http://www.nanpa.com/nanp1/allutlzd.zip lists NPANXX and Ratecentre.
How does number portability interact with this?
What fraction of numbers have been ported? (Where should I look/google to
find the answer?)
--
These are my opinions. I hate spam.
On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 09:57:32 AM Michael Hallgren
wrote:
I don't think you need route-reflection in a 5 node iBGP.
I'm for doing it now and not worrying about it later.
Also, don't originate your routes from your peering router
Mark.
signature.asc
Description: This is a
On Jan 15, 2014, at 12:02 AM, Dobbins, Roland rdobb...@arbor.net wrote:
Again, folks, this isn't theoretical. When the particular attacks cited in
this thread were taking place, I was astonished that the IXP infrastructure
routes were even being advertised outside of the IXP network,
On Jan 15, 2014, at 9:18 PM, Leo Bicknell bickn...@ufp.org wrote:
However, a good engineer would know there are drawbacks to next-hop-self, in
particular it slows convergence in a number of situations. There are
networks where fast convergence is more important than route scaling, and
On (2014-01-15 08:18 -0600), Leo Bicknell wrote:
I know a lot of people push next-hop-self, and if you're a large ISP with
thousands of BGP customers is pretty much required to scale.
It's actually the polar opposite. If you are small, there are no compelling
reasons to put IXP in IGP.
If you
On Jan 15, 2014, at 8:49 AM, Dobbins, Roland rdobb...@arbor.net wrote:
Not really. What I'm saying is that since PMTU-D is already broken on so
many endpoint networks - i.e., where traffic originates and where it
terminates - that any issues arising from PMTU-D irregularities in IXP
On Jan 15, 2014, at 10:31 PM, Leo Bicknell bickn...@ufp.org wrote:
I am approaching it from a different perspective, 'where is PMTU-D broken for
people who want to use 1500-9K frames end to end?'
I understand that perspective, absolutely.
But what I'm saying is that that whether or not
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 10:11 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.net wrote:
NEVER EVER EVER put an IX prefix into BGP, IGP, or even
static route. An IXP LAN should not be reachable from any
device not directly attached to that LAN. Period.
Doing so endangers your peers the IX itself. It is
On Jan 15, 2014, at 9:37 AM, Dobbins, Roland rdobb...@arbor.net wrote:
But what I'm saying is that that whether or not they want to use jumbo frames
for Internet traffic, it doesn't matter, because PMTU-D is likely to be
broken either at the place where the traffic is initiated, the place
On Jan 15, 2014, at 10:44 , William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 10:11 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.net
wrote:
NEVER EVER EVER put an IX prefix into BGP, IGP, or even
static route. An IXP LAN should not be reachable from any
device not directly attached to
On Jan 15, 2014, at 10:52 PM, Leo Bicknell bickn...@ufp.org wrote:
(Business class) ISP's don't break PMTU-D, end users break it with the
equipment they connect.
Concur 100%. That's my point.
So a smart user connecting equipment that is properly configured should be
able to expect it
UUnet once advertised the /24 for MAE-East to me (well, Net99), and because I
also had it in my IGP, my network was using UUnet's backbone for west-to-east
coast traffic for a couple of days until I noticed and fixed it (with
next-hop-self).
I agree 100% with Patrick and others on this point.
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 10:57 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.net wrote:
On Jan 15, 2014, at 10:44 , William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
I have to disagree with you. If it appears in a traceroute to
somewhere else, I'd like to be able to ping and traceroute directly to
it. When I can't,
On 1/14/14, 8:41 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
I repeat: NEVER EVER EVER put an IX prefix into BGP, IGP, or even static route.
An IXP LAN should not be reachable from any device except those directly
attached to that LAN. Period.
So ... RFC1918 addresses for the IXP fabric, then?
(Half
On 2014-01-15, at 12:04, Jim Shankland na...@shankland.org wrote:
On 1/14/14, 8:41 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
I repeat: NEVER EVER EVER put an IX prefix into BGP, IGP, or even static
route. An IXP LAN should not be reachable from any device except those
directly attached to that LAN.
Could an Amazon AWS Engineer contact me off list.
We're seeing what is perceived to be performance issues and I'd like to discuss
what the expected performance should be.
The Amazon AWS support channels don't appear to be meant for network type
question.
Thanks
/Ryan
Ryan Harden
Senior
* na...@shankland.org (Jim Shankland) [Wed 15 Jan 2014, 18:04 CET]:
So ... RFC1918 addresses for the IXP fabric, then?
(Half kidding, but still )
They need to be globally unique.
-- Niels.
--
It's amazing what people will do to get their name on the internet,
which is odd,
* patr...@ianai.net (Patrick W. Gilmore) [Wed 15 Jan 2014, 04:36 CET]:
[..]
NEVER EVER EVER put an IX prefix into BGP, IGP, or even static
route. An IXP LAN should not be reachable from any device not
directly attached to that LAN. Period.
This is correct, and protects both your (ISP)
On 1/14/2014 4:06 PM, Brandon Applegate wrote:
Just saw this in a message tonight. No idea if this is a transient error
or not.
---
host gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com
[gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com][2607:f8b0:4002:c01::1a]
said: 550-5.7.1 [2607:ff70:11::11] Our system has detected that this
On Jan 15, 2014, at 10:05 AM, Darren Pilgrim na...@bitfreak.org
wrote:
On 1/14/2014 4:06 PM, Brandon Applegate wrote:
Just saw this in a message tonight. No idea if this is a transient error
or not.
---
host gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Niels Bakker niels=na...@bakker.net wrote:
* na...@shankland.org (Jim Shankland) [Wed 15 Jan 2014, 18:04 CET]:
So ... RFC1918 addresses for the IXP fabric, then?
(Half kidding, but still )
They need to be globally unique.
do they? :)
also... there
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Niels Bakker niels=na...@bakker.net wrote:
* na...@shankland.org (Jim Shankland) [Wed 15 Jan 2014, 18:04 CET]:
So ... RFC1918 addresses for the IXP fabric, then?
(Half kidding, but still )
They need to be globally unique.
Hi Niels,
Actually, they
On 1/15/2014 10:14 AM, Franck Martin wrote:
On Jan 15, 2014, at 10:05 AM, Darren Pilgrim na...@bitfreak.org
mailto:na...@bitfreak.org
wrote:
On 1/14/2014 4:06 PM, Brandon Applegate wrote:
Just saw this in a message tonight. No idea if this is a transient error
or not.
---
host
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 1:26 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Niels Bakker niels=na...@bakker.net wrote:
* na...@shankland.org (Jim Shankland) [Wed 15 Jan 2014, 18:04 CET]:
So ... RFC1918 addresses for the IXP fabric, then?
(Half kidding, but still
On Jan 15, 2014, at 10:26 AM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
Of course working, monitorable and testable are three different
things. If my NMS can't reach the IXP's addresses, my view of the IXP
is impaired. And the Internet is broken is not a trouble report that
leads to a successful
* c...@bloomcounty.org (Clay Fiske) [Wed 15 Jan 2014, 20:34 CET]:
Semi-related tangent: Working in an IXP setting I have seen weird
corner cases cause issues in conjunction with the IXP subnet
existing in BGP. Say someone’s got proxy ARP enabled on their router
(sadly, more common than it
* b...@herrin.us (William Herrin) [Wed 15 Jan 2014, 19:27 CET]:
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Niels Bakker niels=na...@bakker.net wrote:
* na...@shankland.org (Jim Shankland) [Wed 15 Jan 2014, 18:04 CET]:
So ... RFC1918 addresses for the IXP fabric, then?
(Half kidding, but still )
On Jan 15, 2014, at 10:56 AM, Darren Pilgrim na...@bitfreak.org wrote:
On 1/15/2014 10:14 AM, Franck Martin wrote:
On Jan 15, 2014, at 10:05 AM, Darren Pilgrim na...@bitfreak.org
mailto:na...@bitfreak.org
wrote:
On 1/14/2014 4:06 PM, Brandon Applegate wrote:
Just saw this in a message
Can someone provide a little guidance on RADb (and other IRRs)?
Our organization is not a customer of any IRRs, but our ARIN IP
allocation is registered in RADb and Level3's IRR. The majority of these
entries are incorrect and list other AS#'s (AS's that have never been
authorized to announce
On 15/01/2014 21:22, Blake Hudson wrote:
I have emailed Level3 about the incorrect entries in their IRR with no
response. I have also emailed Cogent about their incorrect entry in RADb,
also with no response.
Should I be concerned about these entries? Do these entries give someone
the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Or perhaps this indicates that no one pays attention to what is in the
RAdb, and therefore makes a statement about the RAdb itself?
No idea myself...
- - ferg
On 1/15/2014 1:22 PM, Blake Hudson wrote:
Can someone provide a little guidance on
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Darren Pilgrim na...@bitfreak.org wrote:
host gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com[2607:f8b0:4002:c01::1a] said: 550-5.7.1
[2607:fc50:1000:1f00::2 16] Our system has detected that this
550-5.7.1 message does not meet IPv6 sending guidelines...
I could not
Ah yes, the confusion with the separator between IP and ports.
IPv4:port
IPv6.port
That gets a lot of regex confused...
Especially since IPv4:port works, while IPv6:port usually does not and you
usually need [ipv6]:port.
Owen
I 100% agree with Nick. But, in dealing with Level3, you need Level3 Members
Remarks in your objects to deal with multiple registries etc. They have an ok
system that is a nightmare to pull from different datasources with them and
they've churned the ultimately responsible individual a few
On Jan 15, 2014, at 12:46 PM, Niels Bakker niels=na...@bakker.net wrote:
* c...@bloomcounty.org (Clay Fiske) [Wed 15 Jan 2014, 20:34 CET]:
Semi-related tangent: Working in an IXP setting I have seen weird corner
cases cause issues in conjunction with the IXP subnet existing in BGP. Say
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 09:18:30AM +0200, Saku Ytti wrote:
DNS, NTP, SNMP, chargen et.al. could trivially change to QUIC/MinimaLT
or compared, getting same 0 RTT penalty as UDP without reflection
potential.
I wouldn't say trivial, but QUIC and MinimaLT are hopefully the future.
The near
* c...@bloomcounty.org (Clay Fiske) [Thu 16 Jan 2014, 00:35 CET]:
[...]
Seriously though, it’s not so simple. You only get replies if the IP
you ARP for is in the offender’s route table (or they have a default
route). I’ve seen different routers respond depending on which
non-local IP was
On Jan 15, 2014, at 3:47 PM, Niels Bakker niels=na...@bakker.net wrote:
* c...@bloomcounty.org (Clay Fiske) [Thu 16 Jan 2014, 00:35 CET]:
[...]
Seriously though, it’s not so simple. You only get replies if the IP you ARP
for is in the offender’s route table (or they have a default route).
* c...@bloomcounty.org (Clay Fiske) [Thu 16 Jan 2014, 00:59 CET]:
This is where theory diverges nicely from practice. In some cases
the offender broadcast his reply, and guess what else? A lot of
routers listen to unsolicited ARP replies.
I've never seen this. Please name vendor and product,
On Jan 15, 2014, at 4:03 PM, Niels Bakker niels=na...@bakker.net wrote:
* c...@bloomcounty.org (Clay Fiske) [Thu 16 Jan 2014, 00:59 CET]:
This is where theory diverges nicely from practice. In some cases the
offender broadcast his reply, and guess what else? A lot of routers listen
to
Wondering if anyone in the community could kindly advise. How can someone get
a deceased person's blog removed/taken down from WordPress?
Please contact me directly offline if you can assist.
Thank you
Ilissa
eMail: ili...@imillerpr.com
Cisco PIX's used to do this if the firewall had a route and saw a ARP request
in that IP range it would proxy arp.
- Original Message -
On Jan 15, 2014, at 4:03 PM, Niels Bakker niels=na...@bakker.net wrote:
* c...@bloomcounty.org (Clay Fiske) [Thu 16 Jan 2014, 00:59 CET]:
This
On Jan 14, 2014, at 4:06 PM, Brandon Applegate bran...@burn.net wrote:
Just saw this in a message tonight. No idea if this is a transient error or
not.
---
host gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com
[gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com][2607:f8b0:4002:c01::1a]
said: 550-5.7.1 [2607:ff70:11::11] Our
wordpress.com ?
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 8:09 PM, Ilissa Miller ili...@imillerpr.com wrote:
Wondering if anyone in the community could kindly advise. How can someone
get a deceased person's blog removed/taken down from WordPress?
Please contact me directly offline if you can assist.
THANK YOU!
On Jan 15, 2014, at 8:50 PM, Peter Thimmesch wrote:
http://en.support.wordpress.com/deceased-user/
On Jan 15, 2014, at 8:09 PM, Ilissa Miller ili...@imillerpr.com wrote:
Wondering if anyone in the community could kindly advise. How can someone
get a deceased person's
Excellent. So all everyone has to do is not buy cisco _or_ juniper.
Wait a minute
--
TTFN,
patrick
On Jan 15, 2014, at 19:54 , Eric Rosen ero...@redhat.com wrote:
Cisco PIX's used to do this if the firewall had a route and saw a ARP request
in that IP range it would proxy arp.
Blake,
If you find that an RADb maintainer is unresponsive about removing
stale/incorrect objects in the RADb, we will review your request
and can remove the objects in question.
Regards,
Larry Blunk
Merit
- Original Message -
Can someone provide a little guidance on RADb
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 10:21 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.netwrote:
Excellent. So all everyone has to do is not buy cisco _or_ juniper.
Or make the LANs IPv6-only adressed, since ARP is not used. G
And it is probably unlikely that someone will turn on a ND Proxy by
accident.
On 1/15/2014 6:31 PM, Clay Fiske wrote:
Yes, yes, I expected a smug reply like this. I just didn’t expect it to take so
long.
But how can I detect proxy ARP when detecting proxy ARP was patented in 1996?
http://www.google.com/patents/US5708654
Seriously though, it’s not so simple. You only
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 10:49 PM, ML m...@kenweb.org wrote:
Shouldn't ARP inspection be a common feature?
Dynamic ARP inspection is mostly useful only when the trusted ports
receive their MAC to IP address
mapping from a trusted DHCP server, and the trusted mapping is established
using DHCP
It occurs to me, you may have sent a bounce, where the envelope from is empty,
therefore SPF would work on the domain in the helo/ehlo. People often
forget to put a SPF record there... So there may be no SPF in fact...
Nope. In this case, Google was just messed up.
R's,
John
51 matches
Mail list logo
