Michael Sokolov wrote:
> Another possible way to solve the middle mile issue would again be to
> use the copper plant that's already in the ground. Unlike fiber, the
> copper plant is *ubiquitous*: I don't know of any place in the 1st or
> 2nd worlds that doesn't have copper pairs going to it. Al
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 10:10 PM, Tim Durack wrote:
> Same way you cool the top of a rack in a cold/hot aisle system. Blow
> cold air up the front of the rack. We measure temperature at select
> points in the rack. Keep the hottest spot below set point, and
> everything is fine. The physics aren't
>> We have/are building new datacenters with a raised floor plenum. Air
>> is directed into the racks from below, and ducted out of the top. No
>> hot/cold aisle, just lots of cold air to cool the equipment. It's an
>> AFCO rack design. Seems to be efficient so far.
>
> How do you measure efficienc
On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 17:08:50 EST, David Conrad said:
> On Mar 5, 2010, at 1:21 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > Ah, but, that assumes that the need is located in a similar part of the
> > network
> > to the reclamation, or, that the point of reclamation can be sufficiently
> > motivated
> > to do so by
On Mar 6, 2010, at 6:08 AM, David Conrad wrote:
> On Mar 5, 2010, at 1:21 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> The interesting question is at what point _can_ you do what you want
>>> without IPv4. It seems obvious that that point will be after the IPv4 free
>>> pool is exhausted, and as such, allocated
On Mar 5, 2010, at 1:33 PM, Zachary Frederick wrote:
> We have been having a problem emailing to a customer whose server is hosted
> by The Planet (http://www.theplanet.com/). Our mail server is hosted in-house
> on a comcast business connection.
>
> IP address of our server is: 173.13.45.23
>
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 1:33 PM, Zachary Frederick wrote:
> We have been having a problem emailing to a customer whose server is hosted
> by The Planet (http://www.theplanet.com/). Our mail server is hosted in-house
> on a comcast business connection.
>
> IP address of our server is: 173.13.45.23
On 3/5/2010 06:38, Cameron Byrne wrote:
> There is one of other catch with NAT64 and IPv6-only. It breaks
> communications with IPv4 literals. Now, you might says that IPv4
> literals in URLs are very seldom well ... have a look at how
> Akamai does a lot of their streaming. I just hope it do
On Mar 5, 2010, at 3:33 PM, Zachary Frederick wrote:
> We have been having a problem emailing to a customer whose server is hosted
> by The Planet (http://www.theplanet.com/). Our mail server is hosted in-house
> on a comcast business connection.
I don't know what's going on in the Comcast net
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 05:31:38PM -0500, Greg Whynott wrote:
> Hello,
>
> We received a /21 from ARIN a year or so ago which we have been
> using. At the time I noticed Bell was advertising a longer CIDR
> which included ours. I contacted Bell, they said it would be
> corrected, multiple tim
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 5:31 PM, Greg Whynott wrote:
> Hello,
>
> We received a /21 from ARIN a year or so ago which we have been using. At
> the time I noticed Bell was advertising a longer
> CIDR which included ours. I contacted Bell, they said it would be corrected,
> multiple times.
short
Hello,
We received a /21 from ARIN a year or so ago which we have been using. At the
time I noticed Bell was advertising a longer CIDR which included ours. I
contacted Bell, they said it would be corrected, multiple times.
Who I might contact to have this resolved?
Thanks for your time,
On 03/05/2010 01:48 PM, David Conrad wrote:
> On Mar 5, 2010, at 10:44 AM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>> If this is done right, direct assignment holders and ISPs are
>> issued sufficiently large prefixes such that the prefix count per
>> entity remains small.
>
> This sort of assumes Internet connecti
On Mar 5, 2010, at 1:21 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> The interesting question is at what point _can_ you do what you want without
>> IPv4. It seems obvious that that point will be after the IPv4 free pool is
>> exhausted, and as such, allocated-but-not-efficiently-used addresses will
>> likely bec
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 10:16 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
>> there is a real danger here ... wholesale adoption of a
>> translation technology, esp one that is integrated into
>> the network kind of ensures that it will never get pulled out -
>> or that the enduser will have a
This report has been generated at Fri Mar 5 21:11:26 2010 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
BGP Update Report
Interval: 25-Feb-10 -to- 04-Mar-10 (7 days)
Observation Point: BGP Peering with AS131072
TOP 20 Unstable Origin AS
Rank ASNUpds % Upds/PfxAS-Name
1 - AS17974 23415 1.3% 24.9 -- TELKOMNET-AS2-AP PT
Telekomunikasi Indonesia
2 - AS31055
On Mar 5, 2010, at 10:44 AM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> If this is done right, direct assignment holders and ISPs are issued
> sufficiently large prefixes such that the prefix count per entity
> remains small.
This sort of assumes Internet connectivity models of today, specifically that
most address a
I've had no problems with it. We also have routers attached to
Ethernet (both our own switches and external Layer 1 or Layer 2
Ethernet private circuits), and we had similar problems of
uncomfortably long time-to-detection. Our routers were too old to run
BFD, and I'm not sure what the like
That length you're probably going to need Raman amps. As others have
mentioned, if you're planning on 10G or higher you'll need to think about
Chromatic and Polarization dispersion. If the fiber is still in the process
of being laid it shouldn't be too bad assuming the fiber is of high quality.
On Mar 5, 2010, at 4:33 PM, Zachary Frederick wrote:
> We have been having a problem emailing to a customer whose server is hosted
> by The Planet (http://www.theplanet.com/). Our mail server is hosted in-house
> on a comcast business connection.
>
> IP address of our server is: 173.13.45.23
>
On 3/5/10 1:33 PM, Zachary Frederick wrote:
> We have been having a problem emailing to a customer whose server is hosted
> by The Planet (http://www.theplanet.com/). Our mail server is hosted in-house
> on a comcast business connection.
>
> IP address of our server is: 173.13.45.23
>
> Custome
We have been having a problem emailing to a customer whose server is hosted by
The Planet (http://www.theplanet.com/). Our mail server is hosted in-house on a
comcast business connection.
IP address of our server is: 173.13.45.23
Customers mail server is: 69.93.203.243
I cannot telnet to port
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 2:15 PM, Wayne E. Bouchard wrote:
> Actually, my experience has been that most of the newer installations
> (last 5-7 years) that I have been able to see where raised floor is
> employed are also doing hot/cold rows.
We have/are building new datacenters with a raised floor
We're having discussion of changing BGP timers rather than using BFD and I'd
like to ask for your operational experiences on this.
We have downstream BGP customers physically attaching to an L2/L3 switch that
doesn't do BGP. So, we logical pipe them through MPLS to a router that can
terminat
It would be helpful to know what type of fiber you are working with...SMF-28(e)
G.652, NZDSF G.655, ...?
You not only need to account for dB loss over the span, but also chromatic
dispersion.
At 1550nm, you can expect <= 0.22 dB/km for SMF-28 G.652 if you have a nice
clean fiber path...possibl
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 3/5/2010 3:36 PM, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
> A dark fiber path was recently ordered to a remote location on our
> network, and to my surprise, the engineering report on the path is
> coming back at around 130 km, which is substantially longer than
On Mar 5, 2010, at 2:36 PM, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
> My gut tells me that the 2-point loss on the span at 1550nm will be somewhere
> around 30-35 dB.
What's your measured chromatic dispersion? You might need
to budget in the hit from compensation too. Some of the
super long range optics h
Hello,
Does anyone know of a good colocation facility in the California
Monterey Bay area? I know of got.net but I am looking for alternatives
to get a good comparison.
Thanks,
Jeroen
A dark fiber path was recently ordered to a remote location on our
network, and to my surprise, the engineering report on the path is coming
back at around 130 km, which is substantially longer than I expected the
span to be.
While I am researching gear that will drive a signal this far withou
On Sat, Mar 06, 2010 at 02:54:42AM +0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On Mar 6, 2010, at 2:41 AM, William Herrin wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> >> Not sure about the purpose of a raised floor if it doesn't create a
> >> plenum, but, the
> >> step forward from rais
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 1:54 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> On Mar 6, 2010, at 2:41 AM, William Herrin wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> Not sure about the purpose of a raised floor if it doesn't create a plenum,
>>> but, the
>>> step forward from raised-floor plenum is
On Mar 6, 2010, at 2:41 AM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> Not sure about the purpose of a raised floor if it doesn't create a plenum,
>> but, the
>> step forward from raised-floor plenum is hot-aisle/cold-aisle which requires
>> a good
>> bit mo
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 01:41:42PM -0500, William Herrin wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > Not sure about the purpose of a raised floor if it doesn't create a plenum,
> > but, the
> > step forward from raised-floor plenum is hot-aisle/cold-aisle which
> > requires
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 .
Routing
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 1:41 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> For the original question: Non-plenum short raised floor can be useful
> if you want to separate your power and data wiring. Other than that, I
> can't see any advantage versus a solid floor and either snake tray or
> other overhead wiring sy
On Mar 6, 2010, at 2:06 AM, Thomas Magill wrote:
>> According to ARIN, _IF_ you meet their requirements for obtaining an
> IPv4
>> block, then, you ALSO automatically meet their requirements for
> obtaining
>> an IPv6 block.
>
> Thank you for the clarification. I am obviously in the very early
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Not sure about the purpose of a raised floor if it doesn't create a plenum,
> but, the
> step forward from raised-floor plenum is hot-aisle/cold-aisle which requires
> a good
> bit more discipline in your datacenter, but, is substantially mor
On Sat, Mar 06, 2010 at 02:23:59AM +0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> Owen (who is very glad these are technologies OTHER people will use)
>
:) My point was not really to push a particular technology, although
we believe ds-lite is worth looking at or ISC wouldn't have
implemented and released it. (A
>
> IVI is stateless, which means it requires 1 to 1 IPv4 to IPv6 mapping.
> NAT64 allows multiplexing.
>
I didn't fully understand it, but, Ma Yan presented IVI with multiplexing
in a stateless environment at APNIC 29.
Owen (who is very glad these are technologies OTHER people will use)
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 12:15 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Jeff McAdams said:
>> Both my previous and current employer, in switching from IPv4 to IPv6
>> will drop from 7 and 4 advertisements (fully aggregated) to 1. I don't
>> anticipate either ever having needs larger than the sin
On Mar 5, 2010, at 10:36 PM, David Conrad wrote:
> Mark,
>
> On Mar 4, 2010, at 11:46 PM, Mark Newton wrote:
>> On 05/03/2010, at 2:50 PM, David Conrad wrote:
>>> When the IPv4 free pool is exhausted, I have a sneaking suspicion you'll
>>> quickly find that reclaiming pretty much any IPv4 space
>
> there is a real danger here ... wholesale adoption of a
> translation technology, esp one that is integrated into
> the network kind of ensures that it will never get pulled out -
> or that the enduser will have a devil of a time routing around
> it when it no lo
http://ws.afnog.org/afnog2009/sie/detail.html
monday afternoon and tuesdays workshop materials cover introduction to
dynamic routing and ospf. thursdays includes the ospf/ibgp intergration
materials.
On 03/05/2010 08:46 AM, Alex Thurlow wrote:
> I have to say that this looks like a nice solution
If I can try to re-rail the train of this discussion a bit...
1. Yes, dual-stacking may require as many IPv4 addresses as IPv6
addresses. However, in this case, I was referring to dual-stacking
as meaning adding IPv6 capabilities to your existing IPv4 hosts and
infras
On Mar 5, 2010, at 11:55 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 10:44 AM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>> On 03/05/2010 05:24 AM, William Herrin wrote:
>>> Joel made a remarkable assertion
>>> that non-aggregable assignments to end users, the ones still needed
>>> for multihoming, would go do
>According to ARIN, _IF_ you meet their requirements for obtaining an
IPv4
>block, then, you ALSO automatically meet their requirements for
obtaining
>an IPv6 block.
Thank you for the clarification. I am obviously in the very early stage
of planning IPv6 for our company with hopes of at least hav
Not sure about the purpose of a raised floor if it doesn't create a plenum,
but, the
step forward from raised-floor plenum is hot-aisle/cold-aisle which requires a
good
bit more discipline in your datacenter, but, is substantially more efficient.
Owen
On Mar 6, 2010, at 12:14 AM, Dorn Hetzel wr
On Mar 6, 2010, at 1:37 AM, Thomas Magill wrote:
>> That brings a question to mind. As an ISP, with IPv4, end sites that
>> are multihoming can justify a /24 from us (or another upstream) and
>> announce it through multiple providers. With IPv6, are they supposed
> to
>> get their block from AR
>That brings a question to mind. As an ISP, with IPv4, end sites that
>are multihoming can justify a /24 from us (or another upstream) and
>announce it through multiple providers. With IPv6, are they supposed
to
>get their block from ARIN directly if they are multihoming? In other
>words, should
Once upon a time, Jeff McAdams said:
> Both my previous and current employer, in switching from IPv4 to IPv6
> will drop from 7 and 4 advertisements (fully aggregated) to 1. I don't
> anticipate either ever having needs larger than the single initial
> allocation they have or would get. Both
On 3/5/10 7:08 AM, David E. Smith wrote:
> As long as we're going off-topic, might as well go all the way :V
>
> How long should a sender (say, Facebook) retain a database of 5xx SMTP
> responses? Just because jim...@school.edu doesn't exist today, doesn't mean
> that James Robert Jones won't enr
OPSF (in this scenario) is easier to set up then BGP...but check out
http://www.openmaniak.com/quagga.php.
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 10:46 -0600, Alex Thurlow wrote:
> I have to say that this looks like a nice solution to me, and I've
> definitely had many people point me to OSPF. One problem is th
I have to say that this looks like a nice solution to me, and I've
definitely had many people point me to OSPF. One problem is that I've
never run OSPF before. Some googling brings of a few results on
implementation, but can someone recommend a good place to look or a book
to get to really ge
<
http://serverspecs.blogs.techtarget.com/2007/07/10/data-center-raised-floor-vs-solid-debate/>
is an excellent article on the matter.
ryan
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 8:38 AM, acv wrote:
> > What is the purpose of raised flooring if it *doesn't *create a plenum?
>
> Cable management, low(er) instal
The Juniper SA is by far and away the market leader and in my opinion the best
end user experience.
On 5 Mar 2010, at 15:57, Dawood Iqbal wrote:
> Hello All,
>
>
>
> Is it possible to get your ideas on what VPN appliances are good to have in
> enterprise network?
>
>
>
> Requirements are;
> What is the purpose of raised flooring if it *doesn't *create a plenum?
Cable management, low(er) install costs and high-load bearing capacity.
Frankly if you're gonna go with that, you're better off bolting the racks
directly to the concrete slab and use Snake Trays for cable management,
easie
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010, Dorn Hetzel wrote:
What is the purpose of raised flooring if it *doesn't *create a plenum?
...cabling? (though I think working under a floor to route cables vs
overhead ladder is a pain..but mixing cabling AND air underfloor is much
worse)
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 10:3
What is the purpose of raised flooring if it *doesn't *create a plenum?
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 10:39 AM, Jason Gurtz wrote:
> A consultant has recommended FreeAxez for the raised floor in a new data
> center. I checked it out and have concerns since it says it does NOT
> create a plenum and can
Hello All,
Is it possible to get your ideas on what VPN appliances are good to have in
enterprise network?
Requirements are;
SSL
IPSec
Client and Web VPN support (Win/MAC/iPhone/Android)
If webvpn is used, then when any user connects via webvpn, we should be able
to re-direct him to any
Is there a NANOG supported/endorsed/recommended job board/list ? I am
sorry if this a bit offtopic.
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 10:44 AM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> On 03/05/2010 05:24 AM, William Herrin wrote:
>> Joel made a remarkable assertion
>> that non-aggregable assignments to end users, the ones still needed
>> for multihoming, would go down under IPv6.
>
> A couple of months ago my then employer
On 03/05/2010 05:24 AM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 11:15 PM, David Conrad wrote:
>> On Mar 4, 2010, at 2:30 PM, William Herrin wrote:
>>> Because we expect far fewer end users to multihome tomorrow than do today?
>>
>> We do?
>>
>> Why do we expect this?
>
> David,
>
> Well
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 09:08 -0600, David E. Smith wrote:
> As long as we're going off-topic, might as well go all the way :V
Well, the conversation has continued here despite repeated mentions of
mai...@mailop.org so unless the MLC deem it off-topic and squash the
thread I guess it'll rumble on.
A consultant has recommended FreeAxez for the raised floor in a new data
center. I checked it out and have concerns since it says it does NOT
create a plenum and cannot be used as an air handling space; it's a
low-profile flooring system.
How would cooling be done in this scenario? Open air (wit
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 03:21:53PM +, Suzanne Woolf wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 12:39:19PM +, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> > er... what part of dual-stack didn't you understand?
> > dual-stack consumes exactly the same number of v4 and v6 addresses.
> >
> >
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 12:39:19PM +, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> er... what part of dual-stack didn't you understand?
> dual-stack consumes exactly the same number of v4 and v6 addresses.
>
> if you expect to dual-stack everything - you need to look again.
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 02:28, Graeme Fowler wrote:
> Fresh operational content: one of the reasons services like Spamcop
> occasionally list services like Facebook is that they don't honour 5xx
> responses to RCPT TO:. I'd offer some statistics but I'm concerned that
> the legal brigade will jump
> the legal brigade will jump down my throat, but I suggest that anyone
> running a system like an academic mail platform take a look at the
> number of invalid recipients services like Facebook try to deliver.
Out of ~1.5m emails on the 3rd, it was only 4 invalid recipients here.
There was one
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 08:40:19AM -0600, Dan White wrote:
> On 05/03/10 12:39 +, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> > er... what part of dual-stack didn't you understand?
> > dual-stack consumes exactly the same number of v4 and v6 addresses.
>
> I would expect the number of v6 ad
On 05/03/10 12:39 +, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
I *wholeheartedly* agree with Owen's assessment. Even spending time
trying to calculate a rebuttal to his numbers is better spent moving
toward dual-stack ;)
Nice.
Steve
er... what part of dual-stack didn't you understand?
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 4:39 AM, wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 10:05:43PM -0500, Steve Bertrand wrote:
>> On 2010.03.04 20:55, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> >
>> > I proffer that
>> > such effort is better spent moving towards IPv6 dual stack on your
>> > networks.
>>
>> I *wholeheartedly* agree with O
On 3/5/10 8:55 AM, Tim Durack wrote:
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 7:22 AM, Andy Davidson wrote:
On 04/03/2010 19:30, William Herrin wrote:
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 2:12 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
handling the v6 table is not currently hard (~2600 prefixes) while long
term the temptation to do TE is rou
Mark,
On Mar 4, 2010, at 11:46 PM, Mark Newton wrote:
> On 05/03/2010, at 2:50 PM, David Conrad wrote:
>> When the IPv4 free pool is exhausted, I have a sneaking suspicion you'll
>> quickly find that reclaiming pretty much any IPv4 space will quickly become
>> worth the effort.
>
> Only to the
Response from my Cisco rep:
"I has to be "Cisco Certified" refurbished. If it isn't it cannot have Smartnet
placed on it without an inspection (which comes with an inspection fee) and the
licensing paid for as well. When you combine these two cost items together with
the selling price of the g
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 7:22 AM, Andy Davidson wrote:
> On 04/03/2010 19:30, William Herrin wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 2:12 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>>> handling the v6 table is not currently hard (~2600 prefixes) while long
>>> term the temptation to do TE is roughly that same in v6 as in v4
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 11:15 PM, David Conrad wrote:
> On Mar 4, 2010, at 2:30 PM, William Herrin wrote:
>> Because we expect far fewer end users to multihome tomorrow than do today?
>
> We do?
>
> Why do we expect this?
David,
Well, I don't know that "we" do, but Joel made a remarkable assertio
On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 10:05:43PM -0500, Steve Bertrand wrote:
> On 2010.03.04 20:55, Owen DeLong wrote:
> >
> > I proffer that
> > such effort is better spent moving towards IPv6 dual stack on your
> > networks.
>
> I *wholeheartedly* agree with Owen's assessment. Even spending time
> trying to
On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 11:27:53PM -0800, Shon Elliott wrote:
> This thread wasn't meant to be an opinion-fest, but a technical
> issue that definitely hampers my customers, which apparently, everyone
> completely lost sight of. So really, my customers, and myself are victims of
> Spamcop's blockin
On 04/03/2010 19:30, William Herrin wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 2:12 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>> handling the v6 table is not currently hard (~2600 prefixes) while long
>> term the temptation to do TE is roughly that same in v6 as in v4, the
>> prospect of having a bunch of non-aggregatable dir
On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 23:27 -0800, Shon Elliott wrote:
> So really, my customers, and myself are victims of
> Spamcop's blocking of Facebook.
I forget how far back in this thread someone said:
Spamcop *listed* Facebook for valid reasons according to their published
listing criteria.
Other people
81 matches
Mail list logo
