Re: dns interceptors

On Feb 14, 2010, at 12:37 PM, Jason Frisvold wrote: > On Feb 13, 2010, at 4:58 PM, Randy Bush wrote: >> i am often on funky networks in funky places. e.g. the wireless in >> changi really sucked friday night. if i ssh tunneled, it would multiply >> the suckiness as tcp would have puked at the los

Re: The Internet Revealed - A film about IXPs v2.0: now available

On Feb 10, 2010, at 11:50 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > On Wed, 10 Feb 2010, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: > >> Agree to disagree is right. The film is called "The Internet Revealed: >> _A_film_about_IXPs_". You find it strange that the film would actually >>

Re: The Internet Revealed - A film about IXPs v2.0: now available

On Feb 10, 2010, at 10:29 AM, Jay Ess wrote: >> I think I am probably a member of the target audience, and I though it >> was great (and recommended it to other folk). >> > I like it for what it was. But i agree with Mike's points. > This video is something i could show my mother when she asks "

Re: The Internet Revealed - A film about IXPs v2.0: now available

On Feb 10, 2010, at 9:46 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > On Wed, 10 Feb 2010, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: > >> And no, "omittance of important factors" is not a "factual error" in a 5 >> minute video of a wide and amazingly complex topic. > > I guess

Re: The Internet Revealed - A film about IXPs v2.0: now available

On Feb 10, 2010, at 3:55 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > On Wed, 10 Feb 2010, Jake Khuon wrote: > >> Excellent production. > > ... but still an advertisement for use of IXPs instead of private peering or > alike. I'd say it contains several factual errors or at least omittance of > important fa

Re: How polluted is 1/8?

On Feb 4, 2010, at 3:14 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote: > I know someone who'd happily sink both the /24's in question.. if apnic's > interested. Given that it is not in the table today, just announcing it would yield both interesting traffic, and interesting data on who is filtering it. -- TTFN

Re: New netblock Geolocate wrong (Google)

On Jan 18, 2010, at 8:38 PM, Steven Bellovin wrote: > On Jan 18, 2010, at 8:22 PM, Warren Kumari wrote: > >> Something that I have often wondered is how folks would feel about >> publishing some sort of geo information in reverse DNS (something like LOC >> records, with whatever precision you li

Re: SORBS on autopilot?

On Jan 15, 2010, at 12:08 PM, Michelle Sullivan wrote: >> 2) SORBS robot reponds with "you must change your rDNS." > ... or respond to indicate why you think the robot is wrong... This does not work. Our provider has been told that unless the in-addr was changed to include the word "static", t

Re: more news from Google

On Jan 13, 2010, at 2:05 AM, Stefan Fouant wrote: > I for one would be really happy to see them follow through with this. I was > very disappointed when they agreed to censor search results, although I can > understand why they did so from a business standpoint... it seemed to go > against the go

Re: more news from Google

On Jan 13, 2010, at 2:18 AM, Benjamin Billon wrote: > Seems logical, after all. > > Considering the (bad) performances of Google search engine in China compared > to Chinese competitors, and considering the fact that wouldn't change a bit > in the future, closing offices wouldn't be a bad thing

Re: SORBS on autopilot?

On Jan 12, 2010, at 3:27 PM, Joel M Snyder wrote: >> 2) Your reply to Dave's post is not useful. It's not even useful if >> you consider it pure hyperbole for effect. There are many ways to >> reduce spam, the "single most effective" does not stop even 50%. > > Actually, that's not true. I don

Re: SORBS on autopilot?

On Jan 12, 2010, at 2:11 PM, Michael Thomas wrote: > On 01/12/2010 10:48 AM, Dave Martin wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 11:51:47AM -0500, Jed Smith wrote: >>> On Jan 11, 2010, at 11:11 AM, Jon Lewis wrote: >>> The vibe I got from a number of administrators I talked to about it was "why >>> would

Re: SORBS on autopilot?

On Jan 11, 2010, at 11:15 AM, telmn...@757.org wrote: >> Anyone got some pointers on how to get off SORBS' Dynamic IP lists? > > Our solution was to find new IP space. It was hopeless. Did SORBS really cause you that much pain? I ask because the other possible solution is enough people do not

Re: just...wow.

On Dec 30, 2009, at 1:04 PM, Jerry Pasker wrote: > I got this email inquiring about data center space, from the most honest > scumbag, *EVER* today. Operational relevance? Well, if everyone would turn > these people down, we'd have a lot less problems to deal with. Sadly, > requests like the

Re: news from Google

On Dec 21, 2009, at 4:48 PM, Ken Chase wrote: > CSR isnt $0 ROI. Unless they're doing it wrong. I said essentially. If you think they're making even 1% of $20M, one of us confused. I'll admit I do not do marketing, so maybe it's me. > Which they aren't. You're not paid by them and you're arg

Re: news from Google

On Dec 21, 2009, at 3:34 PM, Corey Travioli wrote: >> Another one from the "Evil Doer" >> http://www.google.com/advertising/holiday2009/ >> Wish the guys from Redmond and others copy this action too ... > So what they are saying is because we as individuals are too cheep > to give to charity they

Re: Cogent $1500 GigE

On Dec 15, 2009, at 3:53 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote: > Babak Pasdar wrote: >> Dear List, >> I am getting a big push from Cogent on their full GigE for $1.50 per >> circuit. What are your experiences with Cogent in general? If on the >> fence, how would you use their service for this deal to make s

Re: DNS question, null MX records

On Dec 15, 2009, at 10:17 AM, Eric J Esslinger wrote: > I have a domain that exists solely to cname A records to another domain's > websites. There is no MX server for that domain, there is no valid mail sent > as from that domain. However when I hooked it up I immediately started > getting bou

Re: news from Google

Sent from my iPhone, please excuse any errors. On Dec 3, 2009, at 13:08, Andrey Gordon wrote: uf, another question I'll have ask my users now: User: I can't get to the intranet.mycompanydomain.local! What did you break!? Me: Hey, you can't to the intranet,domain.local? Did you make your lap

Re: Leaving public peering?

On Dec 2, 2009, at 4:48 PM, Jonas Frey wrote: > the DE-CIX pricing is now 500 Euro/month...since 1st october...see end > of that page. > Both DE-CIX and AMS-IX have decreased their pricing this year..almost at > the same time. I guess this is a move to stop company leaving public > exchanges...i h

Re: Leaving public peering?

On Dec 2, 2009, at 3:46 PM, Lasher, Donn wrote: > This year I've been seeing what appears to be an increasing trend among > service providers.. making the decision to leave public peering. I'm > sure others on this list as seeing that trend as well. I have a couple > of guesses, but I'm curious ,

Re: What DNS Is Not

On Nov 11, 2009, at 3:48 PM, Florian Weimer wrote: >> Since people need to *explicitly* choose using the OpenDNS servers, I >> can hardly see how anybody's wishes are foisted on these people. >> >> If you don't like the answers you get from this (free) service, you >> can of course choose to use

Re: What DNS Is Not

As someone just said to me privately: "I dislike the pedantic nerds pull sometimes." (The "" is mine, not the original quote, so the Communications Committee doesn't send me a warning.) On Nov 9, 2009, at 8:10 PM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote: good question - does p

Re: What DNS Is Not

Sent from my iPhone, please excuse any errors. On Nov 9, 2009, at 19:32, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote: On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 06:24:52PM -0500, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: On Nov 9, 2009, at 3:00 PM, Paul Vixie wrote: i loved the henry ford analogy -- but i think henry ford would

Re: What DNS Is Not

On Nov 9, 2009, at 3:00 PM, Paul Vixie wrote: i loved the henry ford analogy -- but i think henry ford would have said that the automatic transmission was a huge step forward since he wanted everybody to have a car. i can't think of anything that's happened in the automobile market that h

Re: Upstream BGP community support

On Nov 2, 2009, at 6:46 AM, Randy Bush wrote: But seriously now, the reason we have these squishy things taking up space between our ears in the first place is so we can come up with new ideas and better ways to solve our problems. and they need not be cute, clever, or complex. unless we d

Re: Upstream BGP community support

On Nov 1, 2009, at 5:11 AM, Karl Auer wrote: On Sun, 2009-11-01 at 17:06 +0900, Randy Bush wrote: The answer is fairly simple. Does your business benefit by having the ability to modify routing strategy as you see fit? hint: we live in a commons Yes. I was about to ask Tony "what if *thei

Re: Small guys with BGP issues

- practice good behaviour (bcp38) and don't preach it Did you mean preach but don't practice it? While I appreciate everyone who "preaches" it, I am not going to complain in the slightest at any "big guy" who practices BCP38. Just the opposite, I'm going to praise them whether they preac

Re: Nanog Mentioned in TED Video: Jonathan Zittrain

On Oct 25, 2009, at 2:24 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: On Oct 24, 2009, at 6:59 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: On Oct 24, 2009, at 9:55 PM, Israel Lopez-LISTS wrote: Remember when youtube went down? Mr. Zittrain briefly mentions nanog during his TED talk in July 2009. http://www.ted.com/talks

Re: Nanog Mentioned in TED Video: Jonathan Zittrain

On Oct 24, 2009, at 9:55 PM, Israel Lopez-LISTS wrote: Remember when youtube went down? Mr. Zittrain briefly mentions nanog during his TED talk in July 2009. http://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_zittrain_the_web_is_a_random_act_of_kindness.html Been discussed. He's obviously wrong about some th

Re: DMCA takedowns of networks

On Oct 24, 2009, at 2:28 PM, Joe Greco wrote: Laws frequently have multiple options for compliance. Doesn't mean you don't have to follow the law. A DMCA takedown notice isn't "law," Patrick, and does not have the "force of law" claimed above. You say potato, I say whatever. "In the fie

Re: DMCA takedowns of networks

Glad to have cleared that up. Try not to be so absolute next time. -- TTFN, patrick On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 9:39 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: On Oct 24, 2009, at 9:36 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: On Oct 24, 2009, at 9:28 AM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote: Outside of child pornography there is no

Re: DMCA takedowns of networks

On Oct 24, 2009, at 11:20 AM, Brett Frankenberger wrote: On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 11:06:29AM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: On Oct 24, 2009, at 10:53 AM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote: On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 09:36:05AM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: On Oct 24, 2009, at 9:28 AM, Jeffrey Lyon

Re: ISP port blocking practice

On Oct 23, 2009, at 10:54 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: On Oct 23, 2009, at 3:43 PM, Justin Shore wrote: Dan White wrote: On 23/10/09 17:58 -0400, James R. Cutler wrote: Blocking the well known port 25 does not block sending of mail. Or the message content. It does block incoming SMTP traffic on

Re: DMCA takedowns of networks

On Oct 24, 2009, at 10:53 AM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote: On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 09:36:05AM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: On Oct 24, 2009, at 9:28 AM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote: Outside of child pornography there is no content that I would ever consider censoring without a court order nor would

Re: Slashdotted - Peering Disputes Migrate To IPv6

On Oct 23, 2009, at 10:56 PM, Scott Howard wrote: http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/10/23/1715235/Peering-Disputes-Migrate-To-IPv6 I wouldn't bother with the comments unless you really need to know how the analogy between IP peering and two gay guys ends up... (hey, it's Slashdot, what did

Re: DMCA takedowns of networks

On Oct 24, 2009, at 9:36 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: On Oct 24, 2009, at 9:28 AM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote: Outside of child pornography there is no content that I would ever consider censoring without a court order nor would I ever purchase transit from a company that engages in this type of

Re: DMCA takedowns of networks

On Oct 24, 2009, at 9:28 AM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote: Outside of child pornography there is no content that I would ever consider censoring without a court order nor would I ever purchase transit from a company that engages in this type of behavior. A DMCA takedown order has the force of law.

Re: ISP port blocking practice

The original intent of Net Neutrality laws had nothing to do with blocking or not on random ports. It had to do with giving an unfair advantage to the provider in question to sell competing services. Much like anti-trust legislation doesn't stop a company from cornering a market, just sto

Science vs. bullshit

Lightning talk followup because I want to make sure there was not a miscommunication. A two sentence comment at the mic while 400+ of your not-so-close friends are watching does not a rational discussion make. The talk in question:

Re: Is v6 as important as v4? Of course not [was: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering]

From: patr...@ianai.net (Patrick W. Gilmore) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 12:09:58 -0400 Subject: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering In-Reply-To: > References: > Message-ID: <0a37fd5d-d9d1-4d89-ac8a-105612bb8...@ianai.net> ... It is sad to see that networks which used to c

Re: Is v6 as important as v4? Of course not [was: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering]

On Oct 14, 2009, at 9:32 AM, Randy Bush wrote: I think you are stretching things to make a pithy post. More importantly, you are missing the point. and hundreds of words do not cover that you accused HE of something for which you had no basis in fact. type less, analyse and think more.

Is v6 as important as v4? Of course not [was: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering]

On Oct 12, 2009, at 5:23 PM, Randy Bush wrote: sure would be nice if there was a diagnosis before the lynching If this happened in v4, would customers care 'why' it happened? Obviously not. Why should v6 be any different? It either is or is not production ready. I'm interested in HE's view on

Re: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering

On Oct 12, 2009, at 12:52 PM, Randy Bush wrote: sure would be nice if there was a diagnosis before the lynching If this happened in v4, would customers care 'why' it happened? Obviously not. Why should v6 be any different? It either is or is not production ready. I'm interested in HE'

Re: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering

- Original Message ----- From: Marco Hogewoning To: Patrick W. Gilmore Cc: NANOG list Sent: Mon Oct 12 12:15:34 2009 Subject: Re: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering On Oct 12, 2009, at 6:09 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: It is sad to see that networks which used to care a

Re: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering

On Oct 12, 2009, at 7:41 AM, Igor Ybema wrote: I recently noticed that there seems a peering issue on the ipv6 internet. As we all know hurricane is currently the largest ipv6 carrier. Other large carriers are now implementing ipv6 on their networks, like Cogent and Telia. However, due to

Re: Does Internet Speed Vary by Season?

On Oct 7, 2009, at 10:52 AM, Scott Howard wrote: On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 7:16 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: I read the article and the follow up posts and I wonder if we are all using the same definition for "speed" here. The article seems to imply you don't get 6 Mbps on y

Re: Does Internet Speed Vary by Season?

On Oct 7, 2009, at 9:26 AM, Pierfrancesco Caci wrote: :-> "Hank" == Hank Nussbacher writes: http://www.wired.com/gadgets/miscellaneous/magazine/17-10/ts_burningquestion -Hank There are TXCOs and OXCOs inside equipment for a reason. And rubidium lamps as well, sometimes. Seasonal variations

Re: operations contact @ facebook?

On Oct 5, 2009, at 11:10 AM, Alex Balashov wrote: Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: On Oct 5, 2009, at 10:46 AM, Leland Vandervort wrote: Would anyone happen to have an operations contact at Facebook by anychance? Our systems are being overwhelmed by a facebook application that we were neither

Re: operations contact @ facebook?

On Oct 5, 2009, at 10:46 AM, Leland Vandervort wrote: Would anyone happen to have an operations contact at Facebook by anychance? Our systems are being overwhelmed by a facebook application that we were neither aware of nor condoned. Clearly I do not have all the information, so please for

Re: Advertising BGP-4 from two islands

On Sep 13, 2009, at 2:22 AM, William Herrin wrote: On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 9:35 PM, Francois Menard wrote: I have an opportunity to launch services in a remote marke, where I cannot extend my backbone to. However, this market is big enough that I can afford to put a Cisco 7201 over there

Re: Link capacity upgrade threshold

On Aug 30, 2009, at 1:23 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: On Sun, 30 Aug 2009, William Herrin wrote: If your 95th percentile utilization is at 80% capacity, it's time to start planning the upgrade. If your 95th percentile utilization is at 95% it's time to finish the upgrade. I now see why pe

Re: Redundancy & Summarization

goes down. Good idea. Still uses just two prefixes and allows for backup connectivity. Just be careful that the internal routing table does not stop the conditional announcement. -- TTFN, patrick On 8/21/2009 4:08 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: On Aug 21, 2009, at 3:47 PM, Brian Dickson

Re: Redundancy & Summarization

On Aug 21, 2009, at 3:47 PM, Brian Dickson wrote: My institution has a single /16 spread across 2 sites: the lower / 17 is used at site A, the upper /17 at site B. Sites A & B are connected internally. Currently both sites have their own ISPs and only advertise their own /17's. For redund

Re: The Cidr Report

On Aug 14, 2009, at 6:00 PM, cidr-rep...@potaroo.net wrote: This report has been generated at Fri Aug 14 21:11:44 2009 AEST. The report analyses the BGP Routing Table of AS2.0 router and generates a report on aggregation potential within the table. Check http://www.cidr-report.org for a current

Re: Weekly Routing Table Report

On Aug 7, 2009, at 2:13 PM, Routing Analysis Role Account wrote: BGP routing table entries examined: 293130 By at least one count, we are still below 300K. -- TTFN, patrick

Re: Dan Kaminsky

There is NO fix. There never will be as the problem is architectural to the most fundamental operation of DNS. Other than replacing DNS (not feasible), the only way to prevent this form of attack is DNSSEC. The "fix" only makes it much harder to exploit. Randomizing source ports and QIDs simp

Re: XO - a Tier 1 or not?

On Jul 28, 2009, at 11:36 AM, John van Oppen wrote: XO has been offering a product lately that is all routes except level3 and sprint which leads me to believe that they pay both of those peers... Or there is a settlement in place, which is kinda-sortta the same thing, only not necessarily.

Re: The Cidr Report

On Jul 31, 2009, at 6:00 PM, cidr-rep...@potaroo.net wrote: Recent Table History Date PrefixesCIDR Agg 24-07-09298785 182835 25-07-09299168 182751 26-07-09298909 182973 27-07-09299265 183099 28-07-09299345

Re: Happy Sysadmin Day

On Jul 31, 2009, at 11:53 AM, Andy Ringsmuth wrote: On Jul 31, 2009, at 10:35 AM, J. Oquendo wrote: Andrew Euell wrote: Happy Sysadmin Day nanog'ers. Thank you for keeping the internet running! http://www.sysadminday.com/ Keeping the Internet running? You mean as in the flakiness of what is

Re: Ahoy, SLA boffins!

On Jul 29, 2009, at 12:34 AM, Bill Woodcock wrote: So I've embarked on the no-doubt-futile task of trying to interpret SLAs as empirically-verifiable technical specifications, rather than as marketing blather. And there's something that I'm finding particularly puzzling: In most SLAs, th

Re: XO - a Tier 1 or not?

On Jul 28, 2009, at 11:18 AM, Pekka Savola wrote: On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, Charles Mills wrote: Is XO Communications a Tier 1 ISP? ... Any help here? Thanks as always. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tier_1_network Having written a good portion of that page, in the interest of full disclosure,

Re: AT&T. Layer 6-8 needed.

On Jul 27, 2009, at 11:22 AM, Hiers, David wrote: I"m not a lawyer, but I think that the argument goes something like this... The common carriers want to be indemnified from the content they carry. In other words, the phone company doesn't want to be held liable for the Evil Plot planned

Re: AT&T. Layer 6-8 needed.

On Jul 27, 2009, at 10:04 AM, John C. A. Bambenek wrote: Because most of the net libertarians insist that they should do whatever they want and everyone else should help cater to them. Liberty for me but not for thee. I am very much of the "my network, my rules" camp. As soon as att pays bac

Re: Nanog mentioned on BBC news website

Sent from my iPhone, please excuse any errors. On Jul 23, 2009, at 4:27, Jim Mercer wrote: On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 08:44:21PM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: My fav part: "That's precisely how packets move around the internet, sometimes in a many as 25 or 30 hops with the i

Re: Nanog mentioned on BBC news website

On Jul 22, 2009, at 7:41 PM, Kevin Oberman wrote: Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 21:27:39 +0100 From: "andrew.wallace" Big up the Nanog community, you do the net proud... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8163190.stm First showed up on NANOG 7 hours ago, but it was a fun read. Clearly the arti

Re: Quick question about inbound route-selection

On Jul 16, 2009, at 7:05 PM, Wayne E. Bouchard wrote: On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 06:32:32PM -0400, Deepak Jain wrote: As for trying to determine where your inbound traffic is coming from by looking at natural bgp, this is absolutely impossible to do correctly. First off, your inbound is someone

Re: Can someone from SORBS contact me offlist?

On Jul 14, 2009, at 5:47 PM, Mark Smith wrote: On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 14:34:18 -0500 William Pitcock wrote: On Sat, 2009-07-11 at 11:11 -0600, Brielle Bruns wrote: On 7/11/09 11:05 AM, Ronald Cotoni wrote: Yes, they are really bad. It is actually quite silly that a blacklisting service is that

Please do not CC NANOG when e-mailing Dean Anderson [was: Can someone from SORBS contact me offlist?]

[SNIP] Everyone, Please do not CC nanog@nanog.org when replying to one of Dean Anderson's ... uh ... missives[*]. We do not see the original, so by replying and CC'ing the list, you are helping him get his ... er ... message[*] to a wider audience. And if you have actually read any of

Re: Can someone from SORBS contact me offlist?

On Jul 11, 2009, at 4:40 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote: Nuno Vieira - nfsi wrote: That's good to know. I'll avoid using it. Holy crap, what's with all the AHBL hate? At the very least they have a responsive human and - last time I checked - they don't require an exchange of money to get off the

Re: Can someone from SORBS contact me offlist?

On Jul 11, 2009, at 5:37 PM, Brielle Bruns wrote: Further, there is such thing as a local whitelist of IP addresses. Easier to just not use the BL. Besides, there are plenty of useful blacklists with very low FP rates who are responsive. Why use one that has high FP and is unresponsive?

Re: Can someone from SORBS contact me offlist?

On Jul 11, 2009, at 1:11 PM, Brielle Bruns wrote: On 7/11/09 11:05 AM, Ronald Cotoni wrote: Yes, they are really bad. It is actually quite silly that a blacklisting service is that slow on responding to problems. I find it unacceptable that people demand instant service from a company the

Re: AT&T and having two BGP peers

On Jul 10, 2009, at 1:48 PM, Jay Nakamura wrote: We are getting an Ethernet DIA circuit from AT&T but they insist that they can't BGP peer with 2 routers on our side. The WAN circuit can only have /30 they say. Has anyone been able to successfully talk them in to bending their rule? If so, ho

Re: Bandcon

On Jul 10, 2009, at 12:05 PM, Paul Wall wrote: On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 4:43 PM, tb wrote: My name is Todd Braning, I work on the technical side of the BandCon house. I am afraid Paul's email is inaccurate. Yo Todd! It's good to hear that you've listened to feedback and made these key operatio

Re: Drop in IPv6 traffic

On Jul 9, 2009, at 10:40 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote: Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: [..] I ask because the AMS-IX is frequently used as an example that v6 is being heavily adopted. If it is all one source for one application, that is important information to the people fighting for v6 adoption. Going

Re: Drop in IPv6 traffic

On Jul 9, 2009, at 9:58 AM, michiel.muhlenbau...@atratoip.net wrote: Hi Jeroen & others, Yep, looks like we are doing a great portion of AMSIX's IPv6 traffic and our (free) IPv6 service was affected because of an internal error last night around 00.30 am. Michiel, Thank you for the inform

Re: OT: Wireless Network Strength Dependent On Wired Network?

Sent from my iPhone, please excuse any errors. On Jun 20, 2009, at 7:47, Neil wrote: Consider the following setup: internet pipe -> wired network -> (wireless router) wireless network -> computer1, computer2 Suppose the signal coming in on the pipe is good, but the signal deteriorates r

Re: Is your ISP blocking outgoing port 25?

Sent from my iPhone, please excuse any errors. On Jun 19, 2009, at 8:53, Jeroen Wunnink wrote: We just open port 2525 for customers from ISP's blocking official SMTP ports so they can use their dedicated servers/domain mailservers. Is there any reason you do not use port 587, SUBMIT? --

Re: spamhaus drop list

they should do is make these rules clear and prominent on their website so you could know before you use the resource! Oh, wait, they do -- TTFN, patrick Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: On Jun 16, 2009, at 2:00 PM, Quinn Mahoney wrote: Is there a competing droplist, that can be compared

Re: spamhaus drop list

On Jun 16, 2009, at 2:00 PM, Quinn Mahoney wrote: Is there a competing droplist, that can be compared against Spamhaus's droplist? That seems like an extraordinary claim, so I'm not satisfied with the evidence provided. Is this not the best droplist? Extraordinary claims require extraordi

Re: Any2 Exchange experiences to share?

On Jun 11, 2009, at 3:56 AM, Michael J McCafferty wrote: I am interested to hear any experiences with the Any2 Exchange at One Wilshire Blvd, especially regarding performance and reliability to the other exchange participants in comparison to routing to the same networks via Tier 1 transit

Re: ICSI Netalyzr launch

On Jun 10, 2009, at 10:16 PM, v...@ee.lbl.gov wrote: didn't want to spring for a cert for that eh? www.startssl.com ... hey lookie! free certs! ? We bought a cert from Thawte specifically so people wouldn't find that it's suspect. Does it look funny when your browser presents it to you

Re: Eye protection in DWDM systems -- what threshold?

On Jun 9, 2009, at 2:06 PM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote: On Tue, Jun 09, 2009 at 12:43:09PM -0400, Jeff Kell wrote: Reminds me of the old warning/attention sign over a termination rack... WARNING: Do not look into laser with remaining eye. The only problem with those funny signs is they s

Re: Eye protection in DWDM systems -- what threshold?

On Jun 9, 2009, at 12:43 PM, Jeff Kell wrote: Reminds me of the old warning/attention sign over a termination rack... WARNING: Do not look into laser with remaining eye. It will be the last thing you never saw. -- TTFN, patrick

Re: Temporary mail queue services?

On May 20, 2009, at 3:18 PM, Mike Lyon wrote: Does anyone know of a service that you can sign up for to add as a secondary MX to act as a mail queue if your primary MX isn't available? I'm going to be doing a mail migration and I need a service to point my MX record to that isn't my mail pr

Re: you're not interesting, was Re: another brick in the wall[ed garden]

On May 17, 2009, at 4:34 AM, George Imburgia wrote: On Sat, 16 May 2009, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: Assuming something like that happened, will a post to NANOG fix it? I don't know. Certainly has a non-zero chance. But trying to get Sprint, or any provider, to change because _you_

Re: you're not interesting, was Re: another brick in the wall[ed garden]

On May 14, 2009, at 8:37 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: [TLB:] I can think of an argument they might make: that it is/could be used by bots as a fallback. However, redirecting DNS/UDP fits the model of "providing a better service for the average user"; blocking/redirecting TCP is more likely to bre

Re: how many BGP routers, how many ASes

On May 13, 2009, at 11:53 AM, Irfan Zakiuddin wrote: I have scouted around for this information, but not get very far. I'm hoping someone will have answers at hand. You obviously didn't look very hard. The answer to the first question is posted to this very list every Friday:

Re: two interfaces one subnet

On May 11, 2009, at 11:43 PM, Ben Scott wrote: On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 11:01 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore > wrote: Do you even read your own posts? Specifically: On May 11, 2009, at 5:40 PM, Ben Scott wrote: Either way, if the packet *from* X was addressed *to* B but the response comes back f

Re: two interfaces one subnet

On May 11, 2009, at 8:04 PM, Ben Scott wrote: On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 6:01 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: It doesn't matter which physical interface transmits the packet. Well, in the general sense, I suppose not. The computer can put whatever it wants in an Ethernet frame, and as

Re: two interfaces one subnet

On May 11, 2009, at 6:35 PM, Arnold Nipper wrote: On 12.05.2009 00:25 Patrick W. Gilmore wrote On May 11, 2009, at 6:13 PM, Arnold Nipper wrote: On 11.05.2009 23:47 Patrick W. Gilmore wrote On May 11, 2009, at 5:19 PM, Alex H. Ryu wrote: It may be allowed from host-level, but from router

Re: two interfaces one subnet

On May 11, 2009, at 6:13 PM, Arnold Nipper wrote: On 11.05.2009 23:47 Patrick W. Gilmore wrote On May 11, 2009, at 5:19 PM, Alex H. Ryu wrote: It may be allowed from host-level, but from router equipment, I don't think it was allowed at all. Ever used HSRP / VRRP? Two interfaces i

Re: two interfaces one subnet

On May 11, 2009, at 5:59 PM, Chris Meidinger wrote: Just to restate here, for people who have been responding both publicly and privately: I know that *I* can make it work, and I know that *you* can make it work. But I also know that it's not likely to stay working. One day, down the road

Re: two interfaces one subnet

On May 11, 2009, at 5:40 PM, Ben Scott wrote: On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Hector Herrera > wrote: On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 2:22 PM, David Devereaux-Weber wrote: ... both> interfaces are on the same subnet, the OS sees the same router (gateway) address on both interfaces, and the results ar

Re: two interfaces one subnet

On May 11, 2009, at 4:45 PM, Chris Meidinger wrote: On 11.05.2009, at 22:34, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: On May 11, 2009, at 4:29 PM, Chris Meidinger wrote: I would be grateful for a pointer to such an RFC statement, assuming it exists. Why would an RFC prohibit this? Most

Re: two interfaces one subnet

On May 11, 2009, at 5:19 PM, Alex H. Ryu wrote: Unless you configure Layer 2 for two interfaces, it's not going to work. It can work. Of course it _may_ not, depending upon your implementation, but then some implementations can't get a single interface to work properly per subnet. It

Re: two interfaces one subnet

On May 11, 2009, at 4:29 PM, Chris Meidinger wrote: This is a pretty moronic question, but I've been searching RFC's on- and-off for a couple of weeks and can't find an answer. So I'm hoping someone here will know it offhand. I've been looking through RFC's trying to find a clear statement

Re: how to fix incorrect GeoIP data?

Of course the "GeoIP people" are going to vet the submissions, but if existing entry is Spain or Germany and the traceroute shows that the previous hop was somewhere in the US midwest, I think they can figure it out. =) The "hop before it" is not necessarily a good indication these days wit

Re: Beware surfers: cyberspace is filling up

On Apr 30, 2009, at 11:43 PM, Shane Ronan wrote: I think it depends on the industry you are in, in the financial industry, no one uses MPLS clouds or VPN's over the Internet, everyone uses either 1G or 10G links. I think Jack's point was that many 1G and 10G "links" are really just MPLS t

Re: how to fix incorrect GeoIP data?

On Apr 30, 2009, at 9:12 PM, Paul Ferguson wrote: On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 5:51 PM, Chuck Anderson wrote: I have a customer who received a new assignment from ARIN, but the GeoIP data is returning Canada rather than the US as the location of the IP prefix. Google redirects to www.google.ca and

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   >