place to paste your public keys: http://www.biglumber.com/x/web?keyring=9214

Re: How to tell if something is anycasted?

On 17-May-2006, at 10:45, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: well Peter, ONE root server operator has that practice. Others have different practices regarding anycast. Actually, it looks to me like all thirteen root servers answer "HOSTNAME.BIND CHAOS TXT" queries (J might check for trailing dots,

Re: How to tell if something is anycasted?

On 17-May-2006, at 14:11, Steve Gibbard wrote: Of Marty's list above, only UltraDNS and PCH are anycast (there are several other anycast networks hosting TLDs that aren't on Marty's list). NS-EXT.ISC.ORG is anycast within AS 3557 as described in ISC- TN-2004-1 (and

Re: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain

On 12-May-2006, at 01:17, Martin Hannigan wrote: At 2:43 PM -0400 05:11:2006, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote: the how-to-label problem has been around since the w3c's pics effort. the jurisdictional issue is aterritorial, Negative. 92% of the root is under US jurisdiction How are you measu

electrical supplies retailer in downtown LA

Anybody here have a favourite electrical supply store in downtown LA (or within easyish driving distance of downtown) which would stock 30A rack-mount power strips fed through a L5-30P twist-lock plug, with output through regular 15A three-pin receptacles? Please reply off-list. I can sum

[non-operational] possible IXP operators BOF in San Jose in June

Hi all, Any IXP operators on this list interested in participating in a BOF at NANOG 37 in San Jose? This would be a get-together for exchange point operators to discuss back-end automation and measurement, switches, etc, not a place for ISPs to discuss peering. If anybody is intereste

Re: Proxy/Caching Servers

On 7-Apr-2006, at 12:06, Joseph S D Yao wrote: On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 04:41:26PM -0400, Alain Hebert wrote: Hummm squid. With a touch of haproxy... (Or for those with money ServerIron's) ... Do Foundry ServerIrons proxy and cache, or just switch? ServerIrons don't cache

Re: shim6 @ NANOG

On 5-Mar-2006, at 17:03, Stephen Sprunk wrote: All this time, energy, and thought spent on shim6 would have been better spent on a scalable IDR solution. Luckily, we still have another decade or so to come up with something. So the answer to the lack of a routing solution to multi-homing

Re: shim6 @ NANOG

On 5-Mar-2006, at 14:16, Owen DeLong wrote: It flies if you look at changing the routing paradigm instead of pushing routing decisions out of the routers and off to the hosts. Source Routing is a technology that most of the internet figured out is problematic years ago. Making source rou

Re: shim6 @ NANOG

On 4-Mar-2006, at 23:48, Roland Dobbins wrote: On Mar 4, 2006, at 7:06 PM, Joe Abley wrote: No support in big networks is required, beyond the presence of shim6 in server stacks. Why do you say this? Enterprises who multihome need their client machines (tens and hundreds of thousands

Re: shim6 @ NANOG

On 4-Mar-2006, at 16:31, Matthew Petach wrote: And given that any network big enough to get their own PI /32 has *zero* incentive to install/support shim6 means that all those smaller networks that are pushed to install shim6 are going to see *zero* benefit when they try to reach the maj

absense of multicast deployment

On 3-Mar-2006, at 11:48, Stephen Sprunk wrote: That depends on your perspective. There's a compelling need for usable multicast in many environments, and so far there's nobody (in the US) with a compelling need for IPv6, much less shim6. If there's such a compelling need for native multi

Re: shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne)

On 1-Mar-2006, at 18:29, Randy Bush wrote: You will note I have glossed over several hundred minor details (and several hundred more not-so-minor ones). The protocols are not yet published; there is no known implementation. possibly this contributes to the sceptisim with which this is viewed

Re: shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne)

On 1-Mar-2006, at 13:32, Kevin Day wrote: We have peering arrangements with about 120 ASNs. How do we mix BGP IPv6 peering and Shim6 for transit? You advertise all your PA netblocks to all your peers. Ok, I was a bit too vague there... How do we ensure that peering connections are always

Re: shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne)

On 1-Mar-2006, at 11:55, David Barak wrote: --- Joe Abley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I'm just one guy, one ASN, and one content/hosting network. But I can tell you that to switch to using shim6 instead of BGP speaking would be a complete overhaul of how we do things. You ar

Re: shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne)

On 1-Mar-2006, at 11:22, David Barak wrote: Also, the current drafts don't support middleboxes, which a huge number of enterprises use - in fact the drafts specifically preclude their existence, which renders this a complete non-starter for most of my clients. I have not yet reviewed the las

Re: shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne)

On 1-Mar-2006, at 10:33, John Payne wrote: On Mar 1, 2006, at 1:52 AM, Joe Abley wrote: Shim6 also has some features which aren't possible with the swamp -- for example, it allows *everybody* to multi-home, down to people whose entire infrastructure consists of an individual d

Re: shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne)

On 1-Mar-2006, at 02:56, Kevin Day wrote: On Mar 1, 2006, at 12:47 AM, Joe Abley wrote: o a small to medium multi-homed tier-n isp A small-to-medium, multi-homed, tier-n ISP can get PI space from their RIR, and don't need to worry about shim6 at all. Ditto larger ISPs, up t

Re: shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne)

On 1-Mar-2006, at 01:06, Christian Kuhtz wrote: However, the only alternative on the table is a v6 swamp. Would that really be so bad? I keep being bonked on the head by this thing called Moore's law. I don't know that anybody can tell how bad it might be. It'd be a shame if it turned

Re: shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne)

On 1-Mar-2006, at 01:09, Randy Bush wrote: How about some actual technical complaints about shim6? good question. to give such discussion a base, could you point us to the documents which describe how to deploy it in the two most common situation operators see o a large multi-homed enterp

Re: shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne)

On 28-Feb-2006, at 23:37, Daniel Golding wrote: Unacceptable. This is the whole problem with shim6 - the IETF telling us to "sit back and enjoy it, because your vendors know what's best". Actually, I think the problem with shim6 is that there are far too few operators involved in designi

Re: shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne)

On 28-Feb-2006, at 11:52, Kevin Day wrote: I'm not saying shim6 is flawed beyond anyone being able to use it. I can see many scenarios where it would work great. However, I'm really wary of it becoming the de facto standard for how *everyone* multihomes if they're under a certain size. I'

Re: shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne)

On 28-Feb-2006, at 11:09, Kevin Day wrote: Some problems/issues that are solved by current IPv4 TE practices that we are currently using, that we can't do easily in Shim6: Just to be clear, are you speaking from the perspective of an access provider, or of an enterprise? Joe

Re: DNS deluge for x.p.ctrc.cc

On 25-Feb-2006, at 03:41, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Limit UDP queries to 512 bytes. This greatly decreases the amplification affect, though it doesn't stop it. Expanding on this slightly, since I think this merits more discussion -- if there was widespread filtering of 53/udp pa

Re: a radical proposal (Re: protocols that don't meet the need...)

On 16-Feb-2006, at 13:32, Edward B. DREGER wrote: JA> I get the feeling that there's a lot of solutions-designing going on in this JA> thread without the benefit of prior problem-stating. Problem: Consumers want to multihome. That sentence needs profound expansion before it's going to be

Re: a radical proposal (Re: protocols that don't meet the need...)

On 15-Feb-2006, at 19:33, Edward B. DREGER wrote: Want to dual-home to SBC and Cox? Great. You get IP space from 1.0.0/18 which is advertised via AS64511. Lots of leaf dual-homers do the same, yet there is ONE route in the global table for the lot of you. SBC and Cox intercon

Re: Google = Spam Source (was RE: Gmail weirdness?)

On 10-Feb-2006, at 13:43, Mark Foster wrote: On Fri, 10 Feb 2006, Gary Wardell wrote: I've seen one or two blogs that suggest gmail has a potential as a source for anonymous SPAM and other abuses. One said he blocks all gmail. I'd be interested as to what others think. Well after I pos

another exchange in Cairo

At the risk of perpetuating a thread that arguably should have died some days ago, someone without a nanog-post subscription reminded me of GPX, who have plans to being an exchange point live in Egypt (amongst other places). http://www.gpx.ie/ No association, knowledge or endorsement i

Re: Middle Eastern Exchange Points

On 9-Feb-2006, at 02:19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But back to EMIX. Maybe they do not offer any peering today but is it true that they actively prohibit any companies with routers at EMIX from peering? There is no "at EMIX". EMIX is an ISP, AS 8966, with network connecting various cities i

Re: Middle Eastern Exchange Points

On 7-Feb-2006, at 23:25, Martin Hannigan wrote: You keep saying EMIX and you're confusing me. Peering or no? "IX" naturally insinuates yes regardless of neutrality. I'm not sure how to be more clear about this. EMIX is the name of a transit service offered by Emirates Telecom. Joe

Re: Middle Eastern Exchange Points

On 7-Feb-2006, at 20:50, Martin Hannigan wrote: As Joe's pointed out, what's available in the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait are governmental monopoly incumbent transit services, a la STIX, as opposed to Internet exchanges where peering takes place. There are several private colocation faci

Re: Middle Eastern Exchange Points

On 7-Feb-2006, at 11:54, Martin Hannigan wrote: I know of a Cairo IXP, and possibly one in the UAE. Is there one in Kuwait as yet? Yes, KIX. Note, there's CIX and CRIX. If you are trying to reach African users, there's also KIX ala Kenya. The exchange point in Nairobi is called KIXP, not

Re: Middle Eastern Exchange Points

On 7-Feb-2006, at 11:27, Aaron Glenn wrote: On 2/7/06, Howard C. Berkowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I know of a Cairo IXP, and possibly one in the UAE. Is there one in Kuwait as yet? http://www.emix.net.ae/ it's flash heavy fyi Note that EMIX is a transit service, not really peering.

Re: So -- what did happen to Panix?

On 4-Feb-2006, at 15:21, Christopher L. Morrow wrote: honestly I'm not a fan of IRR's, so don't pay attention to them, but... is the IRR 'not well operated' or is the data stale because the 'users' of the IRR are 'not well operated' ? The data ought to be maintained by the people to whom

Re: Anyone heard of INOC-DBA?

On 3-Feb-2006, at 15:59, Richard A Steenbergen wrote: With all due respect to the INOC-DBA project, which is actually somewhat interesting (from a "I want to play with free IP phones too" perspective if nothing else), it isn't a workable solution to operational contacts yet. I think you

Re: Yahoo, Google, Microsoft contact?

On 3-Feb-2006, at 15:09, Dave Stewart wrote: At 02:55 PM 2/3/2006, you wrote: > The heart of this problem, like so many other problems before it, is that > most people are dumber than dirt itself. So ... responsible prociders should only serve customers with some minimum IQ? One can wish

Re: So -- what did happen to Panix?

On 27-Jan-2006, at 11:54, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: On Jan 27, 2006, at 8:29 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: seems to me that certified validation of prefix ownership and as path are the only real way out of these problems that does not teach us the 42 reasons we use a *dynamic* protocol. Wou

Re: So -- what did happen to Panix?

On 27-Jan-2006, at 11:12, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: but by definition, the right-most entry is the prefix origin... Suppose AS 9327 decides to originate 198.32.6.0/24, but prepends 4555 to the AS_PATH as it does so. Suppose 9327's uses a transit provider which builds prefix filter

Re: So -- what did happen to Panix?

On 27-Jan-2006, at 07:51, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: perhaps you mean certified validation of prefix origin and path. In the absense of path valdiation, a method of determining the real origin of a prefix is also required, if the goal is to prevent intentional hijacking as

Re: Martin Hannigan

On 25-Jan-2006, at 16:12, william(at)elan.net wrote: On Wed, 25 Jan 2006, Gadi Evron wrote: Martin Hannigan wrote: Admins: Clearly, a personal attack and I'd like the AUP enforced please. Clearly, exactly what you've been trying to get me to do for a long time, to get me off NANOG, well

Re: Split flows across Domains

On 24-Jan-2006, at 14:17, Matt Buford wrote: Actually, TCP handles out of order packets rather well as long as the reordering isn't too severe. There's packet reordering, and there's oscillating RTT on segments that travel by different paths. I suspect the veracity of your statement dep

Re: Split flows across Domains

On 24-Jan-2006, at 13:09, Robert E.Seastrom wrote: Joe Abley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: If you can get two candidate routes for the same destination into the FIB, then you'll get per-flow load balancing as long as CEF is running, no? Yes and no. CEF is {src, dst} hash IIR

Re: Split flows across Domains

On 24-Jan-2006, at 13:05, Joe Abley wrote: On 24-Jan-2006, at 12:07, Robert E.Seastrom wrote: He said "via two different autonomous domains", which I took to mean two upstreams... and my understanding is that (on ciscos anyway) you're talking per-packet, not per-flow load

Re: Split flows across Domains

On 24-Jan-2006, at 12:07, Robert E.Seastrom wrote: He said "via two different autonomous domains", which I took to mean two upstreams... and my understanding is that (on ciscos anyway) you're talking per-packet, not per-flow load balancing. If you can get two candidate routes for the same de

Re: preventing future situations like panix

On 23-Jan-2006, at 14:47, Josh Karlin wrote: Short of perfect filters, or perfect IRRs combined with PKI, To what extent does the route object validation in the RIPE database (for routes covering RIPE-allocated space), together with maintainer object authentication, provide a "perfect IR

Re: is this like a peering war somehow?

On 20-Jan-2006, at 11:25, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: Things like sports events will still require real-time feeds, and people will pay for them. That and breaking news seem like reasonable exceptions to point out in contrast to my rampant generalisations. For news, however, stories seem

Re: is this like a peering war somehow?

On 20-Jan-2006, at 07:54, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: On Fri, 20 Jan 2006, Alexander Harrowell wrote: Whatever. No-one's actually trying to do "some packets are more equal than others" here in Europe, except for the mobile people with IMS and such. BT just transferred its access network int

Re: GoDaddy.com shuts down entire data center?

On 15-Jan-2006, at 18:15, Elijah Savage wrote: Any validatity to this and if so I am suprised that our team has got no calls on not be able to get to certain websites. http://webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=477562 I think the main thing I learned from that is that there are a surpri

Re: AW: Odd policy question.

On 13-Jan-2006, at 19:20, Sean Donelan wrote: On Fri, 13 Jan 2006, Jeffrey I. Schiller wrote: Let me attempt to bring this back to the policy question. Does someone have the *right* to put one of your IP addresses as an NS record for their domain even if you do not agree? Registrar polic

Re: AW: Odd policy question.

On 13-Jan-2006, at 17:07, Randy Bush wrote: it is a best practice to separate authoritative and recursive servers. why? Because it prevents stale, authoritative data on your nameservers being returned to intermediate-mode resolvers in the form of apparently authoritative answers, bypassing

Re: AW: Odd policy question.

On 13-Jan-2006, at 15:09, Randy Bush wrote: it is a best practice to separate authoritative and recursive servers. why? Because it prevents stale, authoritative data on your nameservers being returned to intermediate-mode resolvers in the form of apparently authoritative answers, bypa

Re: [OCCAID] 6bone addresses going away in June

On 6-Jan-2006, at 11:23, Christopher L. Morrow wrote: guess terado services will get a facelift then too? (since they require/use the 3ffe range for comms) The most recent draft for teredo only requires use of 3FFE::/16 obliquely: 2.6 Global Teredo IPv6 service prefix An IPv6 address

Re: Gothcas of changing the IP Address of an Authoritative DNS Server

On 14-Dec-2005, at 11:52, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: currently in the middle of such a safe, conservative transition leads me to believe that there will -NEVER- be a point w/ there are no queries to the old address. (he says, 24 months into a transition...) It's

Re: Gothcas of changing the IP Address of an Authoritative DNS Server

On 14-Dec-2005, at 10:17, Joe Maimon wrote: Joe Abley wrote: You also want to check all the registries which are superordinate to zones your server is authoritative for, and check that any IP addresses stored in those registries for your nameserver are updated, otherwise you will

Re: Gothcas of changing the IP Address of an Authoritative DNS Server

On 13-Dec-2005, at 16:28, Steven M. Bellovin wrote: In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Sam Cr ooks writes: I would think you would want to drop your DNS record TTLs for all domains being moved to something very low several days before the switch-over period. More precisely, you want to chan

Re: BGP Security and PKI Hierarchies

On 29-Nov-2005, at 12:16, David Barak wrote: Maybe my imagination just isn't good enough: could you toss me an example-type of organization where that would be problematic? Oh, my mistake -- you're talking about new organisations looking to acquire PI space. I was talking about organisatio

Re: BGP Security and PKI Hierarchies

On 29-Nov-2005, at 09:30, David Barak wrote: I have yet to find an organization which is concerned about getting new PI space which would have a problem paying that amount per year. They may exist, They definitely exist. Joe

Re: IP Prefixes are allocated ..

On 28-Nov-2005, at 01:15, Glen Kent wrote: to different Autonomous systems. No, but... Is there a central/distributed database somewhere that can tell me that this particular IP prefix (say x.y.z.w) has been given to foo AS number? I tried searching through all the WHOIS records for a dom

Re: [NANOG]Cogent issues

On 17-Nov-2005, at 10:59, Brian Kerr wrote: On 11/17/05, Eric Gauthier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Just to make analysis easier: Which prefixes should be missing? There seem to be larger problems, http://www.cogent.com returns: That does seem to be a problem for cogent.com. To complete y

Re: Peering VLANs and MAC addresses

On 9-Nov-2005, at 16:35, Randy Bush wrote: IX---SwitchA---SwitchB---Router ok, i gotta ask. you folk really do this on exchanges? I seem to think I've seen people doing this at most exchanges ISC has installed an F-root node at. The motivation is usually the avoidance of either expe

Re: classful routes redux

On 7-Nov-2005, at 05:57, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Henk's slide number 5 he states: "Each AS wants to be able to send traffic to any other AS" This is NOT true. Many ASes explicitly do *NOT* want to send traffic to any other AS. Wanting to do something and wanting to be able to do someth

Opinions wanted re NANOG meeting terminal rooms

g Committee at <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. Joe Abley (for the NANOG SC) [1] <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0151804/> (as if anybody here needs this)

Re: classful routes redux

On 4-Nov-2005, at 09:07, Russ White wrote: - -- BGP is currently moving to a 2^32 space for AS numbers. That's odd, if there's only 18,044 origins in the current table, and it won't ever grow to much more--how'd we lose 40,000 or so AS numbers, that we now need more than 64,000? http://www

Re: oh k can you see

On 1-Nov-2005, at 17:52, Etaoin Shrdlu wrote: Sam Crooks wrote: Pardon my stupidity, but could someone point to a good explanation of Anycast (vs uni, broad and multi...)? {mutter, mumble, google is your friend} http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=anycast+definition Also

Re: oh k can you see

On 1-Nov-2005, at 15:15, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote: ok sure, but is this not just normal transit issues, these are not special because they are a) anycast b) root-servers? You're right -- these are normal issues that any multi-homed AS might see. The effectiveness of knuckle-rapping after

Re: oh k can you see

On 1-Nov-2005, at 14:19, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote: or am i naive too? I think you underestimate the tendencies of ISPs all over the world to leak peering routes towards their transit providers. Contrary to popular belief, leaks through peers in remote regions do not always result in hug

Re: oh k can you see

On 31-Oct-2005, at 17:49, Bill Woodcock wrote: Which leaves the question of why F, and now K, appear to be trying to do it. F's covering prefix, 192.5.5.0/24, is advertised to peers of F-root local nodes with NO_EXPORT. 192.5.5.0/24 is advertised to peers of AS 3557 without NO_EXPORT.

<    1   2   3   4   5   >