comcast dns admin, help needed

Trying to track down someone at Comcast who maintains DNS. I'm having a number of Comcast users who are unable to resolve mozilla.org hosts. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=647254 Tried using other channels to find contacts but am running dry. Email offline or comment in that bug

Re: v6 Avian Carriers?

Random re-encapsulation. Now there's an interesting protocol! On 4/2/11 3:53 AM, Brandon Ross wrote: On Fri, 1 Apr 2011, Owen DeLong wrote: Not true. The occupants of the aircraft survived. The aircraft did not. Hm, in my recollection the payload made it to the dest

Re: v6 Avian Carriers?

Isn't that what the uvula is for? Oh... never mind wrong swallow. ;) On 4/2/11 3:34 AM, Chad Dailey wrote: > Swallows have MTU issues. > > On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 8:27 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> On Apr 1, 2011, at 10:45 AM, Steven Bellovin wrote: >> >>> On Apr 1, 2011, at 8:41 11AM, Sa

Re: IPv4 Address Exhaustion Effects on the Earth

> Date: Sat, 02 Apr 2011 04:18:00 +0200 > From: Alexander Maassen > Subject: Re: IPv4 Address Exhaustion Effects on the Earth > > wil, > maybe after all this time you got the router, it gained 7lbs of all the > dust in it ? Consider what happens if the carrier encounters a route reflector -- fli

Re: v6 Avian Carriers?

> Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2011 20:34:52 -0500 > Subject: Re: v6 Avian Carriers? > From: Chad Dailey > > Swallows have MTU issues. No swallows? Oh, spit.

Re: IPv4 Address Exhaustion Effects on the Earth

wil, maybe after all this time you got the router, it gained 7lbs of all the dust in it ? Op 1-4-2011 3:26, Wil Schultz schreef: > On Mar 31, 2011, at 6:14 PM, "Joao C. Mendes Ogawa" > wrote: > >> FYI >> >> --Jonny Ogawa >> >> - Forwarded message from Stephen H. Inden - >> >> From: Steph

Re: v6 Avian Carriers?

On Apr 1, 2011, at 9:49 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > Which? African or European Swallows? > > (Watches Chad fly over the cliff edge) ;-) So the RFC needed more text in it's Security Considerations section, too... > > > Owen > > On Apr 1, 2011, at 6:34 PM, Chad Dailey wrote: > >> Swallows hav

Re: v6 Avian Carriers?

On Fri, 1 Apr 2011, Owen DeLong wrote: Not true. The occupants of the aircraft survived. The aircraft did not. Hm, in my recollection the payload made it to the destination. Perhaps the route was a bit unexpected though. -- Brandon Ross AIM: B

Re: v6 Avian Carriers?

Which? African or European Swallows? (Watches Chad fly over the cliff edge) ;-) Owen On Apr 1, 2011, at 6:34 PM, Chad Dailey wrote: > Swallows have MTU issues. > > On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 8:27 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > On Apr 1, 2011, at 10:45 AM, Steven Bellovin wrote: > > > > > On Apr 1,

Re: v6 Avian Carriers?

Swallows have MTU issues. On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 8:27 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > On Apr 1, 2011, at 10:45 AM, Steven Bellovin wrote: > > > > > On Apr 1, 2011, at 8:41 11AM, Sachs, Marcus Hans (Marc) wrote: > > > >> I was wondering which April 1st this would happen on. Now I know. So > if a v6

Re: v6 Avian Carriers?

On Apr 1, 2011, at 10:45 AM, Steven Bellovin wrote: > > On Apr 1, 2011, at 8:41 11AM, Sachs, Marcus Hans (Marc) wrote: > >> I was wondering which April 1st this would happen on. Now I know. So if a >> v6 carrier swallows a v4 datagram does that count as packet loss or >> tunneling? >> >>

Re: v6 Avian Carriers?

On Apr 1, 2011, at 9:19 AM, Brandon Ross wrote: > On Fri, 1 Apr 2011, GP Wooden wrote: > >> I wonder on the carrier would survive a DoS attack ... > > I'm not sure about that, but we know that, if a Sullenberger unit has been > installed, a large aircraft can survive a DoS attack perpetrated b

Re: v6 Avian Carriers?

I thought iced-over fiber was a little bit like muffler-bearings. Great excuse if they buy it. Mike On 4/1/11 6:07 PM, "Owen DeLong" wrote: >It's also especially sensitive to icing induced packet loss. > >Owen > >On Apr 1, 2011, at 7:30 AM, GP Wooden wrote: > >> I wonder on the carrier would s

Re: v6 Avian Carriers?

It's also especially sensitive to icing induced packet loss. Owen On Apr 1, 2011, at 7:30 AM, GP Wooden wrote: > I wonder on the carrier would survive a DoS attack ... > > - Reply message - > From: "Scott Morris" > Date: Fri, Apr 1, 2011 9:01 am > Subject: v6 Avian Carriers? > To: >

Re: v6 Avian Carriers?

which reminds me Mr. ENGINEER: (yelling and hitting the send button repeatedly) 'ELLO NOC! Testing! Testing! Testing! Testing! This is your nine o'clock customer call! (Takes RFC 791 out of the binder and thumps it on the counter. Throws it up in the air and watches it p

Embratel or GVT contact

Is there anyone from GVT or Embratel with a clue willing to help me with a BGP route issue we are seeing? Thanks

The Cidr Report

This report has been generated at Fri Apr 1 21:12:20 2011 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

BGP Update Report Interval: 24-Mar-11 -to- 31-Mar-11 (7 days) Observation Point: BGP Peering with AS131072 TOP 20 Unstable Origin AS Rank ASNUpds % Upds/PfxAS-Name 1 - AS19743 34999 1.7%4999.9 -- 2 - AS982926736 1.3% 26.6 -- BSNL-NIB Nat

Re: Re: v6 Avian Carriers?

Be careful what you wish for: On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 6:47 PM, Dorn Hetzel wrote: > I was thinking today would be a good day to write an RFC for "fractional > DHCP" where end-users can get issued say 1/64 of an v4 IP, say > 155.229.10.20:1024-2047.  

Re: v6 Avian Carriers?

On Apr 1, 2011, at 1:28 PM, Dorn Hetzel wrote: > I'm thinking both TCP and UDP, and for ICMP don't NAT's use the sequence > number field to keep them separate ? > In my experience, the Avian Carriers usually eat the NATs. James R. Cutler james.cut...@consultant.com

Re: v6 Avian Carriers?

I believe that the Sullenberger unit effected the loss of the avian carriers requiring regeneration and retransmission. Dave Edelman On Apr 1, 2011, at 12:19, Brandon Ross wrote: > On Fri, 1 Apr 2011, GP Wooden wrote: > >> I wonder on the carrier would survive a DoS attack ... > > I'm not

Weekly Routing Table Report

This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan. The posting is sent to APOPS, NANOG, AfNOG, AusNOG, SANOG, PacNOG, LacNOG, CaribNOG and the RIPE Routing Working Group. Daily listings are sent to bgp-st...@lists.apnic.net

Re: v6 Avian Carriers?

On Fri, 1 Apr 2011, Steven Bellovin wrote: I was disappointed in this RFC -- Section 3.1 didn't include the proper discussion of the difference between African and European avian carriers, and we know what happens if that question is asked at the wrong time. That discussion would be out of s

WiMAX Multihost CPE/MS MTU enforcement

Hi Anyone out there deploying multihost CPE/MS with 16e WiMAX? Do your CPEs enforce a specific MTU (1400) for upstream traffic? I would like to hear from anyone (offline) that is dealing with MTU challenges with mulithost 16e deployments. Thanks! Eric Morin

Re: v6 Avian Carriers?

On Apr 1, 2011, at 8:41 11AM, Sachs, Marcus Hans (Marc) wrote: > I was wondering which April 1st this would happen on. Now I know. So if a > v6 carrier swallows a v4 datagram does that count as packet loss or tunneling? > > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6214/ > I was disappointed in t

Re: v6 Avian Carriers?

On 1 Apr 2011, at 17:47, Dorn Hetzel wrote: > I was thinking today would be a good day to write an RFC for "fractional > DHCP" where end-users can get issued say 1/64 of an v4 IP, say > 155.229.10.20:1024-2047. Other users on the same DSLAM, etc behind the > carrier NAT would have other share

Re: Re: v6 Avian Carriers?

I'm thinking both TCP and UDP, and for ICMP don't NAT's use the sequence number field to keep them separate ? On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 1:08 PM, Justin M. Streiner wrote: > On Fri, 1 Apr 2011, Dorn Hetzel wrote: > > I was thinking today would be a good day to write an RFC for "fractional >> DHCP" w

Re: Re: v6 Avian Carriers?

On Fri, 1 Apr 2011, Dorn Hetzel wrote: I was thinking today would be a good day to write an RFC for "fractional DHCP" where end-users can get issued say 1/64 of an v4 IP, say 155.229.10.20:1024-2047. Other users on the same DSLAM, etc behind the carrier NAT would have other shares of the same p

Re: Re: v6 Avian Carriers?

I was thinking today would be a good day to write an RFC for "fractional DHCP" where end-users can get issued say 1/64 of an v4 IP, say 155.229.10.20:1024-2047. Other users on the same DSLAM, etc behind the carrier NAT would have other shares of the same public IP. :) On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 12:

HIJACKED: 159.223.0.0/16 -- WTF? Does anybody care?

Please note, I'm not arguing against fixing the problem. I just think we should show each other some professional respect, and use some manners.

Re: Re: v6 Avian Carriers?

On Fri, 1 Apr 2011, GP Wooden wrote: I wonder on the carrier would survive a DoS attack ... I'm not sure about that, but we know that, if a Sullenberger unit has been installed, a large aircraft can survive a DoS attack perpetrated by the avian carrier. -- Brandon Ross

RE: IPv4 Address Exhaustion Effects on the Earth

> From: Joao C. Mendes Ogawa > Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 6:14 PM > Subject: Fwd: IPv4 Address Exhaustion Effects on the Earth > > FYI > > --Jonny Ogawa > > - Forwarded message from Stephen H. Inden - > Dang, I was hoping to see an RFC on Bufferbloat in Avian Carriers and how tai

Re: HIJACKED: 159.223.0.0/16 -- WTF? Does anybody care?

On Fri, 1 Apr 2011, Rich Kulawiec wrote: On Fri, Apr 01, 2011 at 01:36:55AM -0400, Atticus wrote: Maybe, if you didn't act like a flaming douchebag, and were polite to people, they would be more interested in helping you out. And were it ten or fifteen years ago, I might agree with you. But

Re: Re: v6 Avian Carriers?

On Fri, 01 Apr 2011 09:30:45 CDT, =?utf-8?B?R1AgV29vZGVu?= said: > wonder on the carrier would survive a DoS attack ... RFC1149 says: Avian carriers can provide high delay, low throughput, and low altitude service. The connection topology is limited to a single point-to-point path for

Re: v6 Avian Carriers?

I wonder on the carrier would survive a DoS attack ... - Reply message - From: "Scott Morris" Date: Fri, Apr 1, 2011 9:01 am Subject: v6 Avian Carriers? To: Mmm... Good question. Would it actually come back OUT in a recognizable (de-encapsulated) manner? I'll vote with packet loss,

Re: v6 Avian Carriers?

Mmm... Good question. Would it actually come back OUT in a recognizable (de-encapsulated) manner? I'll vote with packet loss, 'cause tunneling seems pretty gross. ;) Scott On 4/1/11 2:41 PM, Sachs, Marcus Hans (Marc) wrote: > I was wondering which April 1st this would happen on. Now I kno

Re: HIJACKED: 159.223.0.0/16 -- WTF? Does anybody care?

So the hell with his prose: focus on the matter at hand. Let's find out what happened here and how, who's responsible, and what it'll take to stop them from doing it again and again. Well put. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by the Richweb.com outgoing Mail

Re: v6 Avian Carriers?

On 4/1/2011 5:41 AM, Sachs, Marcus Hans (Marc) wrote: I was wondering which April 1st this would happen on. Now I know. So if a v6 carrier swallows a v4 datagram does that count as packet loss or tunneling? http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6214/ Depending on whether or not the packet arr

v6 Avian Carriers?

I was wondering which April 1st this would happen on. Now I know. So if a v6 carrier swallows a v4 datagram does that count as packet loss or tunneling? http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6214/ Marc

Re: HIJACKED: 159.223.0.0/16 -- WTF? Does anybody care?

On Fri, Apr 01, 2011 at 01:36:55AM -0400, Atticus wrote: > Maybe, if you didn't act like a flaming douchebag, and were polite to > people, they would be more interested in helping you out. And were it ten or fifteen years ago, I might agree with you. But it's not. By now, everyone knows, or dar

Re: HIJACKED: 159.223.0.0/16 -- WTF? Does anybody care?

In message , John van Oppen wrote: >Why does it matter what his position is? Well, if he was, you know, just the janitor or something, then I think that we could all safely assume that his opinions are...well.. his opinions, and that they should not be improperly or unfairly construed as offici