I was wondering whether you have some experience with setting of the next
hop tracking delay value for BGP to 0 for critical changes please
There's gonna be only a few prefixes registered with BGP so far, around 150+
adam
Carlos,
check the mail logs of your web-server, your domain might have a primary
A-record pointing to something different than MX-records. When the MX
servers do something like greylisting and bounce with a temp-code (4xx)
hotmail servers will try alternative records (like @ IN A) and might find a
Falling back to A when there is an MX (especially after receiving any kind
of SMTP response from the MX) is an RFC violation by the way (rfc 5321
section 5.1)
Even then - this doesn't appear to be the case. The bounce below was
generated entirely within Hotmail. From SNT133-WS53 (a hotmail webse
Hello,
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 10:07:50PM +, Paul Zugnoni wrote:
> Curious whether it's commonplace to find systems that
> automatically regard .0 and .255 IP addresses (ipv4) as src/dst in
> packets as traffic that should be considered invalid.
On a separate note, one of my customers discove
Mike,
I think this is exactly what is going on. The domains that are having
issues have greylisting on with the spam filtering service and are
hosted on a farm of hosting servers. We have blocked port 25 on the
main hosting IP of the web server, and moved the built in mail server to
listen on an
Suresh,
The affected domains have never been on hotmail, etc. We've actually
held this domain/hosting for the past 14+ years on this particular
domain. Yes, there is an RFC violation, and it's apparently due to the
greylisting feature from the spam filtering.
Carlos M. Perez
Runcentral, LLC
On
"authentication required" is a bizzarre error to return.
Does it go away if you actually turn off graylisting for hotmail?
On Tuesday, October 23, 2012, Carlos M. Perez wrote:
> Mike,
>
> I think this is exactly what is going on. The domains that are having
> issues have greylisting on with the
RFC 2526 reserves the last 128 host addresses in each subnet for anycast use.
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 7:15 AM, Andy Smith wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 10:07:50PM +, Paul Zugnoni wrote:
>> Curious whether it's commonplace to find systems that
>> automatically regard .0 and .255
Hi,
> RFC 2526 reserves the last 128 host addresses in each subnet for anycast use.
But that would mean that the ...:fffe address also shouldn't work. Considering
RFC 2526 then filtering those addresses when used as source address makes sense.
- Sander
PS: I'm in contact with a network enginee
Hi Roland,
> -Original Message-
> From: Dobbins, Roland [mailto:rdobb...@arbor.net]
> Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 6:49 PM
> To: NANOG list
> Subject: Re: IP tunnel MTU
>
>
> On Oct 23, 2012, at 5:24 AM, Templin, Fred L wrote:
>
> > Since tunnels always reduce the effective MTU seen b
Hi Rob,
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 08:16:48AM -0500, Rob Laidlaw wrote:
> RFC 2526 reserves the last 128 host addresses in each subnet for anycast use.
D'oh, I didn't even think to check for reserved addresses. Thanks.
Cheers,
Andy
--
http://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting
On 23 October 2012 14:16, Rob Laidlaw wrote:
> RFC 2526 reserves the last 128 host addresses in each subnet for anycast use.
IPv4 addresses ending in .0 and .255 can't be used either because the
top and bottom addresses of a subnet are unusable.
Why would hetzner be making such assumptions about
>IPv4 addresses ending in .0 and .255 can't be used either because the
>top and bottom addresses of a subnet are unusable.
Only true if speaking of /24, but with the appearance of CIDR 19 years
ago, this is not true anymore The .255 and .0 in the "center" of a /23
are perfectly usable see an ear
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Justin Krejci wrote:
> And since owen has not yet mentioned it, consider something that supports
> having : in its address as well.
>
> Sort of tangentially related, I had a support rep for a vendor once tell me
> that a 255 in the second or third octet was not v
Hi Adam,
Works just fine on any relatively modern router.
Cheers,
Jeff
-Original Message-
From: Adam Vitkovsky [mailto:adam.vitkov...@swan.sk]
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 12:31 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: MP-BGP next hop tracking delay 0
I was wondering whether you have some ex
* Job Snijders
> In the post-classfull routing world .0 and .255 should be normal IP
> addresses. CIDR was only recently defined (somewhere in 1993) so I
> understand it might take companies some time to adjust to this novel
> situation. Ok, enough snarkyness!
>
> Quite recently a participant of
I purposely assigned myself a .0 and never had a problem using anything online,
or going anywhere
> Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 22:00:53 +0200
> From: tore.ander...@redpill-linpro.com
> To: j...@instituut.net
> Subject: Re: Issues encountered with assigning .0 and .255 as usable
> addresses?
> CC: na
I realize that this is reaching way back, but you may want
to have a look at the latest version of IRON:
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-templin-ironbis-12.txt
IRON manages the internal routing systems for large virtual
service provider networks. It deals with deaggregation and
churn due to mobility
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 4:13 PM, Templin, Fred L
wrote:
> I realize that this is reaching way back, but you may want
> to have a look at the latest version of IRON:
>
> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-templin-ironbis-12.txt
>
> IRON manages the internal routing systems for large virtual
> service pro
A colleague is working on a story that a particular country not to be named
implemented technology to block a particular infamous riot-inducing video
for a certain section of its populace.
The questions are: 1) how hard is this to do at scale, 2) does it require
DPI equipment and 3) is there a way
And of course, we all know, it was the video that induced the riot... :)
-mike
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 23, 2012, at 14:53, Ryan Singel wrote:
> A colleague is working on a story that a particular country not to be named
> implemented technology to block a particular infamous riot-inducing v
On 23 Oct 2012, at 11:52 PM, Ryan Singel wrote:
> A colleague is working on a story that a particular country not to be named
> implemented technology to block a particular infamous riot-inducing video
> for a certain section of its populace.
>
> The questions are: 1) how hard is this to do at sc
Reading about OTN networks, I see that "IrDI" is specified to handle the case
where one OTN network needs to connect to another natively with OTN signals.
Is this done in the real world? Does OTN network operator A ever go to OTN
network operator B and say, "I'd like to buy a OTU2 from city X to
Most countries that implement a great firewall of $country model already do
route all their international outbound traffic through a common gateway.
Still others use the mechanism of sending a court order to all registered
ISPs in the country asking them to block whichever URL it is.
If that ISP
Most telcos can provide an OTU2 client interface but there is no peering, they
are just mapping directly to a wavelength or to OTU3/4. So it's transparent
service.
Phil
On Oct 23, 2012, at 7:07 PM, Will Orton wrote:
> Reading about OTN networks, I see that "IrDI" is specified to handle the
"With coded TCP, blocks of packets are clumped together and then
transformed into algebraic equations that describe the packets. If
part of the message is lost, the receiver can solve the equation to
derive the missing data. The process of solving the equations is
simple and linear, meaning it does
Modeled with just simple FTP sessions?
Ugh: they admitted to having MIT backbone packet traces to analyze, and then
used that simple of a simulator...
George William Herbert
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 23, 2012, at 8:29 PM, Rodrick Brown wrote:
> "With coded TCP, blocks of packets are clumped
27;How did you do that?' and we said 'We're engineers!' " she jokes.
More here:
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/429722/a-bandwidth-breakthrough/?utm_campaign=newsletters&utm_source=newsletter-daily-all&utm_medium=email&utm_content=20121023
ogyreview.com/news/429722/a-bandwidth-breakthrough/?utm_campaign=newsletters&utm_source=newsletter-daily-all&utm_medium=email&utm_content=20121023
>
>
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 9:18 AM, Mike Jones wrote:
> IPv4 addresses ending in .0 and .255 can't be used either because the
> top and bottom addresses of a subnet are unusable.
>
> Why would hetzner be making such assumptions about what is and is not
> a valid address on a remote network? if you ha
(2012/10/24 12:29), Rodrick Brown wrote:
> "With coded TCP, blocks of packets are clumped together and then
> transformed into algebraic equations that describe the packets. If
> part of the message is lost, the receiver can solve the equation to
> derive the missing data.
Don't do that.
> MIT fo
31 matches
Mail list logo
