On 8/12/2010 11:42 PM, Matthew Petach wrote:
There are definite reports that it affected connectivity to some
portions of Yahoo
for some comcast users in the Bay Area as well.
Matt
*offers a new roll of duct tape to Comcast for their routers*
Just got confirmation from GBLX... Router seized.
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 11:36 PM, Jeff Walter wrote:
> We contacted GBLX and the issue was resolved shortly thereafter. Last time
> this happened one of their internal routers hung and someone kicked it. No
> idea if this was the same type of issue.
>
> In this case, more that just traffic betwe
It always amaze me how the word de-regulated is so misused.
When there is a monopoly the regulation is in fact very very light: Acme co is
the monopoly and government cash in dividends/license fees and just check they
don't do anything really silly.
When there is competition this is when you ha
On Aug 12, 2010, at 11:36 PM, Jeff Walter wrote:
> In this case, more that just traffic between us and Comcast was affected, at
> least according to a friend of mine who's on Comcast.
Yeah, things were wonky for a while. Like the application for programming my
Harmony One couldn't contact Log
Did you wait 30 seconds before you plugged it back in?
Jeff
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 11:02 AM, John A. Kilpatrick wrote:
>
> Yeah, I saw it too. My traceroute was dying at an IP belonging to Global
> Crossing and the DNS looked like it was at 11 Great Oaks. I called Comcast
> to report it, bu
We contacted GBLX and the issue was resolved shortly thereafter. Last
time this happened one of their internal routers hung and someone kicked
it. No idea if this was the same type of issue.
In this case, more that just traffic between us and Comcast was
affected, at least according to a fri
Yeah, I saw it too. My traceroute was dying at an IP belonging to Global
Crossing and the DNS looked like it was at 11 Great Oaks. I called Comcast to
report it, but they just kept saying I should reboot my modem.
On Aug 12, 2010, at 11:19 PM, Ashoat Tevosyan wrote:
> Never mind, back up! Ap
Never mind, back up! Apparently there was a problem at Comcast.
Thanks,
Ashoat
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 11:07 PM, Ashoat Tevosyan
wrote:
> Hey guys,
>
> Anybody else in the Pacific Northwest notice some sites down? I'm using
> Comcast here at home, and I can't reach anything over at Hurricane Ele
Hey guys,
Anybody else in the Pacific Northwest notice some sites down? I'm using
Comcast here at home, and I can't reach anything over at Hurricane Electric.
I can confirm that HE is reachable from the University of Washington.
Thanks,
Ashoat
On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, Benson Schliesser wrote:
Further, how does the situation compare to past examples like Europe?
Countries in Europe are all in different phases of competition and
pricing. There is at least 10x difference in transit prices across Europe,
with central and northern Europe b
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Cisco Security Advisory: Cisco IOS Software TCP Denial of Service
Vulnerability
Advisory ID: cisco-sa-20100812-tcp
http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/707/cisco-sa-20100812-tcp.shtml
Revision 1.0
For Public Release 2010 August 12 2130 UTC (GMT
+10
Once you pass a threshold of affordability (by breaking the monopoly), then the
network use explodes and other issues can be worked out by more or less by
consumer pressure (and economies of scale)... You need to reach "Packet Storm"
level.
- Original Message -
From: "Patrick W. Gi
DENOG 2 - Call for Participation and Papers
The second meeting of the German Network Operators Group (DENOG) will be
held in Frankfurt, Germany on the 4th of November 2010. We are pleased
to hereby invite applications for presentations or lightning talks to be
held at this event.
General Informat
On 12 Aug 10, at 7:26 AM, Dorian Kim wrote:
>> Sadly, I have no first-hand knowledge of these costs. How does in-country
>> transport compare to trans-Pacific transport cost? (i.e. on a per Mbps per
>> kilometer or similar metric) I assume it's cheaper in-country / in-region
>> compared to t
On Aug 11, 2010, at 10:01 PM, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 12:53:18PM -0700, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>> On 8/11/10 12:29 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
>>> Nice to see this change
>>>
>>> APAC has been obliged to pay the cost to peer with the US (long
>>> distance links are expensive)
Good news for IPV6 fans!
> Forwarding on behalf of APNIC.
>
>
>
> _
>
> Two /8s allocated to APNIC from IANA (49/8 and 101/8)
> _
>
>
> Dear colleagues
>
> The information in this announcement is
Hmmm... The reason I recommended that is because I think I remember reading
somewhere that the "set ip" command does not work on point-to-point interfaces.
The outbound interface in your config has a /30 assigned to it so maybe it is
seeing it as a p-t-p interface?
Do you have a "less preferred
Forwarding on behalf of APNIC.
_
Two /8s allocated to APNIC from IANA (49/8 and 101/8)
_
Dear colleagues
The information in this announcement is to enable the Internet community to
update
A 'debug ip policy' should show if it's hitting or not...
IP: s=30.0.0.1 (Ethernet0/0/1), d=40.0.0.7, len 100,FIB flow policy match
IP: s=30.0.0.1 (Ethernet0/0/1), d=40.0.0.7, len 100,FIB PR flow accelerated!
IP: s=30.0.0.1 (Ethernet0/0/1), d=40.0.0.7, g=10.0.0.8, len 100, FIB
policy routed
Does anyone have any experience with the Springnet Underground in
Springfield, MO?
In case people don't know it's a working limestone mine. In the areas
that have already been mined close to the entrance, they've sold or
rented out space between the rock pillars that hold up the mine roof.
T
I dont' think this will work. Here is the formal description of "set
interface" from cisco.com:
This action specifies that the packet is forwarded out of the local
interface. The interface must be a Layer 3 interface (no switchports), and
the destination address in the packet must lie within the I
Have you tried "set interface" instead of "set ip"?
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 12, 2010, at 3:13 PM, Andrey Khomyakov
wrote:
> I did try an extended ACL and had the same result.
> The way I know that it's not working is that I see these packets arriving on
> a wrong interface on the firewall
I did try an extended ACL and had the same result.
The way I know that it's not working is that I see these packets arriving on
a wrong interface on the firewall and therefor being dropped.
I actually had to open a CR with Cisco and they verified the config and said
nothing is wrong with it. They a
Andrey,
It looks like you're doing everything right here so this might seem
like a dumb question, but how sure are you that it's not working?
In my experience on the 4500, 6500, 3560/3750, those ACL/route-map
counters sometimes don't work because of CEF and friends, and at best
they count number
> Thanks a lot for your immediate reply. I tried calling the number you
> provided, that does not lead to "Chunghwa Telecom" in Taiwan. However,
> it leads to some other organization and they are unable to understand
> when I speak in English :-(
try mandarin
randy
I bit more explanation: 172.25/16 is a hop away and the packets with that
source IP will enter on Gi2/6 and need to exit Gi2/14.
So it goes like that:
172.25/16 is vlan25 on the student router
Gi0/1 has ip address 192.168.250.2 on the student router
default route is towards 192.168.250.1 on the st
Well, Frankly our "culture" is very much open source, so if we can find
something along those lines, then it would be preferred. (Hence looking at
OpenSolaris and ILB). -- having said that, we do have both F5 and Foundry kit
here, but it's all pre-IPv6 so doesn't have the support built in. No
Brocade basically sucks when it comes to loadbalancing IPv6, the old serveriron
platform is EOL and a complete mess which offers some IPv6 support, but not
much. The new ADX platform seems to be in a pre-alfa stage at the moment. So
normally I would say stand clear, however we do run a (larger)
Hi Owen,
The DSR address is indeed on a loopback in our case.
loLink encap:Local Loopback
inet6 addr: ::1/128 Scope:Host
inet6 addr: ::x:::xx/128 Scope:Global
The mystery continues...
Leland
On 12 Aug 2010, at 18:28, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On A
On Aug 12, 2010, at 6:19 AM, Xavier Beaudouin wrote:
> Hi Leland,
>
> Le 12 août 2010 à 15:11, Leland Vandervort a écrit :
>
>> OpenSolaris ILB is open solution ;)
>>
>> but yea, that's what we've started looking at -- hence LVM / HAProxy as
>> well.. (though LVM is IPv4 only, and HAProxy is
Hey all. I'm trying to setup a routing policy on a cat4503-E with Sup6-E and
for some reason I can't see it taking effect. I'm definitely sourcing
packets from 172.25.0.0/16 (the test machine had 172.25.24.25 address). For
some reason the packets still go out towards the default gateway instead of
valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 12:23:01 CDT, Jeff Harper said:
This is kind of like one person saying they're not going to listen to a
radio station anymore.
"And the only reason I'm singing you this song now is cause you may know
somebody in a similar situation, or
VBNS is part of VzB.
On 8/11/10, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
>
>
> On Aug 11, 2010, at 3:28 PM, Randy Whitney wrote:
>
>> On 8/11/2010 3:10 PM, Chris Boyd wrote:
>>>
>>> On Aug 11, 2010, at 1:13 PM, John Lee wrote:
>>>
MCI bought MFS-Datanet because MCI had the customers and
MFS-Datanet had
On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 14:32:25 +0200
Leland Vandervort wrote:
> I'm looking at server load balancing for IPv6 and specifically need
> DSR (direct server return). Additionally, I need to support both TCP
> and UDP.
IPVS has had IPv6 support for a while:
http://www.mindbasket.com/ipvs/
We're usin
On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, Simon Perreault wrote:
On 2010-08-12 08:32, Leland Vandervort wrote:
I'm looking at server load balancing for IPv6 and specifically need
DSR (direct server return). Additionally, I need to support both TCP
and UDP.
This is easily done with OpenBSD. See here for starte
On 12 Aug 2010, at 15:19, Xavier Beaudouin wrote:
>
>> In the case of ILB, I'm not convinced that it's a problem with the LB
>> itself, but rather the idiosyncrasies of ND in IPv6 that is causing the
>> problem.. but I may be wrong... at any rate, something's amiss ...
>
> Maybe on some setup
Hi Leland,
Le 12 août 2010 à 15:11, Leland Vandervort a écrit :
> OpenSolaris ILB is open solution ;)
>
> but yea, that's what we've started looking at -- hence LVM / HAProxy as
> well.. (though LVM is IPv4 only, and HAProxy is NAT only for IPv6)
>
> does relayd support UDP as well as TCP or i
OpenSolaris ILB is open solution ;)
but yea, that's what we've started looking at -- hence LVM / HAProxy as well..
(though LVM is IPv4 only, and HAProxy is NAT only for IPv6)
does relayd support UDP as well as TCP or is it layer7 only like HAProxy ?
In the case of ILB, I'm not convinced that it
Hi Leland,
Seems that hardware vendors doesn't like IPv6... for load balancing.
I had a look to relayd from OpenBSD, and it seems this can be used a
LoadBalancing with DSR... Even if they don't recommand this ...
Maybe the is is the time to move from hardware / closed solutions to open
ones..
On 2010-08-12 08:32, Leland Vandervort wrote:
> I'm looking at server load balancing for IPv6 and specifically need
> DSR (direct server return). Additionally, I need to support both TCP
> and UDP.
This is easily done with OpenBSD. See here for starters:
http://www.undeadly.org/cgi?action=articl
Dear Colleagues,
I've been scratching my head over this for the past couple of months and have
come up with blanks, and several weeks of scouring various resources on the net
have not yielded anything more fruitful.
I'm looking at server load balancing for IPv6 and specifically need DSR (direc
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 05:41:16PM -0500, Benson Schliesser wrote:
>
> On 11 Aug 10, at 5:15 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>
> >> Obviously I can't speak for the providers in question, but I'd guess
> >> that the cost for transit in AP is strongly related to the cost of
> >> long-haul transport.
> >
>
N3 = new network nodes, BIPP wasn't that great a name either.
The ASN was always 3561.
jy
On 12/08/2010, at 8:20 AM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
>
> On 11 Aug 10, at 2:10 PM, Chris Boyd wrote:
>
>> My recollection is that Worldcom bought out MFS. UUnet was a later
>> acquisition by the Worldc
MCI and BT had a long courtship. BT left MCI standing at the altar after
neighborhoodMCI (a consumer last mile play) announced $400M in losses, twice.
WorldCom swooped in after that.
jy
On 12/08/2010, at 12:12 PM, jim deleskie wrote:
> CIP went with BT (Concert) I still clearly remember the
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 12:09:02PM +0530, Natarajan Balasubramanian wrote:
> Hi Yasir,
> Thanks a lot for your immediate reply. I tried calling the number you
> provided, that does not lead to "Chunghwa Telecom" in Taiwan. However, it
> leads to some other organization and they are unable to unde
45 matches
Mail list logo
