Re: CDNs should pay eyeball networks, too.

Morning, I have no idea what's really going on at LLNW, but I thought I'd still share an alternative view on this matter: My understanding is that LLNW is spending tons of money to upgrade some of their IXP connections to 100GbE in Europe. With that in mind, I'm not that surprised if they wi

Re: rpki vs. secure dns?

On May 2, 2012, at 12:46 AM, Russ White wrote: > There are situations where it won't work (mostly thinking high mobility > environments, or complete system failures), but these don't seem to be big > "stoppers," to me Within the next 10 years, everything/everywhere is going to become a 'h

Re: Problems getting to Verisign's whois server on IPv6

On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 7:25 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: > > The server doesn't do PMTUD properly.   Verisign were informed of this > a while back.  How hard is it to let ICMPv6 PTB in so that PMTUD works? > > % whois -h 2001:503:3227:1060::74 example.com > > Whois Server Version 2.0 > > Domain names i

Re: CDNs should pay eyeball networks, too.

On Tue, 01 May 2012 18:46:56 -0400, Alex Rubenstein said: > If you are the only game in town, and you have a great product, you sell it > for the most you can. Pay attention. What I said: > going to have to charge at least $3,160 a copy to make a profit on the > project. *at least*. You can c

Re: CDNs should pay eyeball networks, too.

On 5/1/12, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: > I love the fact Dominik says "from a CDN", then leaves Limelight's name in > the text. :) [snip] So a CDN made the mistake of attempting to monetize an existing peering arrangement without first having a signed peering arrangement in place for the existing p

Re: Problems getting to Verisign's whois server on IPv6

The server doesn't do PMTUD properly. Verisign were informed of this a while back. How hard is it to let ICMPv6 PTB in so that PMTUD works? % whois -h 2001:503:3227:1060::74 example.com Whois Server Version 2.0 Domain names in the .com and .net domains can now be registered with many differe

Re: CDNs should pay eyeball networks, too.

I can't agree with this. You are assuming a cost-plus model. Many things are market-priced. If you are the only game in town, and you have a great product, you sell it for the most you can. You aren't a charity. The customer always has the option to not buy your product. - Original

Re: CDNs should pay eyeball networks, too.

On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 6:03 PM, David Miller wrote: > From an accounting perspective, every R&D effort that I have seen or > been a part of was not billed to any customer.  R&D has always, in my > experience, been an internal charge against a company's own profits. Hi David, That's called "inter

Re: CDNs should pay eyeball networks, too.

On Tue, 01 May 2012 18:03:06 -0400, David Miller said: > From an accounting perspective, every R&D effort that I have seen or > been a part of was not billed to any customer. R&D has always, in my > experience, been an internal charge against a company's own profits. RIght - and when pricing the

Re: CDNs should pay eyeball networks, too.

On 5/1/2012 5:20 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: > On Tue, 01 May 2012 14:13:01 -0700, Mike Hale said: > >>> "But you *may not* tie your >>> price to the hours used to produce it for the first." > The above was William Herrin's comment (quoting level fixed by me). > > Mike - please get mail soft

Re: CDNs should pay eyeball networks, too.

On Tue, 01 May 2012 14:27:50 -0700, Mike Hale said: > > Mike - please get mail software that does correct quoting. It's 2012, and > > proper quoting has been understood since the mid 80s. There's *really* no > > excuse for using software that can't get quoting and citing right. > *eye roll* > Real

Re: CDNs should pay eyeball networks, too.

On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 3:06 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: > On May 1, 2012, at 14:43 , William Herrin wrote: >> On 5/1/12, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: >>> On May 1, 2012, at 13:26 , William Herrin wrote: If I'm willing to go to your location, buy the card for your router and pay you for t

Re: CDNs should pay eyeball networks, too.

On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 3:54 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote: > In a message written on Tue, May 01, 2012 at 03:45:29PM -0500, Jerry Dent > wrote: >> Can be for the end users if they wind up on a less direct network path. > > "Direct" is not the only measure. > > I would take a 4-hop, 10GE, no packet loss

Re: CDNs should pay eyeball networks, too.

> Mike - please get mail software that does correct quoting. It's 2012, and > proper quoting has been understood since the mid 80s. There's *really* no > excuse for using software that can't get quoting and citing right. *eye roll* Really? You wasted 36 words on this? > And if you've *collected*

Re: CDNs should pay eyeball networks, too.

On Tue, 01 May 2012 17:16:38 -0400, "Patrick W. Gilmore" said: > P.S. Bill, it is clear you have a point, but you are really stretching > it. And it is not relevant to the discussion at hand. Oh, I dunno. Double billing 2 customers for development and double billing 2 customers for transporting

Re: CDNs should pay eyeball networks, too.

On Tue, 01 May 2012 14:13:01 -0700, Mike Hale said: > > "But you *may not* tie your > > price to the hours used to produce it for the first." The above was William Herrin's comment (quoting level fixed by me). Mike - please get mail software that does correct quoting. It's 2012, and proper quoti

Re: CDNs should pay eyeball networks, too.

Let's keep our eye on the ball, people. Did the original post have any operational consequences? IMHO, it has many. Some are even interesting to the wider audience. So why are we discussing how you bill the US gov't? -- TTFN, patrick P.S. Bill, it is clear you have a point, but you are rea

Re: CDNs should pay eyeball networks, too.

"If one of the customers happens to be the U.S. Government, it's not only unethical it's a crime. It's usually a felony. You can do time. The product was man hours. You've sold them once. You can't sell them again." You're assuming the contract is simply for work hours. Generally speaking, and fro

Re: CDNs should pay eyeball networks, too.

On 5/1/12, Mike Hale wrote: > "A customer pays you to build a piece of software by the hour. Another > comes along and asks for the same software. You bill both for each > hour. Double billing. Unethical. Wrong. > [...] > Neither of these is unethical or wrong in any way. What are you > supposed

Re: Operation Ghost Click

On 01/05/12 12:51 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote: In a message written on Tue, May 01, 2012 at 07:41:35PM +, Livingood, Jason wrote: All of this above! Plus, the remediation tools to clean up an infection are insufficient to the task right now. Better tools are needed. (See also http://tools.ietf

Re: CDNs should pay eyeball networks, too.

In a message written on Tue, May 01, 2012 at 03:45:29PM -0500, Jerry Dent wrote: > Can be for the end users if they wind up on a less direct network path. "Direct" is not the only measure. I would take a 4-hop, 10GE, no packet loss path over a 1-hop, 1GE, 5% packet loss path any day of the week.

Re: CDNs should pay eyeball networks, too.

On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 3:30 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: > On May 1, 2012, at 16:24 , Jerry Dent wrote: > >> Lets be honest. There are a million reasons we can all come up with to >> try and justify something like this but 99% of the time it is just the >> larger isp trying to throw their weight

Re: IPv6 monitoring...

On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 2:31 PM, Vytautas V Grigaliunas wrote: > What are people using for IPv6 monitoring - in particular, for monitoring > services such as DNS, Web, E-mail, etc. ? > > Nagios seems the people's choice. Any others...open source or commercial ? We use a combination of Nagios and

Re: CDNs should pay eyeball networks, too.

On Tue, May 01, 2012 at 02:43:50PM -0400, William Herrin wrote: > On 5/1/12, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: > > On May 1, 2012, at 13:26 , William Herrin wrote: > >> If I'm willing to go to your location, buy the card for your router > >> and pay you for the staff hours to set it up, there should be *n

Re: IPv6 monitoring...

Yo Vytautas! On Tue, 1 May 2012 20:31:08 + Vytautas V Grigaliunas wrote: > Nagios seems the people's choice. Any others...open source or > commercial ? Icinga. A fork of nagios RGDS GARY --- Gary E. Miller Rellim 109

RE: IPv6 monitoring...

We are using Solarwinds on our systems. it's one commercial system to consider. Paul -Original Message- From: Vytautas V Grigaliunas [mailto:v...@fnal.gov] Sent: May-01-12 4:31 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: IPv6 monitoring... Greetings... What are people using for IPv6 monitorin

Re: Network diagram app that shows realtime link utilizatin

About support: I only had good experience with their support, but that were the days Janice still worked there. Haven't used them in over a year, so not sure what they are up to right now. --Andrey On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Ben Bartsch wrote: > on intermapper, simply right click the link

IPv6 monitoring...

Greetings... What are people using for IPv6 monitoring - in particular, for monitoring services such as DNS, Web, E-mail, etc. ? Nagios seems the people's choice. Any others...open source or commercial ? TIA... Vyto

Re: CDNs should pay eyeball networks, too.

On May 1, 2012, at 16:24 , Jerry Dent wrote: > Lets be honest. There are a million reasons we can all come up with to > try and justify something like this but 99% of the time it is just the > larger isp trying to throw their weight around in the name of greed. > In the end, the customers of both

Re: CDNs should pay eyeball networks, too.

On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 2:17 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote: > In a message written on Tue, May 01, 2012 at 08:23:07PM +0200, Dominik Bay > wrote: >> "Feeding" via some bigger peer networks oder classic transit > > You have made the assumption that their choice is peering with your > network or sending it

Re: CDNs should pay eyeball networks, too.

"A customer pays you to build a piece of software by the hour. Another comes along and asks for the same software. You bill both for each hour. Double billing. Unethical. Wrong. A customer pays you to deliver a packet to "the Internet." You talk to the packet's destination and say, "Hey, I'll deli

Re: Operation Ghost Click

In a message written on Tue, May 01, 2012 at 07:41:35PM +, Livingood, Jason wrote: > All of this above! Plus, the remediation tools to clean up an infection are > insufficient to the task right now. Better tools are needed. (See also > http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6561#section-5.4) Hey Jas

Re: Operation Ghost Click

On 5/1/12 3:19 PM, "valdis.kletni...@vt.edu" mailto:valdis.kletni...@vt.edu>> wrote: On Tue, 01 May 2012 10:40:57 -0400, Rich Kulawiec said: Why haven't you cut these obviously-infected systems off entirely? There's quite likely multiple systems behind a NAT-ish

Re: CDNs should pay eyeball networks, too.

On 05/01/2012 09:17 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote: > In a message written on Tue, May 01, 2012 at 08:23:07PM +0200, Dominik Bay > wrote: >> "Feeding" via some bigger peer networks oder classic transit > > You have made the assumption that their choice is peering with your > network or sending it out tra

Re: Operation Ghost Click

On Tue, 01 May 2012 10:40:57 -0400, Rich Kulawiec said: > Why haven't you cut these obviously-infected systems off entirely? There's quite likely multiple systems behind a NAT-ish router, and Comcast doesn't have any real option but to nuke *all* the systems behind the router. This can be a tad

Re: rpki vs. secure dns?

On Sun, 2012-04-29 at 21:50 +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote: > - the RIPE NCC is now funding a project for which there is no > consensus policy supported by the RIPE community, and is doing this on > the basis of a hair's breath majority vote amongst its membership. Not only were the vote extremely na

Re: CDNs should pay eyeball networks, too.

In a message written on Tue, May 01, 2012 at 08:23:07PM +0200, Dominik Bay wrote: > "Feeding" via some bigger peer networks oder classic transit You have made the assumption that their choice is peering with your network or sending it out transit. They may in fact peer with your upstream. That

Re: CDNs should pay eyeball networks, too.

On May 1, 2012, at 14:43 , William Herrin wrote: > On 5/1/12, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: >> On May 1, 2012, at 13:26 , William Herrin wrote: >>> If I'm willing to go to your location, buy the card for your router >>> and pay you for the staff hours to set it up, there should be *no* >>> situation i

Re: CDNs should pay eyeball networks, too.

On 5/1/12, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: > On May 1, 2012, at 13:26 , William Herrin wrote: >> If I'm willing to go to your location, buy the card for your router >> and pay you for the staff hours to set it up, there should be *no* >> situation in which I'm willing to accept your traffic from an upst

Re: CDNs should pay eyeball networks, too.

On 05/01/2012 08:08 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: > Instead, let's focus on the operational impact. Will the reduced complexity > on these networks result in improved performance? Irrelevant to performance? > Decreased performance? Maybe even whether that change in performance is an > accept

Re: Network diagram app that shows realtime link utilizatin

on intermapper, simply right click the link, select 'status window' and you will get all kinds of nice info. be sure to use the bandwidth command on the interface if you are not using the default 10/100/1000/10gig. also, the links turn yellow and orange as the line becomes more saturated (and the

Re: CDNs should pay eyeball networks, too.

On May 1, 2012, at 13:26 , William Herrin wrote: > On 5/1/12, Dominik Bay wrote: >> Yesterday I received the following mail, from a CDN: >> >> >8 >> Greetings, >> >> Limelight Networks [has] recently updated our requirements for >> settlement-free peering I love the fact Dominik says "f

Re: Network diagram app that shows realtime link utilizatin

we use cacti weathermap plugin, though obviously realtime has a dependency on your sample interval. I'm presuming your definition thereof isn't instantaneous monitoring of queue depth. On 5/1/12 10:49 , Hank Disuko wrote: > > Thanks, I'll see if I can pull the correct OID and try it with the Dud

RE: Network diagram app that shows realtime link utilizatin

Thanks, I'll see if I can pull the correct OID and try it with the Dude again. Also, thanks to everyone who has responded.  I realize the term "realtime" is subjective - I'm looking for near-realtime...maybe a 30 second interval. I've been playing around with Intermapper for about 30 minutes no

Re: rpki vs. secure dns?

> Yes, recursive dependencies are an issue. I'm really surprised that folks > are even seriously considering something like this, but OTOH, this sort of > thing keeps cropping up in various contexts from time to time, sigh. There are only a couple of ways to get past recursive dependencies. Y

Re: VPN over satellite

Hi Rens, I work with one of the leading satellite providers. Depending on the customer type, we deploy a number of solutions (some work better for some, some work better for others). Most off-the-shelf solutions are more or less designed in a client/server manner (the optimizations they emplo

Re: CDNs should pay eyeball networks, too.

Right on Thanks, Ameen Pishdadi On May 1, 2012, at 11:39 AM, Dominik Bay wrote: > Yesterday I received the following mail, from a CDN: > > >8 > Greetings, > > Limelight Networks periodically reviews its interconnection strategy to > ensure the quality and integrity of its interconne

Re: CDNs should pay eyeball networks, too.

On 5/1/12, Dominik Bay wrote: > Yesterday I received the following mail, from a CDN: > > >8 > Greetings, > > Limelight Networks [has] recently updated our requirements for > settlement-free peering > > This letter is to notify you that yyy no longer meets our minimum > requirements. Propo

Re: Network diagram app that shows realtime link utilizatin

I have discovered ITGuru works pretty good. http://itnetworkguru.com/ -Grant On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 11:57 AM, Justin M. Streiner wrote: > On Tue, 1 May 2012, Rene Skjoldmose wrote: > > On 2012-05-01 18:41, Hank Disuko wrote: >> >>> I wonder if anyone can recommend a network diagram tool that

Re: CDNs should pay eyeball networks, too.

On 05/01/2012 07:07 PM, Steven Noble wrote: > While I can understand having some peering requirements, the goal of any CDN > should be to have the best reach possible. Without knowing if this is PI > peering or just across a IX it is hard to judge what their (or your) costs > are. If it is IX

Re: CDNs should pay eyeball networks, too.

On May 1, 2012, at 9:39 AM, Dominik Bay wrote: > Yesterday I received the following mail, from a CDN: > **snip** > Should your company decline this option, or if we do not have an agreement > regarding the settlement in place prior to May 31st 2012, Limelight Networks > will terminate the peer

Re: Network diagram app that shows realtime link utilizatin

On Tue, 1 May 2012, Rene Skjoldmose wrote: On 2012-05-01 18:41, Hank Disuko wrote: I wonder if anyone can recommend a network diagram tool that can show realtime link utilization via snmp? Were i work we do it with perl, rrdtool and graphviz - it's fairly simple to put together, and that way

Re: Network diagram app that shows realtime link utilizatin

Netbrain OE does this. David Barak Sent from a mobile device, please forgive autocorrection. On May 1, 2012, at 12:47 PM, Andrey Khomyakov wrote: > cacti by use of weather maps? > Alternatively, Intermapper is pretty good, but commercial. It's more of an > NMS than a diagram tool though. Ever

Re: Network diagram app that shows realtime link utilizatin

On 2012-05-01 18:41, Hank Disuko wrote: I wonder if anyone can recommend a network diagram tool that can show realtime link utilization via snmp? Were i work we do it with perl, rrdtool and graphviz - it's fairly simple to put together, and that way, you get exactly what you need. Cheers, Ren

Re: Network diagram app that shows realtime link utilizatin

cacti by use of weather maps? Alternatively, Intermapper is pretty good, but commercial. It's more of an NMS than a diagram tool though. Everywhere I used it, I was pretty happy with it. --Andrey On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Hank Disuko wrote: > > > Hi folks, > > I wonder if anyone can reco

Re: Network diagram app that shows realtime link utilizatin

InfoVista Vista360 does it. It's part of a bigger tool set and isn't cheap, but it's pretty cool. Tate On Tue, 1 May 2012 12:41:19 -0400, Hank Disuko wrote: Hi folks, I wonder if anyone can recommend a network diagram tool that can show realtime link utilization via snmp? Mikrotik's "The Dude"

Network diagram app that shows realtime link utilizatin

Hi folks, I wonder if anyone can recommend a network diagram tool that can show realtime link utilization via snmp? Mikrotik's "The Dude" app actually does exactly what I'm looking for, but the snmp support for non-RouterOS devices seems to be lacking, as it simply won't enumerate my switch

CDNs should pay eyeball networks, too.

Yesterday I received the following mail, from a CDN: >8 Greetings, Limelight Networks periodically reviews its interconnection strategy to ensure the quality and integrity of its interconnection between all its partners. We have recently updated our requirements for settlement-free peer

Re: Operation Ghost Click

A write up here http://dyn.com/dns-internet-web-truth-behind-the-fbi-computer-scare/ -- ~ Andrew "lathama" Latham lath...@gmail.com http://lathama.net ~

Re: rpki vs. secure dns?

Roland, On May 1, 2012, at 8:49 AM, Dobbins, Roland wrote: > On May 1, 2012, at 8:18 PM, David Conrad wrote: >>> It's hard to take seriously any proposal which is predicated upon recursive >>> dependencies. >> Do you mean the need to be able to use [X] to fetch the data to enable you >> to use [

Comcast DNS admin?

Is there Comcast DNS person. Please, contact off list --Andrey

Re: rpki vs. secure dns?

On May 1, 2012, at 10:31 PM, John Kristoff wrote: > As Radia says in her book, we're probably stuck with BGP forever, but I > frequently wonder if she is right in suggesting we could have done > better by having a link state protocol instead. At the time, link-state protocols weren't practical

Re: rpki vs. secure dns?

On May 1, 2012, at 8:18 PM, David Conrad wrote: > Do you mean the need to be able to use rsync to fetch the data to enable you > to use rsync? A lot more than just rsync is necessary in order to allow rsync transactions to work. But, you know this already. ;> > Or the need to be able to use

Re: rpki vs. secure dns?

On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 11:46:06 -0400 Randy Bush wrote: > > We need more flexible, distributed architecture behind - no matter - > > which interests will be lobbied as we have got already. > > as i agree that there is a problem, i *very* eagerly await your > proposal As Radia says in her book, we'

Re: Problems getting to Verisign's whois server on IPv6

On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 8:59 AM, Teun Vink wrote: > On Tue, 2012-05-01 at 08:01 -0400, TR Shaw wrote: >> Anyone else having problems getting to Verisign's whois server on IPv6? >> > > Testing it using the NLNOG ring (https://ring.nlnog.net) shows that 3 > nodes have routing issues, 92 have no probl

Re: Operation Ghost Click

On Tue, May 01, 2012 at 12:26:20PM +, Livingood, Jason wrote: > At Comcast we have done the following: > - Sent emails > - Send postal mail > - Left voicemail > - Used automated outbound calling > - Used increasingly persistent web browser notifications This is a reply to you, but it's intende

Re: Operation Ghost Click

ISPs in the Netherlands have had a "botnet treaty" in effect since 2009, which calls for blocking, user notification, and inter-ISP information sharing.

Re: rpki vs. secure dns?

On May 1, 2012, at 4:34 AM, Dobbins, Roland wrote: > On Apr 28, 2012, at 5:05 AM, Paul Vixie wrote: >> is anybody taking it seriously? > It's hard to take seriously any proposal which is predicated upon recursive > dependencies. Do you mean the need to be able to use rsync to fetch the data to en

Re: Problems getting to Verisign's whois server on IPv6

On Tue, 2012-05-01 at 08:01 -0400, TR Shaw wrote: > Anyone else having problems getting to Verisign's whois server on IPv6? > Testing it using the NLNOG ring (https://ring.nlnog.net) shows that 3 nodes have routing issues, 92 have no problems reaching Verisign's whois server on IPv6. So there mig

Re: Problems getting to Verisign's whois server on IPv6

This looks to be more of an application issue for you. The rest seems to work for me: puck:~$ whois -h 2001:503:ff39:1060::74 verisign-grs.com [Querying 2001:503:ff39:1060::74] [2001:503:ff39:1060::74] Whois Server Version 2.0 ... - Jared On May 1, 2012, at 8:23 AM, TR Shaw wrote: > Nope sur

RE: Problems getting to Verisign's whois server on IPv6

Seems to work for me mps31@lonsgnsu1:~$ telnet -6 2001:503:3227:1060::74 whois Trying 2001:503:3227:1060::74... Connected to 2001:503:3227:1060::74. Escape character is '^]'. mps31@lonsgnsu1:~$ whois -h 2001:503:3227:1060::74 =verisign.com Whois Server Version 2.0 Domain names in the .com a

Re: Problems getting to Verisign's whois server on IPv6

Anyone else having problems getting to Verisign's whois server on IPv6? whois -h 2001:503:ff39:1060::74 verisign-grs.com works for me. jaap

Re: Operation Ghost Click

On 4/26/12 10:03 PM, "Jeff Kell" wrote: >And what about the millions of users unknowingly infected with >"something else" ?? > >(We have enough trouble isolating/remediating issues among our >relatively small user base, I'd hate to be facing a major ISP size >support/remediation effort...) > >Doe

Re: Operation Ghost Click

On 4/26/12 5:47 PM, "Paul Graydon" wrote: >Based on conversations on this list a month or so ago, ISPs were >contacted with details of which of their IPs had compromised boxes >behind them, but it seems the consensus is that ISP were going to just >wait for users to phone support when it broke ra

Re: Problems getting to Verisign's whois server on IPv6

Nope sure can't $ telnet -6 2001:503:3227:1060::74 whois 2001:503:3227:1060::74: nodename nor servname provided, or not known Tom On May 1, 2012, at 8:15 AM, Tony Tauber wrote: > Path is not the same, but the last few replies similarly suggest > packet-filters (!X in my case vs. !P). > I can

Re: Problems getting to Verisign's whois server on IPv6

Path is not the same, but the last few replies similarly suggest packet-filters (!X in my case vs. !P). I can get to the whois port (TCP/43): $ telnet -6 2001:503:3227:1060::74 whois Trying 2001:503:3227:1060::74... Connected to 2001:503:3227:1060::74. Escape character is '^]'. Can you? Tony On

Problems getting to Verisign's whois server on IPv6

Anyone else having problems getting to Verisign's whois server on IPv6? $ host com.whois-servers.net com.whois-servers.net is an alias for whois.verisign-grs.com. whois.verisign-grs.com has address 199.7.59.74 whois.verisign-grs.com has IPv6 address 2001:503:3227:1060::74 $ traceroute6 2001:503:3

Re: rpki vs. secure dns?

On Apr 28, 2012, at 5:17 PM, Saku Ytti wrote: > People might scared to rely on DNS on accepting routes, but is this really an > issue? Yes, recursive dependencies are an issue. I'm really surprised that folks are even seriously considering something like this, but OTOH, this sort of thing k

Re: rpki vs. secure dns?

On Apr 28, 2012, at 5:05 AM, Paul Vixie wrote: > is anybody taking it seriously? It's hard to take seriously any proposal which is predicated upon recursive dependencies. --- Roland Dobbins //

Re: rpki vs. secure dns?

Randy: > as i agree that there is a problem, i *very* eagerly await your proposal Reality: A few years back there were a half a dozen options proposed. soBGP, pgBGP, IRR based solutions, etc. Just recently PSVs were discussed and dismissed as a live option. Why? 1. Only S-BGP/BGP-SEC will solve

Power pricing in San Francisco Bay Area colocations?

I am trying to compare some pricing, anyone who has recently priced circuits such as 208V/30A single and 3-phase (max load factor of 40% for A+B power), could you tell me what you have been offered? I don't need the names of the companies the pricing comes from, just trying to see a snapshot of pri