Re: Barracuda Networks is at it again: Any Suggestions as to an Alternative?

> No such luck: They want me to PAY FOR AN ENTIRE YEAR for > which I did NOT receive service and then for the current (upcoming > year). Sorry - I don't allow myself to be ripped off like that. Hi John, this is actually a pretty common practice for service subscription models where the software an

Re: Barracuda Networks is at it again: Any Suggestions as to an Alternative?

On Apr 9, 2011, at 10:51 AM, John Palmer (NANOG Acct) wrote: > My question is - does anyone have any suggestions for another e-mail > appliance like the Barracuda Spam Firewall that doesn't try to charge their > customers for time not used -

Re: MTS contact

MTS? Michigan Terminal System? - Original Message - From: "Hector Herrera" To: "NANOG list" Sent: Friday, April 08, 2011 1:24 PM Subject: MTS contact Could somebody with MTS please contact me off-list? I am not getting anywhere with their level 1 support and they won't escalate. T

Barracuda Networks is at it again: Any Suggestions as to an Alternative?

OK, its been a year since my Barracuda subscription expired. The unit still stops some spam. I figured that I would go and see what they would do if I tried to renew my subscription EXACTLY one year after it expired. Would their renewal website say "Oh, you are at your anniversary date", and rene

The Cidr Report

This report has been generated at Fri Apr 8 21:12:05 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: 31-Mar-11 -to- 07-Apr-11 (7 days) Observation Point: BGP Peering with AS131072 TOP 20 Unstable Origin AS Rank ASNUpds % Upds/PfxAS-Name 1 - AS178596412 2.5% 66.9 -- AS-PAETEC-NET - PaeTec Communications, Inc. 2 - AS18566

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

MTS contact

Could somebody with MTS please contact me off-list? I am not getting anywhere with their level 1 support and they won't escalate. Thanks, -- Hector Herrera Network Engineering PlayFullScreen Internet Broadcasting

Re: Implementations/suggestions for Multihoming IPv6 for DSL sites

On 04/08/2011 06:39 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > On Apr 8, 2011, at 9:30 AM, Seth Mattinen wrote: > >> On 4/8/11 8:31 AM, Job Snijders wrote: As Seth pointed out SHIM6 is still an academic exercise >>> Another Locator / ID separator protocol is LISP. The advantage is that you >>> don't need to >

Re: Implementations/suggestions for Multihoming IPv6 for DSL sites

On Apr 8, 2011, at 9:30 AM, Seth Mattinen wrote: > On 4/8/11 8:31 AM, Job Snijders wrote: >> >>> As Seth pointed out SHIM6 is still an academic exercise >> >> Another Locator / ID separator protocol is LISP. The advantage is that you >> don't need to >> change the host but only the CPE. I've

Re: Implementations/suggestions for Multihoming IPv6 for DSL sites

On 4/8/11 8:31 AM, Job Snijders wrote: > >> As Seth pointed out SHIM6 is still an academic exercise > > Another Locator / ID separator protocol is LISP. The advantage is that you > don't need to > change the host but only the CPE. I've been using it to multi-home my house > and it works > fine

Re: Implementations/suggestions for Multihoming IPv6 for DSL sites

On Apr 8, 2011, at 6:54 AM, Joe Maimon wrote: > > > Owen DeLong wrote: >> >> On Apr 7, 2011, at 8:13 PM, Tom Limoncelli wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 10:51 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: There is no need for NAT in order to multiple-home. BGP is every bit as effective and much simp

Re: Implementations/suggestions for Multihoming IPv6 for DSL sites

Dear Michel, On 7 Apr 2011, at 21:30, Michel de Nostredame wrote: > On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 2:27 AM, Daniel STICKNEY > wrote: >> I'm investigating how to setup multihoming for IPv6 over two DSL lines >> (different ISPs), and I wanted to see if this wheel has already been >> invented. Has anyone

Re: [torix-ops] Fabric Issues Update

Netelligent's sessions are also down to allow for troubleshooting without disrupting customer traffic, and we'll turn back up once TORIX indicates everything is okay. For any members who might have a usage-based billing for carrier transport to TORIX, it is worth mentioning that if you see extra "

Re: Implementations/suggestions for Multihoming IPv6 for DSL sites

Owen DeLong wrote: On Apr 7, 2011, at 8:13 PM, Tom Limoncelli wrote: On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 10:51 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: There is no need for NAT in order to multiple-home. BGP is every bit as effective and much simpler. I know a lot of small businesses with one FiOS link and one Comca

Re: Implementations/suggestions for Multihoming IPv6 for DSL sites

check out these things called routing protocols. randy

Re: Bubba is a 75 year old woman looking to make some extra cash

> I guess we have another gem for DeLongFacts.com (in the vein of > SchneierFacts.com): He is one of the few natural enemies of the > Babushka. Did anyone else suddenly have flashbacks to the VMS Wombat?

Re: Implementations/suggestions for Multihoming IPv6 for DSL sites

On Apr 7, 2011, at 8:13 PM, Tom Limoncelli wrote: > On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 10:51 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> There is no need for NAT in order to multiple-home. BGP is every bit as >> effective and much simpler. >> > > I know a lot of small businesses with one FiOS link and one Comcast > link a

Re: Implementations/suggestions for Multihoming IPv6 for DSL sites

On Apr 7, 2011, at 8:30 PM, Randy Bush wrote: > Otherwise some kind of routing must be implemented on hosts. Some kind of routing is already implemented on hosts. >>> honto??? >> your mobile phone is multihomed, as is this laptop I'm typing on. > > routing != multihomed > > try rfc 181

Re: Implementations/suggestions for Multihoming IPv6 for DSL sites

On Apr 7, 2011, at 7:53 PM, Randy Bush wrote: >>> Otherwise some kind of routing must be implemented on hosts. >> Some kind of routing is already implemented on hosts. > > honto??? (I think you meant honto desu ka??). hai. Honto desu. Owen