We have offered on numerous occasions to peer with both of the
providers that are currently segmented from our ASN (6939), going
even so far as baking a cake for Cogent (AS174).
Are some parties refusing to use transit, trying to bake in
a de-facto tier-1 ness?
brandon
On 7 Jan 2011, at 15:12, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
On Thu, 6 Jan 2011, Jeff Wheeler wrote:
On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 8:47 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
1. Block packets destined for your point-to-point links at your
borders. There's no legitimate reason someone should be
Hi,
The IANA AS Numbers registry has been updated to reflect the allocation of
three blocks to the RIPE NCC in January 2011.
56320-57343Assigned by RIPE NCC whois.ripe.net 2011-01-04
57344-58367Assigned by RIPE NCC whois.ripe.net 2011-01-04
197632-198655 Assigned by RIPE NCC
Hello,
I'm looking to put some feelers out there and see what people are
doing to aggregate WAN customers (T1,T3, etc...) these days. What
platforms/devices are you using? What seems to be working/not working?
Any insights would be great!
Thanks,
Chris
Cisco ASR 1000. For T3 you can get a 4 port card. Seems to perform
well.
Also have a 6500 deployed with some flexwan interfaces. Believe this
will also work in the 7000 something chassis.
Justin
--
Justin Wilson j...@mtin.net
Aol Yahoo IM: j2sw
http://www.mtin.net/blog xISP
This is admittedly a touch end-usery, my apologies...
I'm looking into satellite-based 2-way IP transport, on the scale of
SCPC DVB-RCS or iDirect, as an adjunct to the already installed
traditional one-way satellite gear installed in the Frontline DSNG
truck owned by my new employer, both for
On 1/9/2011 5:27 PM, John Curran wrote:
Excellent question. To the extent that it is best practices on these types of
services, then that's relatively easy for ARIN to interface with... if it is
specific direction to ARIN to do xyz, then ultimately the decision rests with
the ARIN Board
The ASRs seem to be the consensus in a lot of places. Wondering if
anyone has tried anything like aggregating T1 customers onto a mux
box, then connecting that back to a 6500.
What are the general impressions of the ASR series?
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 10:00 AM, Justin Wilson li...@mtin.net
Hello gents:
I wanted to put this out there for all of you. Our network consists of a
mixture of Cisco and Extreme equipment.
Would you say that it's fair to say that if you are serious at all about being
a service provider that your core equipment is Cisco based?
Am I limiting myself by
On 1/10/2011 9:28 AM, Chris wrote:
The ASRs seem to be the consensus in a lot of places. Wondering if
anyone has tried anything like aggregating T1 customers onto a mux
box, then connecting that back to a 6500.
What are the general impressions of the ASR series?
I need to get one to play
On Jan 10, 2011, at 10:31 AM, Brandon Kim wrote:
Hello gents:
I wanted to put this out there for all of you. Our network consists of a
mixture of Cisco and Extreme equipment.
Would you say that it's fair to say that if you are serious at all about
being a service provider that your
On 1/10/2011 9:31 AM, Brandon Kim wrote:
Would you say that it's fair to say that if you are serious at all
about being a service provider that your core equipment is Cisco
based?
Am I limiting myself by thinking that Cisco is the de facto vendor
of choice? I'm not looking for so much fanboy
In my experience it all comes down to Cisco-certified people being
easy to find, and managers not wanting to spend all their time in the
hiring process. So yes, I've generally seen Cisco as the de-facto
choice, but it's rarely been a technical argument that swings the
balance. I'm generally
Our core business is not as a service provider, as in selling services to
others, but we act as a service provider providing services for the various
customers in our internal network that we support.
Our core used to be an all Cisco Core. a few years back the decision was
made to replace this
On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 10:08:57 EST, Jay Ashworth said:
Almost all of what I'll need to do will be what the satellite guys call
occasional use, ie: I need a six hour block Thursday night, starting
at 7pm, as opposed to the monthly service with an FAP that most
people seem to sell.
What happens
On Mon, 10 Jan 2011, Brandon Kim wrote:
Would you say that it's fair to say that if you are serious at all
about being a service provider that your core equipment is Cisco based?
I would not necessarily say that. Granted, most of the places I've worked
are Cisco shops to a large extent,
On 10 Jan 2011, at 6:51 AM, Chris wrote:
Hello,
I'm looking to put some feelers out there and see what people are
doing to aggregate WAN customers (T1,T3, etc...) these days. What
platforms/devices are you using? What seems to be working/not working?
Any insights would be great!
Cheap and reliable. Cisco 7507, RSP4 or RSP8 or whatever, with ChanDS3 cards,
running 12.0S.
-Original Message-
From: Chris [mailto:behrnetwo...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 9:52 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: How are you aggregating WAN customers these days?
Cisco shop here that is avidly converting to Juniper.
Paul
-Original Message-
From: Brandon Kim [mailto:brandon@brandontek.com]
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 10:32 AM
To: nanog group
Subject: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?
Hello gents:
I wanted to put this out there
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 09:28, Chris behrnetwo...@gmail.com wrote:
The ASRs seem to be the consensus in a lot of places. Wondering if
anyone has tried anything like aggregating T1 customers onto a mux
box, then connecting that back to a 6500.
What are the general impressions of the ASR
We have traditionally been a Cisco shop, but we are starting to move toward
Juniper for much of our needs, and will be recommending Juniper as an
alternative for customers' needs. From a technical point of view, I find the
configurations to be simpler and easier to understand, and I like the
Juniper M20.
-Original Message-
From: Justin Wilson [mailto:li...@mtin.net]
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 10:00 AM
To: Chris; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: How are you aggregating WAN customers these days?
Cisco ASR 1000. For T3 you can get a 4 port card. Seems to perform
well.
On Jan 10, 2011, at 9:08 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
I'm looking into satellite-based 2-way IP transport, on the scale of
SCPC DVB-RCS or iDirect, as an adjunct to the already installed
traditional one-way satellite gear installed in the Frontline DSNG
truck owned by my new employer, both for
On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 09:31:32 -0600, Brandon Kim
brandon@brandontek.com wrote:
Hello gents:
I wanted to put this out there for all of you. Our network consists of a
mixture of Cisco and Extreme equipment.
Would you say that it's fair to say that if you are serious at all about
I've tried to use other vendors threw out the years for internal L2/L3. Always
Cisco for perimeter routing/firewalling.
from my personal experience, each time we took a chance and tried to use
another vendor for internal L2 needs, we would be reminded why it was a bad
choice down the road,
Brandon
Just as a pointer - one of the largest and most utilized IX (AMS-IX) has
their platform built on Brocade devices.
Brocade device's pre Foundry purchase correct? I can't see anyone that large
using Foundry in large deployments..
-g
--
This message and any attachments may
Wow, overall consensus is that there are quite a few that are migrating to
Juniper from Cisco.
I am a bit biased because I have spent an awful amount of time invested into
Cisco and understanding how to configure them.
But being a former business owner, I also am very much sensitive to costs
On Mon, 10 Jan 2011, Brandon Kim wrote:
For those that have been Cisco focused, do you stay fully objective,
and are you willing to pitch another vendor knowing that you will have
to learn a new IOS? And that that will be your time that you'll have to
spend to understand the product and
If you have a large amount of ppp/mlppp channelized T3's as most people then I
would recommend dumping these into an Adtran TA5000 chassis with multiservice
ct3 cards and dumping them to ethernet. Then to an ASR or whatever your vlan
agg box is. The cost per t3 port should be significantly
I try to follow the Tolly Group who compares products, and they
continually show that Cisco equipment
is a poor performer in almost any equipment compared to others, I find
that so hard to believe.
Just a rough comment here. Tolly's business model is a sponsored test
one, and Cisco is
the pro curve line is cheap and the standard support contract price can't be
beat (life time free). For many ' normal ' deployments it would be a good
choice.in a 10Gbit HPC or highly redundant environment I'd probably be
looking at Extreme or Force 10.
There is a feature on the Cisco
On Sun, 9 Jan 2011, Charles N Wyble wrote:
I am simply suggesting it is dangerous and irresponsible to run an IRR
with only MAIL-FROM authentication, and quite easy to also support
CRYPT-PW. ARIN should either support passwords or immediately make
The trouble is, since the DES crypt
All the places I've worked in the past decade have been all Cisco shops for
routing and switching, with a lot of Cisco use for security too (firewalls
and IDS). Same with my current position, but we're switching to Juniper for
all those product categories. Same or better performance, but 10-20%
On 1/10/2011 11:03 AM, Greg Whynott wrote:
Brocade device's pre Foundry purchase correct? I can't see anyone that large
using Foundry in large deployments..
People (who should know) have told me L3 does for some of their 10GE
bonding. If you want high end at low cost, the box does it.
Cisco and my new Love; Juniper.. for Tier I / Peer
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 10:43 AM, Jack Bates jba...@brightok.net wrote:
On 1/10/2011 11:03 AM, Greg Whynott wrote:
Brocade device's pre Foundry purchase correct? I can't see anyone that
large using Foundry in large deployments..
People
On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 11:06:32 EST, Kelly Olsen said:
That would only happen with an outrageously over-subscribed provider.
OK - I'll feed the troll. What's the proper amount of unused and therefor
non-revenue-generating capacity the operator is supposed to reserve in order to
*guarantee* that
- Original Message -
From: Valdis Kletnieks valdis.kletni...@vt.edu
On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 11:06:32 EST, Kelly Olsen said:
That would only happen with an outrageously over-subscribed
provider.
OK - I'll feed the troll. What's the proper amount of unused and therefor
Hi,
I know that jetcore bigiron 4000 allow max 40 ipv4 routes.
I want to add a dual stack.
Is IPv6 routes are added to the IPv4 routes or are they stored elsewhere.
Regards.
In article xs4all.61ec3786-5732-4c5a-8938-a15e840dc...@oicr.on.ca you write:
Just as a pointer - one of the largest and most utilized IX (AMS-IX) has
their platform built on Brocade devices.
Brocade device's pre Foundry purchase correct? I can't see anyone that
large using Foundry in large
On 1/9/2011 6:42 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
1. The companies that have selected NAT64 as a tool for rolling out
IPv6 to address the IPv4 exhaustion business risk are aware of the
various application trade offs. They select NAT64 because it makes
business sense to aggressively go after IPv6 as
On 1/9/2011 9:51 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Jan 8, 2011, at 10:46 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
On 1/8/2011 3:16 AM, Leen Besselink wrote:
Hello Mr. Kaufman,
In the upcoming years, we will have no IPv6 in some places and badly
performing IPv4 (CGN, etc.) with working IPv6 in others.
Right. So
There have been awfully too many time when Cisco TAC would just say that
since the problem you are trying to troubleshoot is between Cisco and
VendorX, we can't help you. You should have bought Cisco for both sides.
I had that happen when I was troubleshooting LLDP between 3750s and Avaya
phones,
On Monday, January 10, 2011 01:28:07 pm Jay Ashworth wrote:
My motivation for asking the question *here* was of course to get the operator
perspective on the actual transport, if anyone had any.
I helped a radio station put together a remote trailer using a mobile satellite
system back in
- Original Message -
From: Valdis Kletnieks valdis.kletni...@vt.edu
So what you're saying is that after a Kyoto/Chile sized quake, or a
Katrina, or a Quebec 1990 ice storm, you can *guarantee* that you can
still fill all requests for transponder space, and *still* satisfy every
... yes I know you understand operational issues.
While managed networks can 'reverse the damage', there is no way to fix that
for consumer unmanaged networks. Whatever gets deployed now, that is what
the routers will be built to deal with, and it will be virtually impossible
to change it due to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
pfsense in redundant pair for routing/security/vlan termination
cisco all the way for l2 switching
On 01/10/2011 09:38 AM, James Smith wrote:
All the places I've worked in the past decade have been all Cisco shops for
routing and switching, with a
On Friday, January 07, 2011 09:25:59 am David Sparro wrote:
I find that the security Layers advocates tend not to look at the
differing value of each of those layers.
Different layers very much have different values, and, yes, this is often
glossed over.
Going back to the physical door
From: Andrey Khomyakov
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 11:36 AM
To: nanog group
Subject: Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?
There have been awfully too many time when Cisco TAC would just say
that
since the problem you are trying to troubleshoot is between Cisco and
VendorX, we
Once upon a time, Andrey Khomyakov khomyakov.and...@gmail.com said:
There have been awfully too many time when Cisco TAC would just say that
since the problem you are trying to troubleshoot is between Cisco and
VendorX, we can't help you. You should have bought Cisco for both sides.
That kind
To your point Andrey,
It probably works both ways too. I'm sure HP would love to finger point as
well. I remember reading for my CCNP one
of the thought process behind getting all Cisco is the very reason you pointed
out, get all Cisco!
How convenient though for Cisco to do that, I wonder if
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 02:52:56PM -0500, Lamar Owen wrote:
On Friday, January 07, 2011 09:25:59 am David Sparro wrote:
I find that the security Layers advocates tend not to look at the
differing value of each of those layers.
Different layers very much have different values, and, yes,
i think it really depends on who answers your call. I've called Cisco a few
times before for inter vendor issues and they gave us the call the other
vendor finger. .. Other times they saved the day.
i know some shops negotiate their support contract which precludes them from
going
The ASRs seem to be the consensus in a lot of places. Wondering if
anyone has tried anything like aggregating T1 customers onto a mux
box, then connecting that back to a 6500.
I work in that kind of topology all day long/ both in 6500 ASR's.
All is well/
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 7:51 AM, Chris
just a side note, HP probably was the most helpful vendor i've dealt with in
relation to solving/providing inter vendor interoperability solutions. they
have PDF booklets on many things we would run into during work. for example,
setting up STP between Cisco and HP gear, (
Back in the days when I still did NOC stuff, we'd bring in individual T1 lines
through a Kentrox EZ-T3, which would hand off a channelized T3 to a 7513. With
the EZ-T3, it was literally just plug and play.
I believe the Atlas 800 series can be used in the same ways, but its been 10
years, so
to which they would try and play the well most people don't mix gear..
ha! Funny if you responded with, Oh really? Thanks I didn't know that, I guess
I'll get all HP...who do I talk to, to return this Cisco router?
From: greg.whyn...@oicr.on.ca
To: brandon@brandontek.com
CC:
On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 14:39:19 -0600, Brandon Kim
brandon@brandontek.com wrote:
to which they would try and play the well most people don't mix gear..
ha! Funny if you responded with, Oh really? Thanks I didn't know that,
I guess I'll get all HP...who do I talk to, to return this
for vendors who we were not getting the goods from, I've found calling your
sales rep much more efficient than anything you can say/ask/beg/threaten the
tech on the phone.Sales guys have the inside numbers to call, the clout to
get things moving as they generate revenue for said vendor.
- Original Message -
From: Valdis Kletnieks valdis.kletni...@vt.edu
Why the hostility, Valdis?
As I said several times - it's not hard to be 98% or 99% sure you can make
all your commitments. However, since predicting the future is an inexact
science,
it's really hard to provide
Anyone have a WORKING abuse contact for lstn.net / limestonenetworks.com?
I have tried the usual channels (ab...@limestonenetworks.com, phone calls, live
chat) with no results.
-Dan
I would agree w/ the HP vs. Cisco comment from Greg Whynott
Cisco has refused to help without a huge pricetag in the past.
We have migrated many of our customers off of Cisco gear to mitigate future
issues for exactly this reason.
HP is a great partner!
If you need a router check out
*requested anonymous* wrote:
(I don't post on public mailing lists, so, please consider this
private.
That is, I don't care if the question/reply are public, just, not the
source.)
On 1/10/11 11:46 AM, Tony Hain wrote:
... yes I know you understand operational issues.
While managed
One can still do DS-lite when the provider only offers NAT64. A
B4 can connect to a AFTR which can be anywhere that is reachable
via IPv6. I can see small ISPs and those that can't get IPv4
addresses for themselves out sourcing the DS-lite service.
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas
On 1/10/2011 3:20 PM, Greg Whynott wrote:
HP probably was the most helpful vendor i've dealt with in relation to
solving/providing inter vendor interoperability solutions. they have PDF
booklets on many things we would run into during work. for example,
setting up STP between Cisco and
just to play devils advocate..
PVST is Cisco propriety.
I'd rather see vendors default to an open standard as opposed to something
which is closed. the lowest common denominator…
in my eyes the document tells you how to make a cisco and hp switch work
together, not convert.
numbers alone
On 1/10/2011 14:32, Jeff Kell wrote:
On 1/10/2011 3:20 PM, Greg Whynott wrote:
HP probably was the most helpful vendor i've dealt with in relation to
solving/providing inter vendor interoperability solutions. they have PDF
booklets on many things we would run into during work. for
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 12:37 PM, Jon Lewis jle...@lewis.org wrote:
On Sun, 9 Jan 2011, Charles N Wyble wrote:
I am simply suggesting it is dangerous and irresponsible to run an IRR
with only MAIL-FROM authentication, and quite easy to also support
CRYPT-PW. ARIN should either support
To be fair to Cisco and maybe I'm way off here. But it seems they do come out
with a way to do things first which then become a standard that
they have to follow.
ISL/DOT1Q
HSRP/VRRP
etherchannel/LACP
Just some examples. I'm not aware of too many other vendors that create
their own
On Jan 10, 2011, at 5:56 AM, Tim Chown wrote:
On 7 Jan 2011, at 15:12, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
On Thu, 6 Jan 2011, Jeff Wheeler wrote:
On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 8:47 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
1. Block packets destined for your point-to-point links at your
On Jan 10, 2011, at 7:25 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
On 1/9/2011 5:27 PM, John Curran wrote:
Excellent question. To the extent that it is best practices on these types
of
services, then that's relatively easy for ARIN to interface with... if it is
specific direction to ARIN to do xyz, then
On 1/10/2011 14:54, Brandon Kim wrote:
To be fair to Cisco and maybe I'm way off here. But it seems they do come out
with a way to do things first which then become a standard that
they have to follow.
ISL/DOT1Q
HSRP/VRRP
etherchannel/LACP
Just some examples. I'm not aware of too
On 1/10/2011 5:13 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Members may bring any topic of interest to arin-discuss. The fact that there is
more
traffic on ppml dealing with the NRPM than there is on arin-discuss dealing
with other
issues is a matter of where the members choose to focus their attention more
On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 16:33:30 EST, Jay Ashworth said:
From: Valdis Kletnieks valdis.kletni...@vt.edu
Remember, we're coming out of a solar minimum. ;)
Are we in fact coming out of it yet? I heard it was getting deeper,
and that we were looking at a Dalton, if not another Maunder.
Hmm..
On 1/10/2011 5:04 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Unless my point-to-point links are originating packets to the outside world
(they should not be, in general), then I should not expect any PMTU-D
responses directed at them.
As such, blocking even those packets TO my point-to-point interfaces
should not
Waste of time; I don't accept email from them, it's all spam.
On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 13:51:26 -0800 (PST)
goe...@anime.net wrote:
Anyone have a WORKING abuse contact for lstn.net / limestonenetworks.com?
I have tried the usual channels (ab...@limestonenetworks.com, phone calls,
live chat)
On Jan 10, 2011, at 11:35 AM, Andrey Khomyakov wrote:
There have been awfully too many time when Cisco TAC would just say that
since the problem you are trying to troubleshoot is between Cisco and
VendorX, we can't help you. You should have bought Cisco for both sides.
I had that happen when
On Jan 10, 2011, at 11:52 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
On Friday, January 07, 2011 09:25:59 am David Sparro wrote:
I find that the security Layers advocates tend not to look at the
differing value of each of those layers.
Different layers very much have different values, and, yes, this is often
My frame of reference is that while we need to make the addresses big
enough, we also need to preserve the hierarchy. There is no shortage
of addresses, nor will there be, ever, but there could be a shortage
of levels in the hierarchy. I assume you would like a home to have a
/48? But,
On 1/10/2011 6:55 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Nonetheless, NAT remains an opaque screen door at best.
If the bad guy is behind the door, it helps hide him.
If the bad guy is outside the door, the time it takes for his knife to cut
through it is so small as to be meaningless.
For a server
This is a two-edged sword.
Cisco tends to do their own thing, then, try to push their way of doing it onto
the standards
bodies when the competition starts trying to catch up.
Other vendors tend to bring ideas that will require interoperability to the
standards bodies
and work on getting the
On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 19:22:46 EST, Jeff Kell said:
It is a decreasing risk, given the typical user initiated compromise of
today (click here to infect your computer), but a non-zero one.
The whole IPv6 / no-NAT philosophy of always connected and always
directly addressable eliminates this
PPML is a forum for the community (not just ARIN members, the entire
community).
Good to know. I was under the impression that it was member only.
Nope... Anyone interested can subscribe to PPML.
There is a separate mailing list... arin-discuss which is for members of
ARIN to discuss
Ha, good luck... Limestone is a haven for cheap child-run web hosting
companies. I can almost guarantee abuse@ goes to /dev/null...
Sent from my Samsung Captivate(tm) on ATT
goe...@anime.net wrote:
Anyone have a WORKING abuse contact for lstn.net / limestonenetworks.com?
I have tried the
On 01/09/2011 10:09, John Curran wrote:
On Jan 9, 2011, at 2:09 AM, Jeff Wheeler wrote:
In terms of database size, excluding RIPE, the ARIN IRR is the 8th
largest, ahead of ALTDB and about 10% as large as Level3, the second
largest IRR database (except RIPE.) A mass-corruption of the ARIN IRR
On Jan 10, 2011, at 4:22 PM, Jeff Kell wrote:
On 1/10/2011 6:55 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Nonetheless, NAT remains an opaque screen door at best.
If the bad guy is behind the door, it helps hide him.
If the bad guy is outside the door, the time it takes for his knife to cut
through it is
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aECSsfd4Wk
Watch this video, now, I know that it is essentially advertisement from
brocade but the guy from ams-ix says something very interesting - For
us it is important to have a board-level relationship with the vendor,
no matter who it is. So in the end
Thank you for this. I find him very honest and humble. Although he didn't
mention Cisco, should I assume that
he's probably thinking about Cisco without saying it?
For anyone that has watched this, he has mentioned going from dual star
topology to an MPLS.
Perhaps one can educate me a little
Cruzio in Santa Cruz recently opened a new coloc facility using a newly
installed fiber connection (I believe they share this with UCSC, I am
not sure who owns it in practice). Which in theory should be good news
for the Monterey Bay Area which has been without fiber connectivity before.
I
On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 01:17:39 GMT, lorddoskias said:
appropriate treatment in case of emergency. With bigger company this
would be harder, though I think the position account manager is
essential this
Heard someplace, but we've been here ourselves:
We were thrilled to hear they were
On 1/10/2011 6:38 PM, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
Cruzio in Santa Cruz recently opened a new coloc facility using a
newly installed fiber connection (I believe they share this with UCSC,
I am not sure who owns it in practice). Which in theory should be
good news for the Monterey Bay Area which has
On Jan 10, 2011, at 7:57 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
On 01/09/2011 10:09, John Curran wrote:
Please suggest your preferred means of IRR authentication to the ARIN
suggestion process:https://www.arin.net/participate/acsp/index.html
...
Now it seems that you acknowledged that further on in this
On 1/10/2011 6:33 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
I'd say on the whole, it's a net gain - the added ease of tracking down
the click-here-to-infect machines that are no longer behind a NAT
outweighs the little added security the NAT adds (above and beyond
the statefulness that both NAT and a
On Tue, 11 Jan 2011, John Curran wrote:
Any person in the ARIN community is welcome to make a suggestion
regarding an existing or potential ARIN service or practice.
Such a suggestion will be sent to ARIN as described at Suggestion
Submission https://www.arin.net/app/suggestion/ page.
I just
On 01/10/2011 19:18, John Curran wrote:
On Jan 10, 2011, at 7:57 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
On 01/09/2011 10:09, John Curran wrote:
Please suggest your preferred means of IRR authentication to the ARIN
suggestion process:https://www.arin.net/participate/acsp/index.html
...
Now it seems that you
Owen,
On Jan 8, 2011, at 8:56 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
I suspect part of the issue is that ARIN is a monopoly provider of a variety
public services that folks unrelated (directly) to ARIN must make use of. In
other areas of public service provision, there are things like public
utilities
Owen,
On Jan 10, 2011, at 3:13 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Members may bring any topic of interest to arin-discuss.
Just to be clear, arin-discuss is limited to ARIN members?
They can and sometimes do discuss operational matters there.
Operational matters that impact more than members?
The ACSP
Lee,
On Jan 9, 2011, at 8:40 AM, Lee Howard wrote:
Are you saying ARIN needs an ombudsman function to make sure the Board
doesn't delay implementation of things the community wants while it figures
out whether doing such things will prevent it from doing other things the
community wants?
On Jan 10, 2011, at 8:22 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
On 1/10/2011 6:33 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
I'd say on the whole, it's a net gain - the added ease of tracking down
the click-here-to-infect machines that are no longer behind a NAT
outweighs the little added security the NAT adds
On Jan 10, 2011, at 8:52 PM, David Conrad wrote:
Owen,
On Jan 10, 2011, at 3:13 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Members may bring any topic of interest to arin-discuss.
Just to be clear, arin-discuss is limited to ARIN members?
To the best of my knowledge, yes.
They can and sometimes do
On Jan 10, 2011, at 8:23 PM, David Conrad wrote:
Owen,
On Jan 8, 2011, at 8:56 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
I suspect part of the issue is that ARIN is a monopoly provider of a
variety public services that folks unrelated (directly) to ARIN must make
use of. In other areas of public service
100 matches
Mail list logo
