- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Domain shut downs by Registrar?
by Deepak Jain 03 Dec '10

03 Dec '10

Has this process matured or is it still a wild-west kind of thing? Last time I saw this, it was with a LARGE registrar and we had to threaten them with a TRO before they'd even put their lawyers on the phone. It was a few years ago. This time the issue is with DOTSTER and they never even bothered to contact our support desk about the issue with the customer domain (and we're listed as the support contact, etc). So if anyone has any advice, or anyone from DOTSTER wants to contact me offline, that'd be great. Thanks in advance, DJ

11 15

IAB "Evolution of the IP Model" Document
by Joe Provo 03 Dec '10

03 Dec '10

Recent IETF announce message (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg08209.html) indicates comments should get in by the 19th. IMO a decent "update your expectations" document with a refreshingly healthy nod to netowkr realities. I'm sure they'd love more operator input, if relevant: http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-iab-ip-model-evolution-02.txt -- RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE

1 0

Re: The scale of streaming video on the Internet.
by Martin Hotze 03 Dec '10

03 Dec '10

> Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 10:47:44 -0500 > From: William Herrin <bill(a)herrin.us> > Subject: Re: The scale of streaming video on the Internet. > To: Owen DeLong <owen(a)delong.com> > Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org (...) > But there's a third mechanism worth considering as well: the caching > proxy. IMHO it is a waste of bandwidth to use IP/network-based infrastructure for stuff like unidirectional data - like distributing a movie (on demand or scheduled). In this case nothing beats a satellite transponder and a dish, also cost-wise. #m

1 0

Google buys 111 8th
by Nick Hilliard 03 Dec '10

03 Dec '10

http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2010/12/03/wsj-google-has-bough… Nick

1 0

Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions
by Patrick W. Gilmore 03 Dec '10

03 Dec '10

<http://www.marketwatch.com/story/level-3-communications-issues-statement-co…> I understand that politics is off-topic, but this policy affects operational aspects of the 'Net. Just to be clear, L3 is saying content providers should not have to pay to deliver content to broadband providers who have their own product which has content as well. I am certain all the content providers on this list are happy to hear L3's change of heart and will be applying for settlement free peering tomorrow. (L3 wouldn't want other providers to claim the Vyvx or CDN or other content services provided by L3 are competing and L3 is putting up a "toll booth" on the Internet, would they?) -- TTFN, patrick

60 147

FUD: 15% of world's internet traffic hijacked
by Bob Poortinga 03 Dec '10

03 Dec '10

This is starting to be picked up by mainstream media, but was was first reported here (I believe): <http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=249> "Cyber Experts Have Proof That China Has Hijacked U.S.-Based Internet Traffic" "For 18 minutes in April, China.s state-controlled telecommunications company hijacked 15 percent of the world.s Internet traffic, including data from U.S. military, civilian organizations and those of other U.S. allies." This article, which quotes Dmitri Alperovitch of McAfee, is full of false data as far as I can tell. I assert that much less than 15%, probably on the order of 1% to 2% (much less in the US) was actually diverted. The correct statement is that 15% of the world's network prefixes were "hijacked", but the impact was minimal in the US. My concern is that this "report" will be presented to the US Congress without being refuted by experts in the know. My request is that someone with some gravitas please issue a press release setting the facts straight on this matter. I have been in contact with Dan Goodin at The Register but I'm just a lowly grunt with a small network. -- Bob Poortinga K9SQL <http://www.linkedin.com/in/bobpoortinga> Bloomington, Indiana US "the Internet interprets spam as noise and suppresses it"

9 12

RINA - scott whaps at the nanog hornets nest :-)
by Scott Weeks 02 Dec '10

02 Dec '10

It's really quiet in here. So, for some Friday fun let me whap at the hornets nest and see what happens... >;-) http://www.ionary.com/PSOC-MovingBeyondTCP.pdf -------------------------------------------------------------- "NAT is your friend" "IP doesn’t handle addressing or multi-homing well at all" "The IETF’s proposed solution to the multihoming problem is called LISP, for Locator/Identifier Separation Protocol. This is already running into scaling problems, and even when it works, it has a failover time on the order of thirty seconds." "TCP and IP were split the wrong way" "IP lacks an addressing architecture" "Packet switching was designed to complement, not replace, the telephone network. IP was not optimized to support streaming media, such as voice, audio broadcasting, and video; it was designed to not be the telephone network." -------------------------------------------------------------- And so, "...the first principle of our proposed new network architecture: Layers are recursive." I can hear the angry hornets buzzing already. :-) scott

26 88

suggestion network devices
by adrian kok 02 Dec '10

02 Dec '10

Hi all I need high laten cy network devices products. eg: router/switch/firewall Can you share to me? and How can I test it also? Thank you so much

1 0

Re: Want to move to all 208V for server racks
by Mark Kent 02 Dec '10

02 Dec '10

"Why do we install 120v instead of 208v?" was asked over a year ago either here or on cisco-nsp. It generated a long discussion, but it should have been cut short as early in the thread someone said all that had to be said: "because we are idiots." -mark

4 3

Re: AT&T to Level 3 routing issue?
by James Stahr 02 Dec '10

02 Dec '10

At 04:33 AM 12/2/2010, Harris Hui wrote: >Hi, > >Does anyone using AT&T seeing the routing issue to Level3? We saw some >issue with the end users using AT&T as a service provider having issue to >our upstream provider. Thanks > We saw issues with at&t last night as well. We called into Level3, but they "weren't aware of any issues". Not accepting that explanation for things, we eventually looked at Internet Health Report and saw a latency of 115ms and packet loss at 33% between at&t Chicago and Level 3 Detroit. So if anyone has more information, I'd appreciate it. thanks, -James

1 0