On Thu, 17 Dec 2009, James Hess wrote:
Other tricks may be more obscure, will be less obvious that you don't
want mail, and may look like a mistake -- you might even get visitors to
your domain contacting you to report the broken MX record.
I think that's true with the suggestions in the rest
Hello there..
I am looking to sell and buy some used hardware, where is the best place for
this, other than ebay ?
Mostly juniper stuff
thanks in advance.
Mehmet
Craigslist
Sent from my iPhone 3GS.
On Dec 18, 2009, at 7:34 AM, Mehmet Akcin meh...@akcin.net wrote:
Hello there..
I am looking to sell and buy some used hardware, where is the best
place for this, other than ebay ?
Mostly juniper stuff
thanks in advance.
Mehmet
I concur, in fact I see them come in at precisely the wrong order, lowest
preference first in the hopes that we're not running spam filtering on those
particular hosts.
I have found that putting a bogus mx record at lowest preference slows stuff
down though.
One of my services is for a company
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Mehmet Akcin wrote:
Hello there..
I am looking to sell and buy some used hardware, where is the best place for
this, other than ebay ?
Mostly juniper stuff
network-res...@network-resell.com
--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
just an FYI they are down for a week or so while they relocate that
list serv, suppose to be back up in about a week.
Brian
On Dec 18, 2009, at 9:19 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Mehmet Akcin wrote:
Hello there..
I am looking to sell and buy some used hardware,
Ted Hardie wrote:
Silly question: how well would using 1.0.0.257.in-addr.arpa match the
need identified in draft-jabley-sink-arpa ?
It seems like it would be equally well guaranteed to be non-existant
(short of change in the def of IPv4 and in-addr.arpa). Like
sink.arpa, it would get you a
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Jason Bertoch wrote:
Isn't the fundamental problem that SMTP can fall back to an implicit MX?
None of these solutions will stop spammers from skipping MX records and
using direct-to-host connections.
This has nothing to do with spam.
Shouldn't we just consider dropping
Tony Finch wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Jason Bertoch wrote:
Isn't the fundamental problem that SMTP can fall back to an implicit MX?
None of these solutions will stop spammers from skipping MX records and
using direct-to-host connections.
This has nothing to do with spam.
For the OP in the
I have posted sa comment on this from ISOC England on
http://www.isoc-ny.org/p2/?p=134
Please feel free to add comments there.
--
---
Joly MacFie 917 442 8665 Skype:punkcast
WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
http://pinstand.com -
I wouldn't call it impossible...difficult, maybe. Do metrics exist on
how many current installs still rely on the implicit MX? Is the abuse
of the implicit MX causing more harm than the effort it would take
legacy DNS admins to specify an MX?
If I understand your question, you're
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Joly MacFie wrote:
I have posted sa comment on this from ISOC England on
http://www.isoc-ny.org/p2/?p=134
Please feel free to add comments there.
If anyone has questions about this, the invited experts who managed to
wedge their feet in the door at the
There is also a discussion of this going on on the IETF discuss list.
Regards
Marshall
On Dec 18, 2009, at 1:19 PM, Joly MacFie wrote:
I have posted sa comment on this from ISOC England on
http://www.isoc-ny.org/p2/?p=134
Please feel free to add comments there.
--
This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet
Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan.
Daily listings are sent to bgp-st...@lists.apnic.net
For historical data, please see http://thyme.apnic.net.
If you have any comments please contact Philip Smith
On Dec 18, 2009, at 1:27 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Joly MacFie wrote:
I have posted sa comment on this from ISOC England on
http://www.isoc-ny.org/p2/?p=134
Please feel free to add comments there.
If anyone has questions about this, the invited experts who managed
We use Network Hardware Resale every couple of months and they are great. I
haven't had experience selling anything to them, only purchasing.
http://www.networkhardware.com/
Ryan G
IT Assistant/Support Technician
Limestone Networks, Inc.
r.gelob...@limestonenetworks.com
On Dec 18, 2009, at 10:32 AM, Steven Bellovin wrote:
Could you post a summary, in appropriate technical terms, of
precisely what is being requested, and what changes to BGP they want?
Really.
I can read tea leaves with the best of them, and the tea leaves I see
tell me the reporter (in
Ted Hardie wrote:
But I think the key question is actually different. Look at this
text in RFC 2821:
If one or more MX RRs are found for a given
name, SMTP systems MUST NOT utilize any A RRs associated with that
name unless they are located using the MX RRs; the implicit MX rule
On Dec 18, 2009, at 1:47 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
On Dec 18, 2009, at 10:32 AM, Steven Bellovin wrote:
Could you post a summary, in appropriate technical terms, of precisely what
is being requested, and what changes to BGP they want?
Really.
I can read tea leaves with the best of
http://www.networkhardware.com/ContactNHR/
Mostly Cisco, but I think they'll do Juniper.
Bill
--
-Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 04:34:05 -0800
-From: Mehmet Akcin meh...@akcin.net
-Subject: used hardware..
-To: nanog@nanog.org list
On 18/12/2009 18:19, Joly MacFie wrote:
I have posted sa comment on this from ISOC England on
http://www.isoc-ny.org/p2/?p=134
Please feel free to add comments there.
I tried to read this article earlier today, but my lolwut meter exploded.
It's not really clear whether the confusion in
I buy a lot of gear from Peter Giberd at Townsend. I have been
working with him for a good 7 years. It's budded into a friendship,
good people there.
-B
http://www.townsendassets.com/
On Dec 18, 2009, at 11:03 AM, Bill Lewis wrote:
http://www.networkhardware.com/ContactNHR/
Mostly
SIIA Chair Simon Tay on Clinton's Asia visit (Bloomberg, 20th Feb 2009):
Steve Engel (Bloomberg): Speaking of provoking, where do you see Hillary
bringing the tact in bringing the issues that Obama wants to raise to the
Chinese in her trip this time. Yuan revaluation is one, and also of course
On Dec 19, 2009, at 1:47 AM, Fred Baker wrote:
I can read tea leaves with the best of them, and the tea leaves I
see tell me the reporter (in the story the blog points to) doesn't
have a clue. What is the substance of the proposal?
The report seemed a reasonably accurate account of what
From the BBC article quoted in the isoc-ny.org link:
An ITU spokesman said: The ITU has no plans to modify the BGP protocol, which
is not an ITU-T standard.
A proposal has been made, and is being studied, to use BGP routers to collect
traffic flow data, which could be used, by bilateral
On Dec 18, 2009, at 2:24 PM, Jonny Martin wrote:
On Dec 19, 2009, at 1:47 AM, Fred Baker wrote:
I can read tea leaves with the best of them, and the tea leaves I
see tell me the reporter (in the story the blog points to) doesn't
have a clue. What is the substance of the proposal?
The
On Dec 19, 2009, at 2:24 AM, Jonny Martin wrote:
Mixing billing with
the reachability information signalled through BGP just doesn't seem
like a good idea.
This is done all the time via combinatorial BGP/NetFlow analysis, for
peering/transit analysis reports, offnet/on-net billing
On Dec 19, 2009, at 2:26 AM, Deepak Jain wrote:
A proposal has been made, and is being studied, to use BGP routers to
collect traffic flow data, which could be used, by bilateral agreement, by
operators for billing purposes.
Lots of 'BGP routers' are used to collect traffic flow data
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Deepak Jain wrote:
ITU is already acknowledging that BGP isn't its baby, so it has nothing
to say there.
Yes, that was the successful (for us) outcome of the meeting, which would
not have been the case had we not been prepared and had people there.
Just to
On Dec 19, 2009, at 1:47 AM, Fred Baker wrote:
But what is all this about is the ITU interested in changing BGP? If the
word metering makes any sense in context, BGP doesn't meter anything.
Neither the reporter nor the Chinese proponents nor the ITU seem to understand
that making use of
On Dec 19, 2009, at 2:49 AM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
The decision on that will mostly be made in mid-March.
By whom?
The RIRs aren't just going to say, OK, ITU folks, it's all yours, heh.
---
Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net
Our results with NHR were a disaster - that's all I'm say on a public list.
I highly recommend Knowledge Computers anytime someone asks - mention my name
as a reference and you'll get a good price for sure ;) Hit me up offline for
contact details should you wish...
Paul
-Original
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
The decision on that will mostly be made in mid-March.
By whom?
A working group of the ITU Council.
The RIRs aren't just going to say, OK, ITU folks, it's all yours, heh.
Indeed not. However, the RIRs don't have a voice in the
Not advocating NHR, but I bought one 6509 switch with several blades
and no trouble for about a year.
-Azher
Paul Stewart wrote:
Our results with NHR were a disaster - that's all I'm say on a public list.
I highly recommend Knowledge Computers anytime someone asks - mention my name
as
My sense is that the ITU has played with such ideas in the past, and
the governments have for the most part found it in their interest to
not screw with the Internet.
Do you have any specific recommendations on how to keep that true?
On Dec 18, 2009, at 12:05 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
Why can't we carry price per kilosegment on BGP ?
And don't be so hard on the ITU folks, the only thing they want to
break is the monopoly of IP address allocation.
J
On Dec 18, 2009, at 12:43 PM, Jorge Amodio wrote:
And don't be so hard on the ITU folks, the only thing they want to
break is the monopoly of IP address allocation.
With all due respect, they don't want to break said monopoly, assuming
one agrees that it is a monopoly (I think there's a
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 2:53 PM, Fred Baker f...@cisco.com wrote:
On Dec 18, 2009, at 12:43 PM, Jorge Amodio wrote:
And don't be so hard on the ITU folks, the only thing they want to break
is the monopoly of IP address allocation.
With all due respect, they don't want to break said
Rackspace seems to have a severe routing loop, which appears to have
taken a lot of sites down. Does anyone have any information on this?
Host
Loss% Last Avg Best Wrst StDev
1.
BGP Update Report
Interval: 10-Dec-09 -to- 17-Dec-09 (7 days)
Observation Point: BGP Peering with AS131072
TOP 20 Unstable Origin AS
Rank ASNUpds % Upds/PfxAS-Name
1 - AS23577 16590 2.0% 24.1 -- ATM-MPLS-AS-KR Korea Telecom
2 - AS28477 13270
This report has been generated at Fri Dec 18 21:11:23 2009 AEST.
The report analyses the BGP Routing Table of AS2.0 router
and generates a report on aggregation potential within the table.
Check http://www.cidr-report.org for a current version of this report.
Recent Table History
Date
And don't be so hard on the ITU folks, the only thing they want to
break is the monopoly of IP address allocation.
That's OK with me if they're willing to let the IETF break the
monopoly on telephone number allocation.
R's,
John
On Dec 18, 2009, at 1:58 PM, Justin T. Sharp wrote:
Rackspace seems to have a severe routing loop, which appears to have
taken a lot of sites down. Does anyone have any information on this?
http://status.mosso.com/2009/12/cloud-sites-dfw-investigating-current-issue.html
In message 4b2bcea2.7010...@i6ix.com, Jason Bertoch writes:
Ted Hardie wrote:
But I think the key question is actually different. Look at this
text in RFC 2821:
If one or more MX RRs are found for a given
name, SMTP systems MUST NOT utilize any A RRs associated with that
Nobody here remembers ICAIS?
This is actually an old story/ambition, which started elsewhere, and
not long after the the 1997-1998 rebalancing of ITU-mediated
switched telecom settlements.
Two nuggets from the history books pasted in below.
Of course, just because it's not new doesn't mean
This may be slightly off topic however I have a very unique situation
where I need to provide two diverse paths to a major stock exchange.
Each host may either use route A or B for any given reason to access
this particular exchange using two distinct routers and target address.
The
rodrick brown wrote:
This may be slightly off topic however I have a very unique situation
where I need to provide two diverse paths to a major stock exchange.
Each host may either use route A or B for any given reason to access
this particular exchange using two distinct routers and target
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 19:46:42 EST, rodrick brown said:
The applicatiOn running on these hosts must only see/use one target
address this needs to be transparent as possible. NIC bonding/teaming
on the host side isn't a viable solution because of the latency
overhead same goes for
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 1:24 PM, Jonny Martin jo...@pch.net wrote:
On Dec 19, 2009, at 1:47 AM, Fred Baker wrote:
..
modified if need be - to achieve this. Mixing billing with the reachability
information signalled through BGP just doesn't seem like a good idea.
Indeed not.. but it might
On Dec 19, 2009, at 11:09 AM, James Hess wrote:
Otherwise, new router hardware could more easily provide suitable counters
and IPFIX data (with suitable changes to ip flow export formats) to track the
tarrifs due to all tarrif payee IDs, or whatever that would be.
Existing hardware does
50 matches
Mail list logo
