On Wed, 11 Dec 2013, Carlos Kamtha wrote:
just a general curiousity question. it's been a long time since ive worked at
an ISP.
back then it was non-expiring DHCP leases and in some cases static IP for all..
(yes it was long ago..)
Any feedback would be greatly appreciated..
Yes, it's very
Back then it was also short lease dialup and radius / tacacs to keep track.
Things have got rather better
On Thursday, December 12, 2013, Carlos Kamtha wrote:
> Hi,
>
> just a general curiousity question. it's been a long time since ive worked
> at an ISP.
>
> back then it was non-expiring DHCP
Hi,
just a general curiousity question. it's been a long time since ive worked at
an ISP.
back then it was non-expiring DHCP leases and in some cases static IP for all..
(yes it was long ago..)
Any feedback would be greatly appreciated..
Carlos.
How to contact fb for this = contact law enforcement and they will subpoena
it from fb
Without that, you're SOL
--srs
On Thursday, December 12, 2013, Nathanael C. Cariaga wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Aside from the 'Help' menu inside the application, anyone here have an
> idea on how to contact Facebook (v
Eric Oosting writes:
> It brings a tear to my eye that it takes:
>
> 0) A long standing and well informed internet technologist;
> 1) specific, and potentially high end, CPE for the res;
> 2) specific and custom firmware, unsupported by CPE manufacturer ... or
> anyone;
> 3) hand installing seve
Hi,
Aside from the 'Help' menu inside the application, anyone here have an
idea on how to contact Facebook (via email) regarding getting the
information on a FB Page admin / creator? Would appreciate if you could
send it off the list.
Regards,
--
-nathan
On Dec 11, 2013 5:45 PM, "Larry Sheldon" wrote:
>
> On 12/11/2013 9:21 AM, Tim Franklin wrote:
>>>
>>> Just because something is public doesn¹t mean you have to accept
>>> ALL traffic, it just means you have to anticipate any potential
>>> problems based on Larry knowing your address rather than i
On 12/11/2013 9:21 AM, Tim Franklin wrote:
Just because something is public doesn¹t mean you have to accept
ALL traffic, it just means you have to anticipate any potential
problems based on Larry knowing your address rather than imagining
him standing at the front gate of your gated community. ;
In message
, George Michaelson writes:
>
> I am probably closer to consumer behaviour at home than most of you. I
> don't regard my home router as a vehicle for hackery beyond clue I can find
> on the end user public lists and rarely if ever even apply that, and I run
> stock factory billion cod
Based on what?
On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 9:59 PM, Mehmet Akcin wrote:
> Look at Juniper, MX Series.
>
> mehmet
>
> On Nov 28, 2013, at 9:37 PM, Jawaid Desktop wrote:
>
> > We're a service provider, and we have a network full of Cat6509's. We
> are finding that we are outgrowing them from the sta
On 12/11/13, 2:32 PM, "Jared Mauch" wrote:
>
>I'll chime in with a link to data:
>
>http://www.google.com/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=per-country-ipv6-adoption
>
>Looking at things, USA is at 5%+ adoption, which is due to the hard work
>of folks at Comcast (and other ISPs).
>
>Overall google is seei
I sincerely hope those former coworkers can hook up some invitations to
the Mansion. If you can make that work, have I got a deal for you.. ;)
On 12/11/13, 3:03 PM, "jamie rishaw" wrote:
>+1
>
>That was my first thought as well.
>
>"Well, I don't swing that way but I have an ex coworker or two
+1
That was my first thought as well.
"Well, I don't swing that way but I have an ex coworker or two at Playboy
that might be able to give you a pointer, no pun intended"
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 11:10 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
> On 12/10/2013 8:21 AM, Nilesh Kahar wrote:
>
>> Which is a good
What kind of issues? How many subs and what code?
Paul
On 12/11/2013, 11:14 AM, "Nilesh Kahar" wrote:
>Basically I am facing issues with MX80 LNS scenario. So just to make sure
>with community whether anyone is having similar problem.
>Also wanted to know about any other good BRAS product wh
We have deployed several MX480 for BRAS and had good success - definitely
within the 11.4X27 release but also we have one box on 13.2 (nothing like
living on the edge haha). I believe Juniper is starting to also recommend
12.3 for BRAS but would have to confirm that for sure.
On MX80 we also have
On 12/11/13, 7:45 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> To be clear, I wasn't accusing you of whining. And thanks for documenting
>> it for the next guy.
>
> it just works for gals, they have all the luck and the brains
>
>> Stock netgear does PD and works out of the box? Didn't realize that.
>
> so says my
I am probably closer to consumer behaviour at home than most of you. I
don't regard my home router as a vehicle for hackery beyond clue I can find
on the end user public lists and rarely if ever even apply that, and I run
stock factory billion code on my billion ADSL2+ home gateway.
I just enabled
Hear hear.
Mark Andrews wrote:
>
>In message , Sander
>Steffann
>writes:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Op 11 dec. 2013, om 20:46 heeft Kinkaid, Kyle het
>> volgende geschreven:
>> > I'm curious, do you know of a consumer-grade router which supports
>> > DHCPv6-PD?
>>
>> I have tested a whole bunch of them more
https://kb.isc.org/article/AA-01000
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Arturo Servin wrote:
> I think is better idea to rate-limit your responses rather than
> limiting the size of them.
>
> AFAIK, bind has a way to do it.
>
> .as
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Anurag Bhatia
> wrote:
> >
In message , Sander Steffann
writes:
> Hi,
>
> Op 11 dec. 2013, om 20:46 heeft Kinkaid, Kyle het
> volgende geschreven:
> > I'm curious, do you know of a consumer-grade router which supports
> > DHCPv6-PD?
>
> I have tested a whole bunch of them more than a year ago. I can remember
> seeing IPv6
Hi,
Op 11 dec. 2013, om 20:46 heeft Kinkaid, Kyle het volgende
geschreven:
> I'm curious, do you know of a consumer-grade router which supports
> DHCPv6-PD?
I have tested a whole bunch of them more than a year ago. I can remember seeing
IPv6 DHCPv6-PD client support on gear from AVM Fritz!box,
On 12/11/13, 11:46 AM, Kinkaid, Kyle wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>> It doesn’t. You can get IPv6 working with off-the-shelf equipment if you
>> choose to.
>>
>> Randy chose to use that particular hardware and software combination.
>
>
> I'm curious, do you kn
The problem isn't the consumer devices. The problem is most of the open
source router software developers don't see ipv6 as a priority, or
something even worth "wasting time" on.
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 1:57 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
>
> On Dec 11, 2013, at 1:46 PM, "Kinkaid, Kyle" wrote:
>
> >
On Dec 11, 2013, at 1:46 PM, "Kinkaid, Kyle" wrote:
> I
> would love to go to NewEgg and get a home router for $50 (or even $100)
> that is ready to go.
http://mydeviceinfo.comcast.net/?homegateway contains devices Comcast
has actually tested in their lab, and so they are safer than most.
Th
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> It doesn’t. You can get IPv6 working with off-the-shelf equipment if you
> choose to.
>
> Randy chose to use that particular hardware and software combination.
I'm curious, do you know of a consumer-grade router which supports
DHCPv6-PD? I
On Dec 11, 2013, at 2:18 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> It doesn’t. You can get IPv6 working with off-the-shelf equipment if you
> choose to.
>
> Randy chose to use that particular hardware and software combination.
I'll chime in with a link to data:
http://www.google.com/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=
dns-operations list is likely best suited for this question, but...
If using BIND 9.9.4 you can set the system to use TCP for repeated queries to
prevent spoofed ones from being replied to (ie: use yourself as an amplifier).
There's lists of domains published that are used in abuse, eg:
https:/
If you are using BIND, take a look at:
https://kb.isc.org/article/AA-01000
cv
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 1:06 PM, Anurag Bhatia wrote:
> Hello everyone
>
>
> I noticed some issues on one of DNS server I am managing. It was getting
> queries for couple of attacking domains and server was replying
Hi Doug
I am using PowerDNS recursor.
On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 12:51 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
> You don't mention what software you're using. If you're using BIND, ask
> this question on bind-us...@isc.org. There is indeed a solution.
>
> Doug
>
>
>
> On 12/11/2013 10:06 AM, Anurag Bhatia wrote:
It doesn’t. You can get IPv6 working with off-the-shelf equipment if you choose
to.
Randy chose to use that particular hardware and software combination.
Owen
On Dec 11, 2013, at 7:11 AM, Eric Oosting wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 8:17 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
>
>> Randy Bush wrote:
>>> htt
You don't mention what software you're using. If you're using BIND, ask
this question on bind-us...@isc.org. There is indeed a solution.
Doug
On 12/11/2013 10:06 AM, Anurag Bhatia wrote:
Hello everyone
I noticed some issues on one of DNS server I am managing.
I think is better idea to rate-limit your responses rather than
limiting the size of them.
AFAIK, bind has a way to do it.
.as
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Anurag Bhatia wrote:
> Hi ML
>
>
>
> Yeah I can understand. Even DNSSEC will have issues with it which makes me
> worry about rule eve
Probably looking for the DISA CONUS IPNOC.
Here's a good place to start:
http://www.disa.mil/About/Our-Organization-Structure/OD-Field-Office/CONUS
T
hanks,
Mark
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Miles Fidelman
wrote:
> Lots of luck there. I'll bet this is all handled by a sub-contracto
MX480 works for me as LNS with Ericson Smartedge as LAC with more then 10K
users
it is very stable with 11.4x27 version
The biggest limitations is that it is not possible to configure MTU for the
subscriber interface ( lower the MTU to1492 for PPPOE subscribers )
Nitzan
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at
Hi ML
Yeah I can understand. Even DNSSEC will have issues with it which makes me
worry about rule even today.
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 11:49 PM, ML wrote:
> On 12/11/2013 1:06 PM, Anurag Bhatia wrote:
> >
> > I am sure I am not first person experiencing this issue. Curious to hear
> > how you
On 12/11/2013 1:06 PM, Anurag Bhatia wrote:
>
> I am sure I am not first person experiencing this issue. Curious to hear
> how you are managing it. Also under what circumstances I can get a
> legitimate TCP query on port 53 whose reply exceeds a basic limit of less
> then 1000 bytes?
>
>
>
I'm not
Hello everyone
I noticed some issues on one of DNS server I am managing. It was getting
queries for couple of attacking domains and server was replying in TCP with
3700 bytes releasing very heavy packets. Now I see presence of some
(legitimate) DNS forwarders and hence I don't wish to limit queri
On (2013-12-11 16:10 +), R.P. Aditya wrote:
> Some problems never go away, just reappear periodically -- strict uRPF
> (and even loose uRPF) on transit provider peering interfaces are going
> to have unintended consequences as long as their is routing asymmetry
I can't imagine why uRPF/loose
Hi,
Le 11 déc. 2013 à 17:14, Nilesh Kahar a écrit :
> Also wanted to know about any other good BRAS product which can act fine for
> LNS - LAC setup.
Ericsson SmartEdge
Cisco ASR1000
Basically I am facing issues with MX80 LNS scenario. So just to make sure with
community whether anyone is having similar problem.
Also wanted to know about any other good BRAS product which can act fine for
LNS - LAC setup.
Thanks for all the responses.
Nil.
Some problems never go away, just reappear periodically -- strict uRPF
(and even loose uRPF) on transit provider peering interfaces are going
to have unintended consequences as long as their is routing asymmetry
on the Internet (pretty much guaranteed to be forever):
http://www.nanog.org/mailin
On 12/11/13, 7:11 AM, Eric Oosting wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 8:17 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
>
>> Randy Bush wrote:
>>> http://comcast6.net/ tells me that the local cmts is v6 enabled. my
>>> modem, a cisco dpc3008, is in the supported products list. so how do
>>> i turn the sucker on?
>>>
>>
> To be clear, I wasn't accusing you of whining. And thanks for documenting
> it for the next guy.
it just works for gals, they have all the luck and the brains
> Stock netgear does PD and works out of the box? Didn't realize that.
so says my authority, joelja
randy
On Dec 11, 2013, at 9:11 AM, Eric Oosting wrote:
> It brings a tear to my eye that it takes:
>
> 1) specific, and potentially high end, CPE for the res;
> 2) specific and custom firmware, unsupported by CPE manufacturer ... or
> anyone;
I think this says more about Randy's specific choice/luck
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
> > just to get IPv6 to work correctly.
>
> i would not have had this problem if i had not done the openwrt thing.
> the stock netgear would have been fine. i brought this on myself
> because i wanted to also run things such as an openvpn serve
> just to get IPv6 to work correctly.
i would not have had this problem if i had not done the openwrt thing.
the stock netgear would have been fine. i brought this on myself
because i wanted to also run things such as an openvpn server.
i was documenting for the next to follow, not to whine.
ra
On 12/11/2013 10:11 AM, Eric Oosting wrote:
It brings a tear to my eye that it takes:
0) A long standing and well informed internet technologist;
1) specific, and potentially high end, CPE for the res;
2) specific and custom firmware, unsupported by CPE manufacturer ... or
anyone;
3) hand inst
On 11/12/2013 15:11, Eric Oosting wrote:
> just to get IPv6 to work correctly.
>
> Yea, that's TOTALLY reasonable.
Sounds a bit like configuring access layer ipv4 in the early 1990s. It
took years of early production pain to turn it into a commodity product.
Nick
> Just because something is public doesn¹t mean you have to accept ALL
> traffic, it just means you have to anticipate any potential problems based
> on Larry knowing your address rather than imagining him standing at the
> front gate of your gated community. ;) (let¹s torture that analogy!)
There
On 12/11/13 10:10 -0500, Clayton Zekelman wrote:
At 09:30 AM 11/12/2013, Dan White wrote:
On 12/10/13 19:51 +0530, Nilesh Kahar wrote:
Which is a good BRAS product, to handle 15000 subscribers sessions with
full QoS & other features?
Juniper MX (480).
I heard there were some issues with
On 13-12-11 10:10 AM, Clayton Zekelman wrote:
At 09:30 AM 11/12/2013, Dan White wrote:
On 12/10/13 19:51 +0530, Nilesh Kahar wrote:
Which is a good BRAS product, to handle 15000 subscribers sessions with
full QoS & other features?
Juniper MX (480).
--
Dan White
I heard there were some
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 8:17 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
> Randy Bush wrote:
> > http://comcast6.net/ tells me that the local cmts is v6 enabled. my
> > modem, a cisco dpc3008, is in the supported products list. so how do
> > i turn the sucker on?
> >
> > randy
>
> after a lot of messing about with t
At 09:30 AM 11/12/2013, Dan White wrote:
On 12/10/13 19:51 +0530, Nilesh Kahar wrote:
Which is a good BRAS product, to handle 15000 subscribers sessions with
full QoS & other features?
Juniper MX (480).
--
Dan White
I heard there were some issues with the LAC/LNS functionality on the
M
Public ipv6 address : firewall :: public street address : locked
door/fence/guard dog
Just because something is public doesn¹t mean you have to accept ALL
traffic, it just means you have to anticipate any potential problems based
on Larry knowing your address rather than imagining him standing at
On 12/10/13 19:51 +0530, Nilesh Kahar wrote:
Which is a good BRAS product, to handle 15000 subscribers sessions with
full QoS & other features?
Juniper MX (480).
--
Dan White
Even with a single chip architecture the overall scale performance is WAY
better than Sup720. Hell, even RSP720 was a huge improvement in scale
I know the question was specifically about CPU but Sup2T is also a
different forwarding ASIC allowing it to do natively things Sup720
couldn't, like VPLS
Randy Bush wrote:
> http://comcast6.net/ tells me that the local cmts is v6 enabled. my
> modem, a cisco dpc3008, is in the supported products list. so how do
> i turn the sucker on?
>
> randy
after a lot of messing about with the massive help of Chris Adams and
John Brzozowski, problem solved.
Lots of luck there. I'll bet this is all handled by a sub-contractor
who's completely unresponsive. (Brings back memories of the days the
Army cut all their email over to a DISA contractor, and stuff started
bouncing all over the place. Reaching one of our sponsors became a
nightmare - and th
Tried that. No response by email. I haven't tried that phone number yet.
> On Dec 10, 2013, at 23:18, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
>
>
> have you tried:
>
> DoD NIC Registry Services
> DoD Network Information Center
> 3990 East Broad Street
> Columbus Ohio 43213
> United States
> Emai
59 matches
Mail list logo
