On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 08:05:39AM +0300, Töma Gavrichenkov wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2020, 12:45 AM Randy Bush wrote:
>
> > sad. http://nanog.org used to be the brilliant example of a fully
> > featured web site sans javascript, flash, ...
> >
>
> That was long ago now. It was using Cvent for
*NANOG 79 will now be held as a virtual meeting — the in-person meeting in
Boston has been canceled.*
Due to the COVID-19 global pandemic, the NANOG Board of Directors and Staff
have decided to cancel the in-person meeting in Boston. To ensure the
safety of our community, NANOG 79
❦ 22 avril 2020 12:51 -04, Andrey Kostin:
> BTW, has anybody yet thought/looked into extending RPKI-RTR protocol
> for validation of prefixes received from peer-as to make ingress
> filtering more dynamic and move away prefix filters from the routers?
It could be used as is if the client
On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 11:45 AM Danny McPherson wrote:
>
> On 2020-04-21 12:36, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 1:10 PM Matt Corallo via NANOG
> > wrote:
> >
> >> That’s an interesting idea. I’m not sure that LACNIC would want
> >> to issue a ROA for RIPE IP space after RIPE
On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 2:03 PM Christopher Morrow
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 1:32 PM Danny McPherson wrote:
> >
> > On 2020-04-22 12:51, Andrey Kostin wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > BCP38 website doesn't proclaim anybody in person to be unsafe, but if
> > > it would be possible to make such
On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 1:32 PM Danny McPherson wrote:
>
> On 2020-04-22 12:51, Andrey Kostin wrote:
>
> >
> > BCP38 website doesn't proclaim anybody in person to be unsafe, but if
> > it would be possible to make such test it'd be more useful than that
> > RPKI test.
> >
> > BTW, has anybody yet
On 2020-04-22 12:51, Andrey Kostin wrote:
BCP38 website doesn't proclaim anybody in person to be unsafe, but if
it would be possible to make such test it'd be more useful than that
RPKI test.
BTW, has anybody yet thought/looked into extending RPKI-RTR protocol
for validation of prefixes
Jay R. Ashworth писал 2020-04-22 11:02:
Well, given how little the BCP38 website below has moved that football,
you're
not likely in much danger... :-)
Cheers,
-- jra
BCP38 website doesn't proclaim anybody in person to be unsafe, but if it
would be possible to make such test it'd be more
On 2020-04-21 12:36, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 1:10 PM Matt Corallo via NANOG
wrote:
That’s an interesting idea. I’m not sure that LACNIC would want
to issue a ROA for RIPE IP space after RIPE issues an AS0 ROA,
though. And you’d at least need some kind of time delay to give
> From: "Andrey Kostin"
>
> Would be interesting to hear your opinion on this:
> https://isbgpsafeyet.com/
>
> We have cases when residential customers ask support "why is your
> service isn't safe?" pointing to that article. It's difficult to answer
> correctly considering that the asking
USIC marked on April 17 (last Friday) here. At least the email said they
did in the afternoon - we just had to call them back to locate (there were
no red/power flags).
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 4:48
Nick Hilliard writes:
> we have a very poorly-defined idea of what constitutes an "essential
> worker"
I thought "management" was the definition of non-essential workers. Who
else would have a job without being essential/critical for day-to-day
business?
Bjørn
Sean Donelan wrote on 21/04/2020 19:57:
Utility markers don't get the recognition they deserve. If they aren't
essential workers, they should be and get hazard pay.
They help protect everyone's fiber and cables and pipes that go boom.
we have a very poorly-defined idea of what
On 21.04.2020 20:59, Brandon Martin wrote:
On 4/21/20 2:35 PM, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
Interesting. So basically as Mel said, over-sold network. :-(
This is pretty typical of consumer VSAT and such. You can of course get better performance...if
you're willing to pay for it. If you find
14 matches
Mail list logo
