On Thu, Jan 22, 2009, Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
> I realise that CDNs probably aren't that keen on people caching as it
> reduces their revenue, but a level of being rational about helping the
> whole chain deliver means probably more traffic overall.
I mean, I could extend an olive branch t
Arbor had a good writeup on the traffic that they saw.
http://asert.arbornetworks.com/2009/01/the-great-obama-traffic-flood/
Regards,
James Pleger
On Jan 21, 2009, at 7:14 PM, Ong Beng Hui wrote:
Is there a general study done on the overall impact of inauguration
streaming traffic ?
any
Surely the whole point of this is that the end users (the eyeballs)
get the best experience they can as they're the ultimate consumer. So
working with everyone in the chain between the content owner and the
eyeballs is important.
If you're a content owner then you want the experience to be
Is there a general study done on the overall impact of inauguration
streaming traffic ?
any summary on what is the overall gain of bandwidth, etc.
Mark Andrews writes:
> Authoritative servers need a cache. Authoritative servers
> need to ask queries. The DNS protocol has evolved since
> RFC 1034 and RFC 1035 and authoritative servers need to
> translate named to addresses for their own use.
>
> See RFC 1996,
In message <497705bd.33e4.009...@globalstar.com>, "Crist Clark" writes:
> >>> On 1/20/2009 at 7:23 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> > In message <20090121140825.xwdzd4p64kgwo...@web1.nswh.com.au>,=20
> > j...@miscreant.or=20
> > g writes:
> >> > On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 9:16 PM, Kameron Gasso =
> wro
Interesting read on yesterday's streaming. My experiences seem to
mirror a lot of what is written here:
http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/01/21/the-day-live-web-video-streaming-failed-us/
-Jim P.
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> This doesn't provide feed-back to the content distributors on partial
> downloads, etc - which is useful information to content providers, if
> you're into data mining end-user browsing habits. In the specific case of
> Youtube, of course I don't kn
On Jan 21, 2009, at 4:38 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
Excellent idea. It is a shame content owners do not see the utility
in your idea.
To bring this back to an operational topic, just because a content
owner does not want to work with someone on this, does the lack of
external bandwidth / infrastr
On 21/01/2009 21:30, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Jan 21, 2009, at 11:07 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
Finding ways to force object revalidation by an intermediary cache (so
the end origin server knows something has been fetched) and thus
allowing the cache to serve the content on behalf of the conten
> Excellent idea. It is a shame content owners do not see the utility
> in your idea.
>
> To bring this back to an operational topic, just because a content
> owner does not want to work with someone on this, does the lack of
> external bandwidth / infrastructure / whatever make it "OK" to
On Jan 21, 2009, at 11:07 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
Google is not the only company which will put caches into any
provider
- or school (which is really just a special case provider) - with
enough traffic. A school with 30 machines probably would
On Wed, 2009-01-21 at 12:27 -0500, Phil Rosenthal wrote:
> Representing ISPrime here.
Well... representing myself and nobody else, so if that stretches my
credibility thin so be it.
> It's somewhat absurd to suggest that we are attacking our own
> nameservers, I assure you, we didn't spend many
Once upon a time, Crist Clark said:
> Another BIND-specific question since we're on the topic. I see
> some of our authorative servers being hit with these spoofs, and
> yes, the 9.3.5-P1 (that's what Sun supports in Solaris these
> days) were sending back answers from the cache... but wait...
> w
>>> On 1/20/2009 at 7:23 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> In message <20090121140825.xwdzd4p64kgwo...@web1.nswh.com.au>,
> j...@miscreant.or
> g writes:
>> > On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 9:16 PM, Kameron Gasso wro=
>> te:
>>
>> > We're also seeing a great number of these, but the idiots spoofing the
>> >
COWs are more or less full sites - so standard N concurrent voice
calls per carrier (check out the CDMA standard if you're really
interested), times the number of carriers. They can do 850+PCS all
carrier if configured that way. If we can grab fiber from a nearby
building that's best (hence why thi
Just curious on that note with COW .. did you have much security related
problems setting up stuff nearby?
-Original Message-
From: Mike Lyon [mailto:mike.l...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 1:52 PM
To: Jack Carrozzo
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: inauguration streams revie
How many simultaneous connections can each COW handle? What kind of backhaul
connections do they have?
-Mike
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Jack Carrozzo wrote:
> I can't comment on revenue-generation, though access as a whole was quite
> high.
>
> We hardly had any voice IAs (Ineffective A
I can't comment on revenue-generation, though access as a whole was quite high.
We hardly had any voice IAs (Ineffective Attempts, or 'Busy'
messages). Since data can be queued, the only thing that would cause
data IAs are bad RF conditions - we had a TON of 'cell on wheels' in
the area for the ev
On Tue, 20 Jan 2009, Jack Carrozzo wrote:
Cell networks held up reasonably well for voice, though SMS and MMS
delivery times approached an hour during the event. Switch load in
almost the entire US was higher than midnight on New Years (which is
generally the highest load of the year).
Our netw
Graeme Fowler wrote:
On Tue, 2009-01-20 at 14:55 -0600, Todd T. Fries forwarded:
I've been seeing a lot of noise from the latter two addresses after
switching on query logging (and finishing an application of Team Cymru's
excellent template) so I decided to DROP traffic from the addresses
(wit
On Wed, 21 Jan 2009, Phil Rosenthal wrote:
This attack has been ongoing on 66.230.128.15/66.230.160.1 for about 24 hours
now, and we are receiving roughly 5Gbit of attack packets from roughly
750,000 hosts.
I'm only receiving NS queries for "." from spoofed 66.230.128.15 and
66.230.160.1 via a
Can't some upstream provider find a source of the DNS NS . questions
that is other than isprime?
On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 11:47 AM, Henry Linneweh
wrote:
> http://www.networkthinktank.com/
> http://www.completewhois.com
>
> are there any replacement services for these vanished services?
>
> -henry
>
I have been using http://www.robtex.com/ with success.
--
Timothy G. O'Brien, CISSP, GSEC,
-Original Message-
From: Graeme Fowler [mailto:gra...@graemef.net]
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 11:08 AM
To: Nanog Mailing list
Subject: Re: isprime DOS in progress
> I've been seeing a lot of noise from the latter two addresses after
> switching on query logging (and finishing an
Hello,
Representing ISPrime here.
This attack has been ongoing on 66.230.128.15/66.230.160.1 for about
24 hours now, and we are receiving roughly 5Gbit of attack packets
from roughly 750,000 hosts.
It's somewhat absurd to suggest that we are attacking our own
nameservers, I assure you, w
Hi, folks:
We (IDR Chairs and co-authors) are working on updating RFC 4893
regarding the handling of the confed related segments in the AS4_PATH
attribute. Expect to have the revised draft this week.
Thanks.-- Enke
Rob Shakir wrote:
Hi,
Further to the initial research sent to NANOG, af
On Tue, 2009-01-20 at 14:55 -0600, Todd T. Fries forwarded:
> From: ISPrime Support
> These are the result of a spoofed dns recursion attack against our servers.
> The actual packets in question (the ones reaching your servers) do NOT
> originate from our network as such there is no way for us
Hey all,
Can anyone point to a good power-point template/presentation for metric and
cost analysis for routing? I will not plagiarize unless; I am given copyright
permission :-). Seriously, anyone have one handy, I am under the press to
complete a presentation before Friday morning.
Thanks
> policy was consistent with their Do No Harm motto?
Google's motto is Do No Evil, not Do No Harm.
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
I do not work for GOOG or YouTube, I do not know why they do what they
do. However, it is trivial to think up perfectly valid reasons for
Google to intentionally break caches on YouTube content (e.g. paid
advertising per download).
Doesn't matter if you have small
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> On Jan 21, 2009, at 8:17 AM, Jon Lewis wrote:
>
>> As for the "you're not allowed to prepend" thing, have you
>> experimented to see what happens if you try? Unless they're giving
>> you special pricing based on the idea that they're providing you
>> with strictly backu
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> Google is not the only company which will put caches into any provider
> - or school (which is really just a special case provider) - with
> enough traffic. A school with 30 machines probably would not
> qualify. This is not being mean, thi
Jon Lewis wrote:
On Tue, 20 Jan 2009, mike wrote:
Assuming you're getting full routes from this provider, I wouldn't be
surprised if the multihop is required because their router you're
connected to doesn't have or can't handle full BGP routes.
There is a fairly large Tier 1 US provider w
> The Beeb's HD multicast feed is about 23Mbit/s to the host, and we received
> it at quite decent (subjective) quality here on a JANET-connected university
> site.
This is full broadcast HD, exactly the same as we have on satellite.
We don't consider it generally usable, it's part of IPTV serv
On Jan 21, 2009, at 8:17 AM, Jon Lewis wrote:
As for the "you're not allowed to prepend" thing, have you
experimented to see what happens if you try? Unless they're giving
you special pricing based on the idea that they're providing you
with strictly backup transit, they shouldn't be doing
On Jan 21, 2009, at 12:25 AM, mike wrote:
Hello,
So I am just wondering what my expecations should be in a bgp
peering scenario where I am multihomed with my own ASN and arin
assigned ip space. At issue is the fact that my backup isp forced me
to use ebgp multihop to peer with a router i
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123240330058595471.html -- no idea if
you have to be a subscriber or not.
--Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
On Jan 20, 2009, at 6:31 PM, David W. Hankins wrote:
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 12:54:32PM -0800, Wil Schultz wrote:
Anyone else noticing "." requests coming in to your DNS servers?
http://isc.sans.org/diary.html?storyid=5713
I was surprised to see 'amplification' in the subject line here, since
On Tue, 20 Jan 2009, mike wrote:
So I am just wondering what my expecations should be in a bgp peering
scenario where I am multihomed with my own ASN and arin assigned ip space. At
issue is the fact that my backup isp forced me to use ebgp multihop to peer
with a router internal to their netwo
On 2009-01-21, Kameron Gasso wrote:
> Christopher Morrow wrote:
>> a point to bear in mind here is that... 'its working' is good enough
>> for the bad folks :( no need to optimize when this works. Also, it's
>> likely this isn't all of the problem the spoofed requestors are seeing
>> these past fe
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 12:38:11PM -0500, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 12:26 PM, Brian Wallingford wrote:
> > On Tue, 20 Jan 2009, Jay Hennigan wrote:
> >
> > :We're a regional ISP, about 80% SMB 20% residential. We're seeing
> > :almost double our normal downstream traffic
Hi,
Further to the initial research sent to NANOG, after discussions with a number
of operators, we have compiled some recommendations on the handling of invalid
AS4_PATH attributes.
Any feedback on these recommendations is appreciated:
As discussed on the IETF IDR list last month, there are co
43 matches
Mail list logo
