Hi all,
Would I be able to get an ATT mail administrator to contact me off-list? We've
recently moved our mailservers to a new IP address range, and the standard CGI
forms haven't produced any progress for us in over a week now. Unfortunately
this affects dozens of hosted clients...
The CGI
On 24.11 08:48, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
RIS Routing History for AS1712 since 2001:
...
PS: And yes we are going to make the REX tool for querying ASes available
soon.
Keep watching labs.ripe.net.
OK, by popular demand: Before we release the nicely presented version, here
is a direct
RIS Routing History for AS1712 since 2001:
on what date was AS1712 assigned to the current RIPE holder?
randy
At 18:29 24/11/2009 +0900, Randy Bush wrote:
RIS Routing History for AS1712 since 2001:
on what date was AS1712 assigned to the current RIPE holder?
Based on:
ftp://ftp.ripe.net/pub/stats/ripencc/delegated-ripencc-latest
it doesn't show AS1712 ever being allocated to Renater (probably why
* Christopher Morrow:
In all seriousness though, how does this get fixed?
AS number translation, perhaps?
But more seriously, in general, it is impossible to tell if a conflict
between RIPE and ARIN is real, or is the result of lack of updates
after mergers and acquisitions on one of the
I've been using the RAD products for years. The price is right and they are
extremely reliable.
On Nov 23, 2009, at 12:25 PM, Brad Fleming wrote:
Hello all,
My company is searching for some Ethernet over DS3 converters / adaptors for
a specific installation. I see several options from
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Brad Fleming bdflem...@kanren.net wrote:
Hello all,
My company is searching for some Ethernet over DS3 converters / adaptors for
a specific installation. I see several options from Adtran, RAD-Direct, and
a couple other (smaller) vendors and was wondering if
Paul Stewart escreveu:
Hi folks...
Anyone have much experience with outsourcing antispam/antivirus to
Tucows? We use Postini today and are overall pleased. The Tucows
pricing seems to be MUCH lower so curious on any feedback...
Thanks,
Paul
I personally run Postini,
At 0:32 -0500 11/24/09, Jon Lewis wrote:
Lots of ASNs have been assigned but aren't visible in the global table.
And not all global networks (needing unique numbering) connect to the
global public internet.
At 8:36 +0100 11/24/09, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
Yes, very good idea. And to
Long time ago I assited on consultation for this device. Probably
provide what you are looking for:
http://www.zhone.com/products/ETHX-2200-DS3/
On Tue, 2009-11-24 at 07:31 -0500, Jason Rowley wrote:
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Brad Fleming bdflem...@kanren.net
wrote:
Hello all,
My
Here is another product family that supports also GE over PDH.
http://telrad.com/pages/products/eopdh-cpe.aspx
Regards,
Uri Joskovitch
VP Product Management
Telrad Products Division
Telrad Networks
Office:+972-73-2467-195
Fax: +972-73-2467-592
Assistant:
Group,
I am having an issue with activating a Gige interface
between a Cisco 7206 VXR w/IO-1GE module to a 7606 w/sup720-3bxls
connecting to a line module WS-X6416-GBIC. I have verified that the
GBIC-MMF have good light reading and the MMF fiber jumper are not
reversed. The
If memory serves me right, Randy Bush wrote:
is there a freebsd pam tacacs+ hack?
Yep. Haven't actually used it though.
PAM_TACPLUS(8) FreeBSD System Manager's Manual
PAM_TACPLUS(8)
NAME
pam_tacplus -- TACACS+ authentication PAM module
Bruce.
signature.asc
Description:
Hello Michael:
-Original Message-
From: Michael Ruiz [mailto:mr...@telwestservices.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 8:02 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Help -- Having trouble trying to activate a GigE
connection
Group,
I am having an issue with
Patrick Tracanelli wrote:
Brad Laue escreveu:
Hi all,
Would I be able to get an ATT mail administrator to contact me off-list? We've
recently moved our mailservers to a new IP address range, and the standard CGI
forms haven't produced any progress for us in over a week now. Unfortunately
I actually have seen where you have to hard set to speed 1000 to get this
type of link up, even Cisco to Cisco.
-Scott
-Original Message-
From: Michael K. Smith - Adhost [mailto:mksm...@adhost.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 11:25 AM
To: Michael Ruiz; nanog@nanog.org
I don't think there is any reason to have hard-set speed and duplex,
particularly between two Cisco's. Why not just set *both* sides (you
can't set just one) to auto-negotation - 'no speed nonegotiate' on the
7606 side. Is this a straight shot, single fiber pair between the two
or are there
On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 11:50:54 EST, Brad Laue said:
maintained. I'm unclear as to why mail administrators don't work more
proactively with things like SenderID and SPF, as these seem to be far
more maintainable in the long-run than an ever-growing list of IP
address ranges.
There's a
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 07:51:29AM +0100, Leland Vandervort wrote:
Essentially, for all of the MEC connections, the VSS has created a clone
of the configured port-channel to bind the actual physical connections,
rather than binding them under the configured port-channel (and suffixed
the
On Nov 24, 2009, at 1:57 PM, Tony Finch wrote:
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009, Jared Mauch wrote:
I don't see operators jumping at the idea of central trust anchor
myself, no more than I see everyone ready to sign the root zone.
You know the root zone is supposed to be signed next week?
John Curran wrote:
On Nov 23, 2009, at 10:50 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
In all seriousness though, how does this get fixed?
It's being addressed now, but requires both RIPE and ARIN to work with the respective ASN holders. Standby for an update once that step has been completed.
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 3:01 PM, sfou...@shortestpathfirst.net wrote:
AS 701 Verizon Business (formerly UUNet) has a POP in Miami I believe, and
they connect directly into their AS in LatAm.
of course showing up at terramark's NoTA would also get you lots of
options (and I think 701 has one
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009, Darren Bolding wrote:
I need to identify a quality data cabling contractor in the Bay Area
Kray Cabling. http://kraycablinginc.com/
-Bill
Hank Nussbacher wrote:
At 18:29 24/11/2009 +0900, Randy Bush wrote:
RIS Routing History for AS1712 since 2001:
on what date was AS1712 assigned to the current RIPE holder?
Based on:
ftp://ftp.ripe.net/pub/stats/ripencc/delegated-ripencc-latest
it doesn't show AS1712 ever being allocated to
Thanks Ross,
In this case, though I cannot see where the mismatch is given that the
encapsulation, trunking (vlans allowed, etc.) and channel mode (LACP)
are all configured identically across all ports and the channel itself.
Just wondering if it's a left-over from before the VSS migration
Of course if it was already assigned when IANA said that (no dates on
the link above) then maybe the fault is more IANA's for telling another
RIR that they could allocate an ASN that another RIR already allocated.
i suspect that, in the erx project, there may have been more than one
case of
valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 11:50:54 EST, Brad Laue said:
maintained. I'm unclear as to why mail administrators don't work more
proactively with things like SenderID and SPF, as these seem to be far
more maintainable in the long-run than an ever-growing list of IP
Justin Shore wrote:
Hank Nussbacher wrote:
At 18:29 24/11/2009 +0900, Randy Bush wrote:
RIS Routing History for AS1712 since 2001:
on what date was AS1712 assigned to the current RIPE holder?
Based on:
ftp://ftp.ripe.net/pub/stats/ripencc/delegated-ripencc-latest
it doesn't show AS1712
the joys of non-uniqueness. ULAs are (going to be) your friends. :)
back in the day, the IANA was pretty careful. the contractors less so.
SRI had the connected and unconnected databases - duplications abounded
and when interconnection occured... renumbering ensued.
this is not a new
On November 24, 2009, Brad Laue wrote:
True, but wouldn't a blacklist of SPF records for known spam issuing
domains be a more maintainable list than an IP block whitelist?
(I'm no doubt missing something very obvious with this question)
Brad
Yes, I think you are :) First of all,
Brad Fleming wrote:
My company is searching for some Ethernet over DS3 converters / adaptors
for a specific installation. I see several options from Adtran,
RAD-Direct, and a couple other (smaller) vendors and was wondering if
anyone out there has suggestions or insights.
Our needs are
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 10:19:33PM +0100, Leland Vandervort wrote:
In this case, though I cannot see where the mismatch is given that the
encapsulation, trunking (vlans allowed, etc.) and channel mode (LACP)
are all configured identically across all ports and the channel itself.
Just
On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:38:33 EST, Brad Laue said:
True, but wouldn't a blacklist of SPF records for known spam issuing
domains be a more maintainable list than an IP block whitelist?
(I'm no doubt missing something very obvious with this question)
140M+ .com where a malicious DNS server in
Looks like of our customers has decided to turn their /24 into a nice little
space spewing machine. Doesn't seem like just one compromised host.
Reverse DNS for most of the /24 are suspicious domains. Each domain used in
the message-id forwards to a single .net which lists their mailing address
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 7:22 PM, Russell Myba rusm...@gmail.com wrote:
Looks like of our customers has decided to turn their /24 into a nice
little space spewing machine. Doesn't seem like just one compromised
host.
Reverse DNS for most of the
On Tue, 24 Nov 2009, Russell Myba wrote:
Looks like of our customers has decided to turn their /24 into a nice little
space spewing machine. Doesn't seem like just one compromised host.
Reverse DNS for most of the /24 are suspicious domains. Each domain used in
the message-id forwards to a
On 2009-11-23, at 21:32, Jon Lewis wrote:
Checking global BGP only works if the ASN is being announced at that
instant.
How do you announce an ASN?
Are you suggesting that I should be able to block the assignment of particular
ASNs by simply including them in an AS_PATH attribute on a
Russell Myba wrote:
Looks like of our customers has decided to turn their /24 into a nice little
space spewing machine. Doesn't seem like just one compromised host.
Reverse DNS for most of the /24 are suspicious domains. Each domain used in
the message-id forwards to a single .net which lists
Checking global BGP only works if the ASN is being announced at that
instant.
How do you announce an ASN?
read a basic bgp primer and look at as-path attribute
frackin' intentionally silly questions
I'm confused. Who are you billing and for what services?
Let's say our direct customer is CustomerA. They seem to buy rackspace from
BusinessB. CustomerA seem to retain BusinessC for IT Solutions even
though all three entities purport to be IT solutions providers.
BusinessC came into the
On 2009-11-24, at 20:02, Randy Bush wrote:
Checking global BGP only works if the ASN is being announced at that
instant.
How do you announce an ASN?
read a basic bgp primer and look at as-path attribute
Right. You can't advertise an ASN; you can only advertise a route and include
an
http://gigaom.com/2009/11/22/how-video-is-changing-the-internet/
Does the FTC's question 106 hurt paid peering or not? 88 comments.
Makes real interesting reading, I must say.
srs
Yes, it's a good old-fashioned Usenet-style flame-fest. Sort of.
It turns out you can say any damn thing you want about peering since
nobody has any facts.
RB
Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
http://gigaom.com/2009/11/22/how-video-is-changing-the-internet/
Does the FTC's question 106 hurt
Right. You can't advertise an ASN
you can only advertise a route and include an AS_PATH attribute on it
which makes mention of a particular AS number.
that bit of biff-like pedantry quickly leads to you can't advertise a
prefix. a bgp announcement has, in the case of ip unicast, an nlri and,
* rich...@bennett.com (Richard Bennett) [Wed 25 Nov 2009, 05:56 CET]:
It turns out you can say any damn thing you want about peering since
nobody has any facts.
You're projecting.
-- Niels.
On Tue, 24 Nov 2009, Joe Abley wrote:
On 2009-11-23, at 21:32, Jon Lewis wrote:
Checking global BGP only works if the ASN is being announced at that instant.
How do you announce an ASN?
Ok...bad wording. s/announced/used to announce or propagate one or more
routes/
Are you suggesting
It turns out you can say any damn thing you want about peering since
nobody has any facts.
not really. it's just that those with the facts have no reason to blab
them and reasons not to do so.
randy
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 8:52 AM, Russell Myba rusm...@gmail.com wrote:
Looks like of our customers has decided to turn their /24 into a nice little
space spewing machine. Doesn't seem like just one compromised host.
Reverse DNS for most of the /24 are suspicious domains. Each domain used in
I haven't found a good source who knows what's going on outside his own
network.
Randy Bush wrote:
It turns out you can say any damn thing you want about peering since
nobody has any facts.
not really. it's just that those with the facts have no reason to blab
them and reasons not to
On 11/25/09, Richard Bennett rich...@bennett.com wrote:
It turns out you can say any damn thing you want about peering since
nobody has any facts.
Indeed you can. This is one of things where the people with the hard
facts aren't talking due to NDA, regard for their pride, or both. In
the
Speculation about how the money flows is a worthwhile activity.
Paul Wall wrote:
On 11/25/09, Richard Bennett [1]rich...@bennett.com wrote:
It turns out you can say any damn thing you want about peering since
nobody has any facts.
Indeed you can. This is one of things where the people
On 2009-11-24, at 20:58, Randy Bush wrote:
Right. You can't advertise an ASN
you can only advertise a route and include an AS_PATH attribute on it
which makes mention of a particular AS number.
that bit of biff-like pedantry quickly leads to you can't advertise a
prefix.
Apologies if the
Of course, the FCC/FTC could always get involved and mandate full
disclosure and peering neutrality.
That might be fun.
RB
Richard Bennett wrote:
Speculation about how the money flows is a worthwhile activity.
Paul Wall wrote:
On 11/25/09, Richard Bennett [1]rich...@bennett.com wrote:
and in the absence of source routing, why would I care what happens
past the first hop? to the extent I can know, document, and prove
my internal network and its connectivity to its peers, that becomes
the item of value, the reputation of the network and its treatment
of its peers,
On November 24, 2009, Russell Myba wrote:
Spamhaus is the first one that comes to mind. From what I understand of
your description, this doesn't sound all that different from typical
spammer behavior. Multiple layers of indirection seems to be the latest
thing for spammers.
Depends on
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 1:34 AM, Joe Abley jab...@hopcount.ca wrote:
It seems to me that at some point we need to stop trying to put dresses on
the pig.
how, given where we are today, do you do that? I agree that presence
of an ASN in routing data (in as_paths really) isn't proof of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 10:55 PM, Michael Peddemors
mich...@linuxmagic.com wrote:
Depends on the activity, but this re-iterates the importance of
maintaining correct SWIP, so that only the offenders get listed, and not
bordering
customers.
Russell Myba wrote:
Let's say our direct customer is CustomerA. They seem to buy rackspace from
BusinessB. CustomerA seem to retain BusinessC for IT Solutions even
though all three entities purport to be IT solutions providers.
BusinessC came into the picture after the spamming started saying
On 25.11 06:21, Randy Bush wrote:
Of course if it was already assigned when IANA said that (no dates on
the link above) then maybe the fault is more IANA's for telling another
RIR that they could allocate an ASN that another RIR already allocated.
i suspect that, in the erx project,
59 matches
Mail list logo
