Anyone else aware of it?
Can you scope "issue" with any facts or data?
T
On Feb 17, 2016 11:16, "Fred Hollis" wrote:
> Anyone else aware of it?
>
I googled cogent peering and the first result opened fine
-- Niels.
* toddun...@gmail.com (Todd Underwood) [Wed 17 Feb 2016, 17:36 CET]:
Can you scope "issue" with any facts or data?
T
On Feb 17, 2016 11:16, "Fred Hollis" wrote:
Anyone else aware of it?
Todd Underwood wrote:
> Can you scope "issue" with any facts or data?
are facts or data strictly necessary on the nanog mailing list?
Nick
> T
> On Feb 17, 2016 11:16, "Fred Hollis" wrote:
>
>> Anyone else aware of it?
>>
They haven't been since at least the mid 90's :)
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 12:50 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> Todd Underwood wrote:
> > Can you scope "issue" with any facts or data?
>
> are facts or data strictly necessary on the nanog mailing list?
>
> Nick
>
> > T
> > On Feb 17, 2016 11:16, "Fred
let me try to be more concrete and helpful:
lots of people who work at google *and* at cogent are on this list.
none of them are doing anything to look at anything right now b/c
there are no facts in evidence yet.
if you want help with something or want to verify something, provide a
time, a date
Hello,
I am wanting to purchase a /22 from one of the online auction sites
(Hilco). Before we move ahead with it I wanted to check the history of
IPs within the allocation.I find many sites where you can enter 1 IP to
do a check but they don't seem to accept subnets to check.
Are you aware
Apologies for a post as a non-expert, but it was suggested that I see if
any Verizon techs are reading here and to solicit opinions on fixing a
peculiar problem.
I noticed about a month ago that all upload traffic from my home router
(Fios) to a specific work machine was extremely slow. I firs
Hi folks,
Now, can not sent mail to libero.it by RBL.
I requests to removal from blacklist
I want to contact libero.it mail adminis.
or
Anyone knows request form?
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 12:29 PM, Todd Underwood wrote:
> let me try to be more concrete and helpful:
>
> lots of people who work at google *and* at cogent are on this list.
> none of them are doing anything to look at anything right now b/c
> there are no facts in evidence yet.
>
happy to help o
> I find many sites where you can enter 1 IP to
> do a check but they don't seem to accept subnets to check.
Maybe this is a help?
https://www.senderbase.org/
Bernd
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Thank you everyone for the responses, I now have about 10 options to look
at due to the many replies.
greg
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 1:25 PM, Bernd Spiess
wrote:
> > I find many sites where you can enter 1 IP to
> > do a check but they don't seem to accept subnets to check.
>
> Maybe this i
You can try this script:
https://github.com/DjinnS/check-rbl
-i,--ip The IP or subnet to check
I’m using it to check my subnets
Roberto
> On Feb 17, 2016, at 15:25, Bernd Spiess wrote:
>
>> I find many sites where you can enter 1 IP to
>> do a check but they don't seem to accept subnet
I avoided posting traceroute initially after reading the FAQ, but this
seems like a case where it can help in diagnostics. Loss starts at the
affected device (hop 3) and persists. See mtr report for affected and
unaffected gateways:
Host Loss% Snt Last
> if there's more data :(
randpkt -t bgp -
Hi.
Do you know if there are any docs (RFC, drafts, independent...) that
study the tricks being done with the A/ RRs? What I mean is that it
is currently being used not only to resolve the IP address of a
hostname, but for load-balancing as well, the case being that the
hostname is not just a
Is rfc7553 what you are looking for? https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7553
If my telepathy still works fine and I understood your question well -
then the answer is "NO, that is not a global well-known issue" ;)
On 17.02.16 18:15, Fred Hollis wrote:
> Anyone else aware of it?
>
> The premise above therefore devolves to: Since most of the traffic is to
> those networks, then most of the bits flow over contracted peerings.
>
> Perhaps “most” can be argued, but obviously a significant portion of all
> peering bits flow over contracted sessions. Hopefully we can all agree
Each bit traverses only one peering session, however, at the "top of its
trajectory" to use a physical metaphor. The uphill and downhill sides are all
transit.
-Bill
> On Feb 17, 2016, at 14:06, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>
>> The premise above therefore devolves to: Since mo
> On Feb 17, 2016, at 5:04 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>
>> The premise above therefore devolves to: Since most of the traffic is to
>> those networks, then most of the bits flow over contracted peerings.
>>
>> Perhaps “most” can be argued, but obviously a significant portion of all
>> peering b
Yes, another post in this ballpark.
I am remembering someone telling me that cross connects from CH3 (Elk Grove
Village) to CH1, CH2 or CH4 were not raw glass, but some sort of transport. I
lose the details, whether it was wave transport, MPLS or something. I remember
the speed of the connecti
This assumes that there are no cooperatives providing settlement free peering
which includes both peer and transit routes.
Owen
> On Feb 17, 2016, at 14:09 , Bill Woodcock wrote:
>
> Each bit traverses only one peering session, however, at the "top of its
> trajectory" to use a physical metap
I am currently having a issue with cogent and google over ipv6. My traceroute
seems to hit cogent, Verizon, and then just dies.
I have a case open with both and each tells me the other is working on it.
-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Max Tul
Yes, it's a global Cogent problem. We are in contact with them as well
and were told that they're aware of that but can't do anything about it
on their own.
Dear Cogent Customer,
Cogent NOC team has been working with Verizon as well as Google to assist with
resolving the issue. After further
Cogent,
Can you stop peering with Verizon in the meantime? Please? D:
-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Fred Hollis
Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 10:25 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Cogent <=> Google Peering issue
Yes, it's a global
26 matches
Mail list logo
