- Original Message -
From: Michael Dillon wavetos...@googlemail.com
To: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Monday, 14 February, 2011 10:37:51 AM
Subject: Re: IPv6 is on the marketers radar
It's bad that home gateways need replacing
It's not neccessarily bad. There are a lot of older devices
On Sat, 12 Feb 2011 21:58:22 -0500, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
On Feb 12, 2011, at 5:55 PM, de...@visp.net.lb wrote:
On Sat, 12 Feb 2011 11:39:59 -1000, Michael Painter wrote:
de...@visp.net.lb wrote:
On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 12:53:14 -0600, Jack Bates wrote:
On 2/8/2011 7:41 AM, Denys
PoS failure detection happens in under 50ms, but what about the failback?
Same deal? I ask because I've got two routers connected to opposite ends of
a spare PoS link that I've been playing with and I'm noticing that the
failback on the far side seems to be about 15 seconds (assuming the
On 2011-02-14, at 6:47 AM, Rob Evans wrote:
PoS failure detection happens in under 50ms, but what about the failback?
Same deal? I ask because I've got two routers connected to opposite ends of
a spare PoS link that I've been playing with and I'm noticing that the
failback on the far
Hi Jason.
PoS failure detection happens in under 50ms
IMHO this is the most important part, fast *down* detection.
It's not actually SONET all the way through. It's GigE from the router to
the SONET node, an unprotected OC192 wave to another node, out GigE to the
far end router.
If the
Has this move completed yet? I'm getting redirect loop:
$ curl -I www.nanog.org
HTTP/1.1 302 Found
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 14:15:04 GMT
Server: Apache/2.2.6 (FreeBSD) mod_ssl/2.2.6 OpenSSL/0.9.8e DAV/2
PHP/5.2.4 with Suhosin-Patch
Location: http://www.nanog.org
Michael K. Smith - Adhost wrote:
Somebody has helpfully pointed out that this is only broken over v6, v4
is fine
$ curl -I -4 nanog.org
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 14:43:10 GMT
Server: Apache/2.2.6 (FreeBSD) mod_ssl/2.2.6 OpenSSL/0.9.8e DAV/2
PHP/5.2.4 with Suhosin-Patch
X-Powered-By: PHP/5.2.4
Content-Type: text/html
owen,
at several points you assert that gtlds are global, which i suggest
is an error on your part.
gtlds are whatever the controlling contract (icann) requires, and that
currently lacks an external to the point of service performance
measurement, and whatever the registrants require, with
Hello All:
It appears that Merit has corrected the v6 redirect loop so all services
should be operational at this point. If anyone is having any ongoing
issues please let me know.
Regards,
Mike
On behalf of the NANOG Communications Committee
--
Michael K. Smith - CISSP, GSEC, GISP
Chief
Luckily, they do. Only the smart DSLAMs had issues, and they even
blocked IP protocol 41. haha
On 2/13/2011 4:44 PM, Frank Bulk wrote:
Fine approach as long as the DSLAMs and CPE allow ether type 0x86DD to pass.
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Fred Baker f...@cisco.com wrote:
On Feb 11, 2011, at 12:21 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
http://www.marketingvox.com/under-the-microscope-what-the-end-of-ipv4-means-for-marketers-048657/
I can hear people, say oh no
Interesting to see that marketers do not
*Dear Colleagues, members of the Nanog Community and CaribNOG* Supporters,
The Caribbean Network Operators Group (CARIBNOG) has the pleasure of
announcing and inviting you to participate in the Regional CaribNOG meeting,
CARIBNOG Puerto Rico, from 13th to 15th April. The 3 day event is being
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 10:59:35AM -0500, Jeff Hartley wrote:
It will certainly be entertaining to see what behaviors the various
CPEs default to on the public-facing side. In the NetGear WNDR3700's
case after upgrading its firmware, options were included for:
Disabled (default)
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/15/technology/15internet.html
“The problem was, the experiment never ended,” added Mr. Cerf, who is the
chairman of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
Too bad the article pushes my mobile device to their mobile site
mobile.nytimes.com and that references an ipv4 literal for the picture to
load so not only is nytimes not ipv6 it is also broken for ipv6 only
users behind nat64
On 2/14/2011 12:12 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
Too bad the article pushes my mobile device to their mobile site
mobile.nytimes.com and that references an ipv4 literal for the picture to
load so not only is nytimes not ipv6 it is also broken for ipv6 only
users behind nat64
That's
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 15:52, Dorn Hetzel d...@hetzel.org wrote:
p.s. with apologies to any honest marketers. All 2 of you..
What's the difference between a used car salesman and a network equipment
salesman?
The used care salesman knows when he's lying to you :)
The required
In message AANLkTikXoLx1fsimoKx=hntovubwdadnktmwcb-84...@mail.gmail.com, Jeff
Hartley writes:
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Fred Baker f...@cisco.com wrote:
On Feb 11, 2011, at 12:21 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
http://www.marketingvox.com/under-the-microscope-what-the-end-of-ipv4-me=
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 12:30:31PM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
GTLD -- Global Top Level Domain -- A domain which contains records for
entities not restricted
to a particular geographical area.
s/Global/Generic/
The G in GTLD is Global... I'm not asserting anything, it's flat out in the
On 2/14/11 3:30 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Feb 14, 2011, at 7:12 AM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
owen,
at several points you assert that gtlds are global, which i suggest is an
error on your part.
TLDs come in two flavors.
GTLD -- Global Top Level Domain -- A domain which contains
The G in GTLD is Global... I'm not asserting anything, it's flat out in
the term.
I believe the g is for generic.
--
Jeffrey Lyon, Leadership Team
jeffrey.l...@blacklotus.net | http://www.blacklotus.net
Black Lotus Communications - AS32421
First and Leading in DDoS Protection Solutions
In message 4d597216.1030...@brightok.net, Jack Bates writes:
On 2/14/2011 12:12 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
Too bad the article pushes my mobile device to their mobile site
mobile.nytimes.com and that references an ipv4 literal for the picture to
load so not only is nytimes not ipv6
On Feb 14, 2011 1:52 PM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
In message 4d597216.1030...@brightok.net, Jack Bates writes:
On 2/14/2011 12:12 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
Too bad the article pushes my mobile device to their mobile site
mobile.nytimes.com and that references an ipv4 literal
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 4:00 PM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
It will certainly be entertaining to see what behaviors the various
CPEs default to on the public-facing side. In the NetGear WNDR3700's
case after upgrading its firmware, options were included for:
Disabled (default)
In message AANLkTikOS1H-2APnQqWqfsj7N-L=kudygnbpywox-...@mail.gmail.com, Came
ron Byrne writes:
--00163630f77d957e25049c454dc0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Feb 14, 2011 1:52 PM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
In message 4d597216.1030...@brightok.net, Jack Bates
In message aanlktiktypauvasesnr0reotakfi_ff5xy5jm-j-w...@mail.gmail.com, Jeff
Hartley writes:
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 4:00 PM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
It will certainly be entertaining to see what behaviors the various
CPEs default to on the public-facing side. =A0In the NetGear
There's a wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AS_7007_incident
.. that a post I wrote up for a local computer club magazine somehow suffices
as primary reference material for.
Even though I think this is partially hilarious, would someone mind making
it a little more authoritive and
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Adrian Chadd adr...@creative.net.au wrote:
There's a wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AS_7007_incident
.. that a post I wrote up for a local computer club magazine somehow suffices
as primary reference material for.
Even though I think this
Just wondering what this community thinks of NIST in general and their
SP800-119 ( http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/800-119/sp800-119.pdf )
writeup about IPv6 in particular.
+1
=
John Jason Brzozowski
Comcast Cable
e) mailto:john_brzozow...@cable.comcast.com
o) 609-377-6594
m) 484-962-0060
w) http://www.comcast6.net
=
On 2/14/11 5:09 PM, Cameron Byrne cb.li...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 7:24 PM, TR Shaw ts...@oitc.com wrote:
Just wondering what this community thinks of NIST in
general and their SP800-119 (
http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/800-119/sp800-119.pdf )
writeup about IPv6 in particular.
Well, according to this document IPv4 path
31 matches
Mail list logo
