Re: Hurricane Maria: Summary of communication status - and lack of

2017-10-05 Thread Sean Donelan
On Thu, 5 Oct 2017, Jean-Francois Mezei wrote: Statistics may look bad showing 100,000 without power. But if it is a single break by a branch it is easy to fix compared to having 1000 breaks by 1000 branches. So again, statistics don't give the full story on the real extent of damage. The FCC i

Re: RFC 1918 network range choices

2017-10-05 Thread Michael Thomas
On 10/05/2017 05:14 PM, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote: On Oct 5, 2017, at 4:52 PM, Steve Feldman wrote: I have a vague recollection of parts of 192.168.0.0/16 being used as default addresses on early Sun systems. If that's actually true, it might explain that choice. 192.9.200.X rings a bell; but

Re: RFC 1918 network range choices

2017-10-05 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg
> On Oct 5, 2017, at 4:52 PM, Steve Feldman wrote: > > I have a vague recollection of parts of 192.168.0.0/16 being used as default > addresses on early Sun systems. If that's actually true, it might explain > that choice. 192.9.200.X rings a bell; but those might have been the example addre

Re: RFC 1918 network range choices

2017-10-05 Thread Steve Feldman
> On Oct 5, 2017, at 4:14 PM, William Herrin wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 1:32 PM, Jerry Cloe wrote: > >> Several years ago I remember seeing a mathematical justification for it, >> and I remember thinking at the time it made a lot of sense, but now I can't >> find it. >> > > Hi Jerry,

Re: RFC 1918 network range choices

2017-10-05 Thread William Herrin
On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 1:32 PM, Jerry Cloe wrote: > Several years ago I remember seeing a mathematical justification for it, > and I remember thinking at the time it made a lot of sense, but now I can't > find it. > Hi Jerry, If there's special ASIC-friendly math here, beyond what was later gen

Re: Hurricane Maria: Summary of communication status - and lack of

2017-10-05 Thread Mike Hammett
Broadcast towers that you ruled out often have cell companies on them. Buildings often have cell sites on them. DAS really isn't all that common. There's usually two, three, four providers on a given tower. My ASR search of Arecibo, PR gives me 19 constructed. Six of them are on known multi-ten

Re: RFC 1918 network range choices

2017-10-05 Thread Joe Provo
On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 03:04:42PM -0400, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: > On Thu, 05 Oct 2017 13:39:04 -0400, Jay Ashworth said: > > > I have seen a number of versions of that in reading things people sent me > > and > > things I found myself, and all of them seem to depend on ASICs that didn't

Re: Hurricane Maria: Summary of communication status - and lack of

2017-10-05 Thread Jean-Francois Mezei
got curious about the FCC's definition of "cell site" in the Maria outages reports in Puerto Rico. In the Oct 4 report: Arecibo is reported as having 68 cell sites served, 65 being out. (95.2% outage) The FCC has an "ASR" (Antenna Structure Registration) search for cell sites, and this points

Re: RFC 1918 network range choices

2017-10-05 Thread Randy Bush
>> The answer seems to be "no, Jon's not answering his email anymore". jon was not a big supporter of rfc1918

Re: RFC 1918 network range choices

2017-10-05 Thread Brian Kantor
On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 03:04:42PM -0400, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: > Can't speak t the ASICs, but CIDR existed, even if your vendor was behind the > times and still calling stuff class A/B/C. (Such nonsense persisted well into > this century). Check the dates... The concept of using a number

Re: RFC 1918 network range choices

2017-10-05 Thread valdis . kletnieks
On Thu, 05 Oct 2017 13:39:04 -0400, Jay Ashworth said: > I have seen a number of versions of that in reading things people sent me and > things I found myself, and all of them seem to depend on ASICs that didn't > exist at the time the ranges were chosen, and probably also CIDR which also > didn't

RE: RFC 1918 network range choices

2017-10-05 Thread Jay Ashworth
I have seen a number of versions of that in reading things people sent me and things I found myself, and all of them seem to depend on ASICs that didn't exist at the time the ranges were chosen, and probably also CIDR which also didn't exist. They sound good, but I'm not buying em. :-) On Octob

RE: RFC 1918 network range choices

2017-10-05 Thread Jerry Cloe
Several years ago I remember seeing a mathematical justification for it, and I remember thinking at the time it made a lot of sense, but now I can't find it.   I think the goal was to make it easier for routers to dump private ranges based on simple binary math, but not sure that concept ever go

Re: Charity IT Pulse :) one more sleep till Bytenight Action for Children 2017

2017-10-05 Thread Hugo Slabbert
You've done this before[1] and you've been advised before[2][3] that plugging charities is not appropriate for this list[4]. Plug it on Twitter or Facebook or wherever else these things generally go. At which point is this mod territory to deal with? -- Hugo Slabbert | email, xmpp/jabbe

Re: Contact at Proofpoint?

2017-10-05 Thread Alexander Maassen
ecarbo...@proofpoint.com Kind regards, Alexander Maassen - Maintainer DroneBL- Peplink Certified Engineer Oorspronkelijk bericht Van: John Morrissey Datum: 03-10-17 23:19 (GMT+01:00) Aan: nanog@nanog.org Onderwerp: Contact at Proofpoint? Anyone have a clueful contact at Pro

Re: RFC 1918 network range choices

2017-10-05 Thread John Kristoff
On Thu, 5 Oct 2017 15:03:58 + "Jay R. Ashworth" wrote: > The answer seems to be "no, Jon's not answering his email anymore". You might get a better answer over on the internet-history list. Lots of people are still around that could probably shed some light on it.

Re: RFC 1918 network range choices

2017-10-05 Thread Jay R. Ashworth
The answer seems to be "no, Jon's not answering his email anymore". This seems semi-authoritative, though, and probably as close as we're going to get: https://superuser.com/questions/784978/why-did-the-ietf-specifically-choose-192-168-16-to-be-a-private-ip-address-class/785641 Thanks, Akshay.

Re: RFC 1918 network range choices

2017-10-05 Thread Akshay Kumar via NANOG
https://superuser.com/questions/784978/why-did-the-ietf-specifically-choose-192-168-16-to-be-a-private-ip-address-class/785641 On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 10:40 AM, Jay R. Ashworth wrote: > Does anyone have a pointer to an *authoritative* source on why > > 10/8 > 172.16/12 and > 192.168/16 > > were t

RFC 1918 network range choices

2017-10-05 Thread Jay R. Ashworth
Does anyone have a pointer to an *authoritative* source on why 10/8 172.16/12 and 192.168/16 were the ranges chosen to enshrine in the RFC? Came up elsewhere, and I can't find a good citation either. To list or I'll summarize. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink

Charity IT Pulse :) one more sleep till Bytenight Action for Children 2017

2017-10-05 Thread Colin Johnston
>> >> Dear all, one more sleep until ByteNight events across the UK on Friday >> night. >> Please donate if you can electronically >> >> >> See mydonate page linked to Byte Night >> https://mydonate.bt.com/fundraisers/colinjohnston1 >> >

Re: Anyone from AT&T DNS?

2017-10-05 Thread Jay Farrell via NANOG
Yep, the notation with the slash used to be ATT's standard method. At my job (where we had some customers with ATT MIS T1 circuits) we transitioned to a web front end for our DNS that didn't allow for the slash, so we had to nudge ATT to allow us to use a dash notation instead for delegations. As