On Tue, 20 May 2008, Tony Varriale wrote:
AFAIK, ARIN doesn't give out /22s anymore.
Last time I went to the well...it's was a /20 or better.
Nah, it's /22 for multi-homed networks, /20 for single-homed.
http://www.arin.net/registration/guidelines/ipv4_initial_alloc.html
4.3.2.2
On Tue, 20 May 2008 14:52:24 +0300
Max Tulyev [EMAIL PROTECTED] mentioned:
Hello Michael,
I'm getting the permanent error message:
Works fine here. You should try different URL. The page you're
requesting contains an actual URL to the video,
http://cdn4.nacevi.cz//CT24-PAL in IPv6 case.
I wonder when IPv6porn.com is coming online. We're all waiting on Kevin
Day @ Your.org. The latest mailing list updated was positive [This
morning 5 AM PST8PDT]. Seems DNS has dissapeared for it though. It
should give a decent boost to IPv6 traffic. We're all going to have a
fun time dealing with
On May 21, 2008, at 10:56 AM, Sargun Dhillon wrote:
I wonder when IPv6porn.com is coming online. We're all waiting on
Kevin
Day @ Your.org.
It honestly is coming soon! :) As I mentioned on the mailing list ( http://mail.your.org/pipermail/v6test/2008-May/65.html
), there are some
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Cisco Security Advisory: Cisco IOS Secure Shell Denial of Service
Vulnerabilities
Advisory ID: cisco-sa-20080521-ssh
http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/707/cisco-sa-20080521-ssh.shtml
Revision 1.0
For Public Release 2008 May 21 1600 UTC (GMT
William Herrin wrote:
Hi folks,
An administrative question about multihoming:
I have a client who needs to multihome with multiple vendors for
reliability purposes, currently in the Northern Virginia area and
later on with a fail-over site, probably in Hawaii. They have only a
very modest need
I got a /22 from ARIN last year; ASN 36516. Is the /20 only rule relatively
new?
Not multi-homed yet because my 2nd provider does not support it yet.
Best Regards,
Edward Ray
-Original Message-
From: Tony Varriale [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 9:32 PM
To: Andy
On Tue, 20 May 2008, Tony Varriale wrote:
AFAIK, ARIN doesn't give out /22s anymore.
It's a recent change in the past couple of years.
Still current:
However, for multi-homed organizations, the minimum allocation size is a
/22
Can we all agree that while renumbering sucks, a /24 (or less) is a
pretty low-pain thing to renumber (vs. say, renumbering a /20 or shorter
prefix?) In an ideal world, you never have to renumber because your
allocations were perfect from the get-go.
We've all been to the other, more
Deepak Jain wrote:
Can we all agree that while renumbering sucks, a /24 (or less) is a
pretty low-pain thing to renumber (vs. say, renumbering a /20 or
shorter prefix?) In an ideal world, you never have to renumber because
your allocations were perfect from the get-go.
Depends - If you're an
William Herrin wrote:
I have a client who needs to multihome with multiple vendors for
reliability purposes, currently in the Northern Virginia area and
later on with a fail-over site, probably in Hawaii. They have only a
very modest need for bandwidth and addresses (think: T1's and a few
dozen
Tony Varriale wrote:
Thanks for the info. We needed larger than /22 anyways.
I am a bit surprised that they will hand out a small allocaiton for
multihomers. These days it's very easy to do. And, could be a easy way
to horde some v4.
Nope, you can horde a /24 for a single device, but
Jack Bates wrote:
I had the same issue. Add to that recursive DNS servers and the
support issues of everything that depends on them in and not in your
direct control.
Indeed. I recall Proxy ARP and a lot of NAT was involved :) At least you
can keep track of the people who didn't update their
Sean Figgins wrote:
Now, I have a question about this... Is the customer using the sites
for redundancy, and will have both upstream providers in each site?
Honestly, a small operation like this may be better served by multiple
connections to the same provider. Such a setup can usually be
On Sat, 17 May 2008 23:53:00 -0400
Drew Weaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm wondering if anyone else has run into this/has heard of/(is responsible
for)/knows the reason behind large IP providers limiting ICMP on outbound
connections to the same amounts regardless of the size of the circuit?
Yep, agreed, we need to update those docs. The basic ICMP filtering
guide still resides here, and comments are welcome:
http://www.cymru.com/Documents/icmp-messages.html
John Kristoff wrote:
On Sat, 17 May 2008 23:53:00 -0400
Drew Weaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm wondering if anyone
/me dons the NANOG PC Chair hat again
Lightning talk submissions for NANOG42 are now open:
http://nanogpc.org/lightning/
Lightning talks are short talks of interest to the audience in line
with the rest of the program. They are strictly limited to 10 minutes
(including questions). Lightning
hat org=NANOG group=program committee role=chair
howdy,
NANOG42 will take place in brooklyn, NY in about a week and a half.
there are two new socials (you can read socials as free drinks and
snacks) that have been added to the agenda at
http://nanog.org/mtg-0806/agenda.html
* equinix is
. o O ( i'm thinking about just leaving this program committee chair
hat on)
the call for volunteers to the nanog program committee (originally
sent:
http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2008-April/000153.html
) has been extended through the end of the weekend (to sunday, 25 may
2008).
Seth Mattinen wrote:
About two years ago, maybe less, Sprint was doing some maintenance in
California and was moving stuff through an alternate path in Arizona.
However, while the CA path was off, someone took a backhoe to the AZ
path. Neither the planned outage, the cut, nor myself were in
Yup. You can horde.
You can easily justify a /23 these days and not be multihomed still get a
/22.
tv
- Original Message -
From: Pete Templin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Tony Varriale [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 3:32 PM
Subject: Re: [NANOG]
I worked for an ISP that was bought by another ISP and had to assign all
new IP's roughly a /16 worth. Good times. Only one ASN thank goodness
-Original Message-
From: Deepak Jain [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 4:09 PM
To: nanog list
Subject: Re: Renumbering,
It's always been possible to get resources by lying or committing
fraud - the common law crime of obtaining property by false pretenses
predates the Internet by a substantial margin.
---rob
Tony Varriale [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yup. You can horde.
I got a /22 in January, and was told by someone from ARIN that the
policy below only applied to allocations to ISP's, not to assignments
for end customers. At the time, they said an end user must show at
least 25% immediate usage (so a /24) and that there was no requirement
for future usage. In
24 matches
Mail list logo
