On Apr 7, 2008, at 11:39 AM, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 08:24:54 -0700 (PDT)
Lucy Lynch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://xkcd.com/401/
Also http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20080330 and
http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20080406
I love those!
I also love
On Feb 28, 2008, at 4:29 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
On Feb 28, 2008, at 3:58 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was wondering if anyone knew of server hotel locations in Sweden
I would recommend Netnod in Sweden. Kurtis Lindqvist is a good
contact there.
NetNod is a secure IX in Sweden,
On Feb 25, 2008, at 11:40 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've only dealt with a handful of the bigger networks, but every
transit
BGP session I've ever been the customer role on has been filtered
by the
provider. From memory and in no particular order, that's UUNet,
Level3,
Digex,
On Feb 25, 2008, at 2:27 AM, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
At 07:15 PM 24-02-08 -0500, Randy Epstein wrote:
More importantly, why is PCCW not prefix filtering their downstreams?
Why?
- Lack of clue
- Couldn't care less
- No revenue
Take your pick - or add your own reason. PCCW is not alone.
On Feb 25, 2008, at 2:32 AM, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
At 05:31 AM 25-02-08 +, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
Seriously -- a number of us have been warning that this could happen.
More precisely, we've been warning that this could happen *again*; we
all know about many older incidents, from the
On Feb 24, 2008, at 7:36 PM, Tomas L. Byrnes wrote:
I'm sure we can all find a list of critical infrastructure ASes that
could be trusted to peer via the high priority AS. I'd say that the
criteria should be:
1: Hosted at a Tier 1 provider.
That is a silly requirement.
(I am sorry, I tried
On Feb 25, 2008, at 12:31 AM, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
Seriously -- a number of us have been warning that this could happen.
More precisely, we've been warning that this could happen *again*; we
all know about many older incidents, from the barely noticed to the
very
noisy. (AS 7007,
On Feb 15, 2008, at 8:04 AM, Greg VILLAIN wrote:
Obvious as it is, if one of your peerings on an IX gets big in terms
of in/out volumes, you HAVE to secure it by PNI.
You need a way to prevent the IX's equipments from being a SPoFs
between you and that peer.
HAVE to is such a strong
On Feb 14, 2008, at 3:44 PM, Andy Davidson wrote:
On 14 Feb 2008, at 17:02, Kai Chen wrote:
A typical Internet Exchange Point (IXP) consists of one or more
network switches, to which each of the participating ISPs connect.
We call it the exchange-based topology. My question is if some
On Jan 21, 2008, at 6:14 PM, David Barak wrote:
Wouldn#39;t a reasonable approach be to take the sum of a 6500/
msfc2 and a 2851, and assume that the routing computation could be
offloaded?
The difficulty I have with this discussion is that the cost per
prefix is zero until you need to
On Jan 19, 2008, at 4:25 PM, Taran Rampersad wrote:
Rod Beck wrote:
Ironically, the Net Neutrality debate is about the access providers
trying to impose usage-based pricing through the backdor - on the
content providers. It goes without saying I oppose it. It's the end
users who decide
On Jan 19, 2008, at 12:55 PM, William Herrin wrote:
On Jan 19, 2008 11:48 AM, Andy Davidson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There's some debate in RIPE land right now that discusses, what
actually is the automatic, free, right to PI ? Every other network
in the world pays the cost when someone
On Jan 19, 2008, at 11:37 AM, Joe Greco wrote:
Mikael Abrahamsson writes:
Customers want control, that's why the prepaid mobile phone where
you get
an account you have to prepay into, are so popular in some
markets. It
also enables people who perhaps otherwise would not be eligable
On Jan 20, 2008, at 6:06 AM, William Herrin wrote:
On Jan 19, 2008 11:43 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Jan 19, 2008, at 12:55 PM, William Herrin wrote:
There was some related work on ARIN PPML last year. The rough
numbers
suggested that the attributable economic cost
interpretation of the numbers for PA:PI smaller
prefix origins?
Kind Regards
Ben
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of
William Herrin
Sent: 20 January 2008 11:06
To: Patrick W. Gilmore
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: Cost per prefix [was: request
Good thing neither pizzahut.com or any other single-homed att
customer injected an extra prefix into the table and raised everyone's
cost by multi-homing! :)
--
TTFN,
patrick
On Jan 20, 2008, at 2:53 AM, Paul Ferguson wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
The oddball
On Jan 20, 2008, at 12:22 PM, William Herrin wrote:
I think you mean in tiny fractions of a single cent per router per
year
No, I don't. The lower bound for that particular portion of the cost
analysis is easy to calculate:
Your calculation is in error.
Entry level DFZ router: $40,000
On Jan 20, 2008, at 3:34 PM, William Herrin wrote:
The difference is much, much, much greater than that. Can the switch
do ACLs? Policy routing? SFlow with the same sampling rate? Same
number of BGP session?
Is there some alternate piece of cheap hardware that supports the DFZ
prefix
a 7600 is the # of prefixes it can take, I'm not sure why I am
still reading your posts.
On Jan 20, 2008 5:10 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 20, 2008, at 3:34 PM, William Herrin wrote:
( [entry level router's cost attributable to prefixes]/[expected
lifespan] ) / [DFZ
On Jan 18, 2008, at 4:01 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Jan 18, 2008, at 3:11 PM, Michael Holstein wrote:
My guess is the market will work this out. As soon as it's
implemented, you'll see ATT commercials in that town slamming
cable and saying how DSL is really unlimited.
P.S. Perhaps
On Jan 18, 2008, at 3:11 PM, Michael Holstein wrote:
The problem is the inability of the physical media in TWC's case
(coax) to support multiple simultaneous users. They've held off
infrastructure upgrades to the point where they really can't offer
unlimited bandwidth. TWC also wants to
On Jan 18, 2008, at 3:06 PM, Tomas L. Byrnes wrote:
I always find it interesting that people with a telco background keep
trying to go back to the ma bell days and ways, even as the telcos
themselves are abandoning those models for phone service.
I am not at all certain that is what is
On Jan 18, 2008, at 1:57 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008, Rod Beck wrote:
http://www.ecommercetimes.com/rsstory/61251.html
So, anyone but me think that this will end in disaster?
Possibly. But I do not think it for the same reason you do.
I think the model where you
On Jan 16, 2008, at 4:37 PM, Mike Donahue wrote:
Hi. I'm by no means an ip/networking expert, and we're having some
difficulty communicating with the boffins at ATT. Any
input/advice/translation would be appreciated.
We own our own class C netblock. Our previous provider, Sprint, had
no
On Jan 16, 2008, at 4:55 PM, Darryl Dunkin wrote:
If you want connectivity from both ATT and Sprint with your one
block,
you have plenty of justification from ARIN to get your AS assigned
assuming both feeds come into one location.
However, it looks like you are asking two providers to
On Jan 15, 2008, at 12:00 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
The Ultradns (now Neustar) Directional DNS service is based on
statically defined IP responses at each of their 14 sites so there
is no proximity checking done.
Yes, and that's how anycast
On Jan 8, 2008, at 8:45 AM, Joshman at joshman dot com wrote:
As a general rule, is it best practice to assign x.x.x.0 and x.x.x.
255 as host addresses on /23 and larger? I realize that technically
they are valid addresses, but does anyone assign a node or server
which is a member of a
On Dec 27, 2007, at 9:44 PM, Robert Boyle wrote:
At 07:39 PM 12/27/2007, AD wrote:
does anyone have any experience with peering in S. America? I am
looking to move a lot of data between NewYork/LA and a few south
american countries and looking for some ISPs that have reliable
peering
On Nov 6, 2007, at 3:06 PM, J. Oquendo wrote:
Nice to get news third string...
//
Last week, ICANN setup a new IP address for one of the thirteen root
name servers that oversee DNS queries across the net, and it plans on
retiring the old address as soon as the late spring.
On Nov 6, 2007, at 3:24 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Nov 6, 2007, at 3:06 PM, J. Oquendo wrote:
Nice to get news third string...
//
Last week, ICANN setup a new IP address for one of the thirteen root
name servers that oversee DNS queries across the net, and it plans
on
retiring
On Nov 5, 2007, at 7:40 AM, Joe Greco wrote:
Reinventing the DNS protocol in order to intercept odd stuff on the
Web
seems to me to be overkill and bad policy. Could someone kindly
explain
to me why the proxy configuration support in browsers could not be
used
for this, to limit the
On Nov 5, 2007, at 10:54 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Sun, Nov 04, 2007 at 08:32:25AM -0500, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
A single provider doing this is not equivalent to the root servers
doing it. You can change providers, you can't change . in DNS.
This is true, but Verisign wasn't doing
On Nov 4, 2007, at 1:52 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On 11/3/07, Allan Liska [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I know this is just anecdotal, but I have Verizon FIOS in Northern
Virginia and I have not seen sitefinder pop up. I just verified
with a
few sites to make sure.
On Oct 9, 2007, at 8:15 AM, Jamie Bowden wrote:
On Oct 8, 2007, at 6:45 PM, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
On Mon, 8 Oct 2007, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
If you do you have permission from the owner of the block, you
Should Not Announce it.
Agreed.
I stated above that you should
On Oct 9, 2007, at 1:53 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are currently ~1500 prefixes with inconsistent origin AS.
These are trivially identifiable:
http://www.cymru.com/BGP/incon_asn_list.html
Some of them are obvious mistakes (I doubt HKSuper is supposed to
originate 4/8). But many
On Oct 8, 2007, at 5:43 PM, [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
On Oct 8, 2007, at 5:55 PM, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
On Mon, 8 Oct 2007, [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,
On Oct 8, 2007, at 6:19 PM, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
On Mon, 8 Oct 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That brings up an interesing point. My biggest fear was that one
of my
other customers could possible be closer to me that the ISP that
provides
the primary link and it would cause them to
On Oct 8, 2007, at 6:45 PM, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
On Mon, 8 Oct 2007, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
It's not 'law' per se, but having the customer originate their
own announcements is definitely the Right Way to go.
That is not at all guaranteed.
I never said it was. My experience, both
On Oct 8, 2007, at 9:46 PM, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
On Mon, 8 Oct 2007, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
If you went ahead and did this, the more specific route being
announced by you on behalf of your customer would be more likely
to attract traffic back to you. Prefix length is checked
On Oct 8, 2007, at 10:28 PM, David Conrad wrote:
The argument, as I understand it (and those who argue this
direction feel free to correct me if I misstate), is that as the
IPv4 free pool exhausts, there will be a natural pressure to
increase address utilization efficiency. This will
On Aug 17, 2007, at 6:57 AM, Stephen Wilcox wrote:
On Thu, Aug 16, 2007 at 09:07:31AM -0700, Hex Star wrote:
How does akamai handle traffic congestion so seamlessly?
Perhaps we should
look at existing setups implemented by companies such as akamai
for
guidelines regarding how to
On Aug 15, 2007, at 12:06 AM, Chengchen Hu wrote:
I find that the link recovery is sometimes very slow when failure
occures between different ASes. The outage may last hours. In such
cases, it seems that the automatic recovery of BGP-like protocol
fails and the repair is took over
On Aug 10, 2007, at 12:46 PM, John Levine wrote:
Very interesting. We've all heard and probably all passed along
that little
bromide at one time or another. Is it possible that at one time
it was true
(even possibly for AOL) but with the rise of CDNs, policies of not
honoring
TTL's
On Aug 8, 2007, at 6:20 PM, william(at)elan.net [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Tue, 7 Aug 2007, Donald Stahl wrote:
All things being equal (which they're usually not) you could use
the ACK
response time of the TCP handshake if they've got TCP DNS resolution
available. Though again most
On Aug 7, 2007, at 3:59 AM, Michal Krsek wrote:
5) User redirection
- You have to implement a scalable mechanisms that redirects users
to the closes POP. You can use application redirect (fast, but not
so much scalable), DNS redirect (scalable, but not so fast) or
anycasting (this needs
On Aug 7, 2007, at 4:33 PM, Donald Stahl wrote:
[...]
If you don't like the rules- then change the damned protocol. Stop
just doing whatever you want and then complaining when other people
disagree with you.
I think this last part is the key.
Remember the old adage: My network, My
On Aug 6, 2007, at 5:10 PM, Rod Beck wrote:
Can anyone give a breakdown of the different kinds of content
deliver networks? For example, we have Akamai, which appears to be
a pure Layer 3 network that is tailored to pushing relatively small
files like web pages and we have Lime Light
On Aug 6, 2007, at 4:43 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 16:11:36 EDT, Matthew Crocker said:
But you could, it isn't hard to dump a BGP view into a box from a
border router and use that map to determine the proper DNS records to
return.
It's harder than it looks, given the
On Jul 25, 2007, at 2:03 PM, Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET wrote:
If they can be avoided, why do we put up with them? Do we really
want our colo in downtown San Francisco bad enough to take the risk
of having a single point of failure? How can we, as engineers, ask
questions about how many generators,
On Jul 23, 2007, at 2:18 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Sean Donelan:
On Sun, 22 Jul 2007, William Allen Simpson wrote:
Comcast still blocks port 25. And last week, a locally well-
known person
was blocked from sending outgoing port 25 email to their servers
from her
home Comcast service.
On Jul 22, 2007, at 9:29 PM, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 14:56:13 -0700
Andrew Matthews [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It looks like cox is hijacking dns for irc servers.
And people wonder why I support DNSsec
Steve,
One of us is confused. It might be me, but right now I
On May 30, 2007, at 3:40 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
This is a grand game of chicken. The ISPs are refusing to move
first due to
lack of content
pure bs. most significant backbones are dual stack. you are the
chicken, claiming the sky is falling.
I guess we have different definitions for
On May 15, 2007, at 5:23 AM, Masafumi Watari wrote:
I'm looking for statistics that may provide hints on the number of
IPv4
multihomed sites that exist today. Are there any pointers?
Perhaps start with the number of ASNs?
Also, is there a way to find the average number of peers that
On Apr 30, 2007, at 11:11 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
Collector: CIXP
Prefix: 128.0.0.0/2
Last update time: 2007-04-27 07:36:30Z
Peer: 192.65.185.140
Origin: 29222
My question is, why am I not seeing more issues because of the
announcement?
because everyone with enough clue to watch what
On Apr 23, 2007, at 4:36 PM, Kradorex Xeron wrote:
On Monday 23 April 2007 14:40, J. Oquendo wrote:
Marcus H. Sachs wrote:
If we had clean registries and signed/verifiable advertisements
this
would not be an issue. Most of you know that DHS was pushing the
Secure
Protocols for the
On Apr 23, 2007, at 5:04 PM, Mike Tancsa wrote:
At 04:52 PM 4/23/2007, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
I do not want any particular gov't (US or otherwise) to be in
charge of the Internet any more than the next person. And good
thing too, because it simply cannot happen, political pipe-dreams
well-deserved criminal record for his stupidity. Where is the
criminal record for the idiot who allowed remote access with a
single username and password to every single cable modem? That's
pretty damned stupid.
Honetly- when did we all become such vindictive assholes? Had the
guy
On Apr 18, 2007, at 2:43 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Yi Wang wrote:
sense about the average (e.g., about 5? 10? 20?), as for a large
ISP.
Well, if you're interconnecting with other large ISPs in 5 places
then you'll get each prefix at least 5 times. Having 5 eBGP
On Apr 17, 2007, at 8:20 PM, Yi Wang wrote:
I guess what I see there is the lower bound of the path diversity?
Because even
though an edge router received more than one path for a prefix,
it'll only export
the best route to the other edge routers of the ISP.
Depends on the route server.
On Apr 10, 2007, at 11:13 AM, Joseph S D Yao wrote:
On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 03:54:39PM +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Sun, Apr 08, 2007 at 06:15:34PM -0500,
J. Oquendo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 24 lines which said:
was successfully configured by NASA Glenn Research Center
On Apr 10, 2007, at 1:24 PM, Joseph S D Yao wrote:
On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 12:10:59PM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
...
Second, who said v6 was the heights? ...
My, aren't we serious? Too serious to realize that satellites are a
little higher than I, at least, can reach.
Guess I
On Mar 6, 2007, at 4:51 PM, Jason Arnaute wrote:
I am currently hosted in a small, independent
datacenter that has 4 or 5 public peers (L3, Sprint,
UUnet, ATT and ... ?)
Those are not public peers, those are transit providers.
They are a very nice facility, very technical and
On Mar 6, 2007, at 6:00 PM, Jason Arnaute wrote:
--- Patrick Giagnocavo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jason Arnaute wrote:
I am currently hosted in a small, independent
datacenter that has 4 or 5 public peers (L3,
Sprint,
UUnet, ATT and ... ?)
They are a very nice facility, very technical
On Feb 26, 2007, at 1:05 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
What reason would NANOG have for holding a meeting in DR? Not a lot
of context. DR is also in the LACNIC region. LACNIC has meetings
similiar to RIPE in content i.e. policy and ops.
http://lacnic.net/en/eventos/lacnicix/index.html
LACNIC is
On Feb 26, 2007, at 2:38 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
On Feb 26, 2007, at 1:05 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
What reason would NANOG have for holding a meeting in DR? Not a lot
of context. DR is also in the LACNIC region. LACNIC has meetings
similiar to RIPE in content i.e. policy and ops.
On Feb 26, 2007, at 11:42 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
Incorrect. I think that there are more than just philanthropic
considerations and language is one, as well as financials
being another.
I believe the majority of the list is in agreement.
We all agree that there is more to this than going
On Feb 12, 2007, at 8:55 AM, Christos Papadopoulos wrote:
I know routers today have the ability to prioritize
traffic, but last I heard, these controls are not
often used for user traffic (let's not discuss
net neutrality here).
Are they used for control (e.g., routing) traffic?
Please say a
On Jan 10, 2007, at 10:54 PM, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007, Randy Bush wrote:
route-views.oregon-ix.netsh ip bg 203.10.63.0
BGP routing table entry for 0.0.0.0/, version 2
do most folks setup route-views peers as a 'standard customer' or
are they
generally on a special
On Jan 10, 2007, at 11:28 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
I don't think a spurious prefix directly injected into route-views is
proof a network is broken.
we've had this discussion 42 times. it is not proof of anything
and no
one has said it is. but if it was one of my areas of responsibility
On Jan 7, 2007, at 8:59 AM, Alexander Harrowell wrote:
1) Just unicasting it over the radio access network is going to use
a lot of
capacity, and latency will make streaming good quality tough.
I'm confused why high latency makes streaming good quality tough?
Perhaps this goes back to the
On Jan 7, 2007, at 3:17 PM, Brandon Butterworth wrote:
The real problem with P2P networks is that they don't
generally make download decisions based on network
architecture.
Indeed, that's what I said. Until then ISPs can only fix it with P2P
aware caches, if the protocols did it then they
On Dec 27, 2006, at 3:42 PM, Jim Popovitch wrote:
On Wed, 2006-12-27 at 09:06 -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
Savvis wants to retain your ID if they issue a cage-key to you.
If they (or others) asked you to let them hold $50 cash to cover their
key/lock replacement costs would you feel more
On Dec 27, 2006, at 6:13 PM, Leo Vegoda wrote:
On Dec 27, 2006, at 11:20 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
[...]
To open a totally separate can-of-worms, why not take my driver's
license? Easier to replace than a passport and much less trouble
when crossing borders. And before someone says
On Nov 30, 2006, at 5:01 PM, Christian Nielsen wrote:
If the issue is to save costs for the attendees, IMHO the best place
would be Las Vegas during the non-peak travel dates.
Nanog Starts on Sundays and goes to Wednesdays.
Flights into and out of Vegas are not as full going in on Sunday
On Nov 17, 2006, at 9:57 AM, Bruce Pinsky wrote:
Probabaly the the latter; however here is the situation. I am
advertising a rte 1.1.1.1 via BGP to the Internet via ISP_A via my
location in NJ. At my other location in CA where I am advertising
another rte 2.2.2.2 via BGP to the Internet
On Oct 31, 2006, at 2:12 AM, Bob Collie wrote:
That looks like a transit connection that Cogent bought at Ashburn,
VA,
not SFI peering connection.
Hrmm, I can't tell by looking at a traceroute who paid whom, if
anyone. Care to explain your magic? Is there a code in the in-
addrs?
On Oct 28, 2006, at 10:52 AM, Donald Stahl wrote:
I submitted both spams to spamcop and the appropriate abuse
addresses would have been notified in both cases. I got no
response from either of my submissions. As for a reason for
ignoring my complaint I really couldn't say since, well
On Oct 26, 2006, at 1:31 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is essentially impossible to distinguish end-user requests from
(im)properly created DoS packets (especially until BCP38 is widely
adopted - i.e. probably never). Since there is no single place -
no 13
places - which can withstand a
On Oct 26, 2006, at 9:33 AM, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
Put another way, anti-spoofing does three things: it makes reflector
attacks harder, it makes it easier to use ACLs to block sources,
and it
helps people track down the bot and notify the admin. Are people
actually
successfully doing
On Oct 26, 2006, at 11:24 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
the case for which we know bcp 38 is useful, is the dns reflector
attack. so far, botnets seem to have no need to spoof, they just
overwhelm you with zombies from real space.
Incorrect.
While that is one mode of attack from a botnet, it is
On Oct 26, 2006, at 12:14 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 26 Oct 2006, Paul Vixie wrote:
i wonder if that's due to the spam they've been sending out?
Paul, this isn't nanae. Let's not sling accusations like that wildly.
Accusations and objective facts are two separate things.
there is no
On Oct 23, 2006, at 3:42 PM, chuck goolsbee wrote:
We've had a few customers report issues. We don't see anything too
bad from here, but Keynote scoreboard has been showing some ugly
between those two networks for the past hour or so. It has been
about a year since the last time hasn't
On Oct 19, 2006, at 10:14 PM, Rubens Kuhl Jr. wrote:
template response -- I hear is Well, you can't rely on traceroute
because of ICMP prioritisation. When you start to explain how
traceroute actually works (both ICMP-based and UDP-based (which
still relies on ICMP responses, of course!)),
On Oct 15, 2006, at 5:44 PM, Rich Fulton wrote:
and you will NEVER see this service again until there is a monetary
incenctive to offer said service. So.. why is this still a
discussion?
I seem to recall someone (Rodney?) saying it was already generating
positive cash flow on
On Oct 14, 2006, at 9:04 PM, Todd Underwood wrote:
I disagree.
i disagree with your disagreement.
You are welcome to your opinion.
Seat power is ubiquitous on some airlines (e.g. American), and
available in all but coach on others (e.g. Virgin, Luftansa). It's
all but coach?
On Oct 14, 2006, at 2:13 AM, Roland Dobbins wrote:
On Oct 13, 2006, at 1:52 PM, Rodney Joffe wrote:
Maybe the Connexion folks on the list could tell us what is needed
to make it work on the network side - I'm sure we have enough
resources between us to handle that. And there are a number
On Oct 14, 2006, at 11:09 AM, Paul Vixie wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Patrick W. Gilmore) writes:
Obviously the table contains kruft. But I know we could not shrink
it to 109K prefixes without losing something from where I sit. Are
you sure there's no additional path info?
before we could
On Oct 13, 2006, at 2:02 PM, Routing Analysis Role Account wrote:
Routing Table Report 04:00 +10GMT Sat 14 Oct, 2006
Analysis Summary
BGP routing table entries examined:
200339
Prefixes after maximum aggregation:
On Oct 13, 2006, at 3:04 PM, Philip Smith wrote:
I was kinda hoping that it would hit 200K on Tuesday, then I could
have
added the announcement to my aggregation recommendations lightning
talk!
;-) Bit sad that a 200K table can be aggregated down to 109k prefixes
with no loss of path
On Oct 13, 2006, at 3:26 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:
On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 03:14:38PM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
Obviously the table contains kruft. But I know we could not shrink
it to 109K prefixes without losing something from where I sit. Are
you sure there's no additional path info
On Sep 26, 2006, at 11:57 AM, Mark Kent wrote:
I asked:
Who among AS1239, AS701, AS3356, AS7018, AS209 does loose RPF
(not just strict RPF on single-homed customers)?
and Patrick answered:
I'm wondering why that is relevant.
It's relevant because it was suggested that loose RPF should be
On Sep 25, 2006, at 9:06 AM, Ian Mason wrote:
ICMP packets will, by design, originate from the incoming interface
used by the packet that triggers the ICMP packet. Thus giving an
interface an address is implicitly giving that interface the
ability to source packets with that address to
On Sep 25, 2006, at 12:22 PM, Mark Kent wrote:
Jared Mauch wrote:
I would hope they're doing it for more than just ICMP packets.
yes, loose RPF, but I just care about ICMP.
I would argue should be, or is a current best practice.
OK, so I must have missed the memo :-)
It's been all the
situations, then it is
probably something we want to push the vendors to implement.
--
TTFN,
patrick
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of
Patrick W. Gilmore
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 9:23 AM
To: nanog@merit.edu
Cc: Patrick W. Gilmore
On Sep 25, 2006, at 5:40 PM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Mon, Sep 25, 2006 at 09:22:34AM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Sep 25, 2006, at 9:06 AM, Ian Mason wrote:
ICMP packets will, by design, originate from the incoming interface
used by the packet that triggers the ICMP packet
[Can we all have a moment of silence for a useful, interesting, and
on-topic post?]
On Sep 24, 2006, at 5:59 PM, Mark Kent wrote:
A smaller North American network provider, with a modest North
American backbone, numbers their internal routers on public IP space
that they do not announce to
On Sep 20, 2006, at 4:35 PM, Richard Irving wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hrmm
How many of you realize who Bill Manning is ?
While you are at it, go flame Vinton Cerf... I am sure he
will learn from you, too..
I have known Bill for years, and respect him for a lot of
On Sep 8, 2006, at 10:57 AM, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
On Fri, 8 Sep 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Strike me as curious, but this seems as if Connexion by Boeing is
handing off a /24 from ASN to ASN as a certain plane moves over
certain geographic areas. Or is there some other explanation?
On Aug 25, 2006, at 8:10 AM, Gunther Stammwitz wrote:
Without getting in the middle of the eternal contest over who
is better, LINX or AMS-IX (each has its own advantages and
disadvantages), the AMS-IX website says 165Gbps, the LINX
website says 95Gbps (actual publicly switched traffic), and
1 - 100 of 427 matches
Mail list logo
