June 2011 - Test - lists.nanog.org

ping me please...
by Eric J Esslinger 23 Jun '11

23 Jun '11

I have just turned up and migrated to a new circuit. I'm getting a few reports from one customer that some of his users are unable to reach his system. If I could get people on the list to ping 65.5.48.2, and if it fails, to do a traceroute and email it to me offlist? I'd appreciate it. Thanks. __________________________ Eric Esslinger Information Services Manager - Fayetteville Public Utilities http://www.fpu-tn.com/ (931)433-1522 ext 165 This message may contain confidential and/or proprietary information and is intended for the person/entity to whom it was originally addressed. Any use by others is strictly prohibited.

5 5

RE: ping me please...
by Neil Robst 23 Jun '11

23 Jun '11

Works from here (AS30914) Regards, Neil > -----Original Message----- > From: Eric J Esslinger [mailto:eesslinger@fpu-tn.com] > Sent: 23 June 2011 14:08 > To: 'nanog(a)nanog.org' > Subject: ping me please... > > I have just turned up and migrated to a new circuit. I'm getting a few reports > from one customer that some of his users are unable to reach his system. > If I could get people on the list to ping 65.5.48.2, and if it fails, to do a > traceroute and email it to me offlist? I'd appreciate it. > Thanks. > __________________________ > Eric Esslinger > Information Services Manager - Fayetteville Public Utilities http://www.fpu- > tn.com/ > (931)433-1522 ext 165 > > This message may contain confidential and/or proprietary information and is > intended for the person/entity to whom it was originally addressed. Any use > by others is strictly prohibited. This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and intended solely for the addressee and may also be privileged or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the addressee, or have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately, delete it from your system and do not copy, disclose or otherwise act upon any part of this e-mail or its attachments. Internet communications are not guaranteed to be secure or virus-free. ioko365 Limited does not accept responsibility for any loss arising from unauthorised access to, or interference with, any Internet communications by any third party, or from the transmission of any viruses.

2 1

Routing Provider SFR in france
by Jean Clery 23 Jun '11

23 Jun '11

Afternoon, Many routing problems into the network of French Internet operator "LDCOM SFR" http://bgpupdates.potaroo.net/instability/plot-table.png see June 22 on graph. Regards, __________________________ Jean CLERY Technical Dep. GSM : +33 628 553 540 Support : +33 491 100 441 [cid:image001.jpg@01CC31A3.3468DEA0] [cid:image002.jpg@01CC31A3.3468DEA0]

1 0

Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs
by brunner＠nic-naa.net 23 Jun '11

23 Jun '11

> Lets say I want to apply for .WINE with commercial purposes, then what > is a ballpark figure for the funds/investment required ? > > My guess, it is way way above the $185K assuming no defect in the application, necessitiating a second bite at the apple, at cost (extended eval), and no objections by parties with standing, all of which are nuisance costs in this scenario, the controlling cost is "none of the above". it is not the $185k fee. it is not any of, singally or in their aggregate, the scheduled fees for extended eval or objections. it is not the pick-your-poison capital investment in sites, boxen, staff. it is not the pick-your-other-poison marketing investment in campaigns and registrars and pricing programs. it is not the three-times-annual-unstated-continuity cost of a security instrument. it is not the recurring $25k fee. it is the one-dollar-more-than-amount of any other applicant in the contention set which contains "WINE", which might be some other business organization intending to acquire "WINE" for their purposes. applications not subject to allocation under the community comparative evaluation (and i've not looked up the current name of this) 14 of 16 rule, nor to allocation under the informed consent of the relevant public administration, are subjet to allocation, where there is contention, defined by two or more applications in the same contention set, by auction. so for your purposes, nothing matters except the depth of your last competitor's pocket, where she/he reaches lint, you've still got a piece of silver. of course, being ruined by winning an auction is known in the literature, as are bizorg mechanisms for recapitalizations. -e

1 0

ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs
by Jay Ashworth 23 Jun '11

23 Jun '11

Aw, Jeezus. No. Just, no. http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/06/17/202245/ Cjeers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra(a)baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274

48 137

Any experience with Fonality Enterprise VoIP Solution?
by Jeffrey Negro 22 Jun '11

22 Jun '11

Sorry for the slightly off-topic question, but I'm hitting a brick wall of marketing, SEO planted, fake reviews. If anyone has any real experience with them, good, bad or bland, I'd would greatly appreciate your input off-list. Jeffrey

1 0

Consequences of BGP Peering with Private Addresses
by James Grace 22 Jun '11

22 Jun '11

Hey All, So we're running out of peering space in our /24 and we were considering using private /30's for new peerings. Are there any horrific consequences to picking up this practice? Cheers, James

11 12

Re: Cogent depeers ESnet
by Cameron Byrne 21 Jun '11

21 Jun '11

On Jun 20, 2011 9:47 AM, "Christopher Pilkington" <cjp(a)0x1.net> wrote: > > On Jun 20, 2011, at 10:53 AM, Jon Lewis <jlewis(a)lewis.org> wrote: > > > internet connectivity, and that much $ is at stake, you're stupid if you don't have some redundancy. Nothing works all the time forever. > > I can't consider Cogent even a redundant link, since I need two other > upstreams to reach the Internet redundantly. > This is the same case I face with level3 today. I have about 5 upstream isp's and level3 is the only one that does not have a "full ipv6 table" and therefore sites where level3 is one of the 2 upstreams are not redundant. I have calls into my account team, the response they gave me was laughable. .... something about how only 0.3% of the internet uses ipv6. Escalating .... if you can, it might be an opportune time for other level3 customers consider an escalation. Their lack of a full table contributes to the aaaa breakage / risk. This is not acceptable. Buying from cogent is its own reward, level3 should not be a service risk in itself. Cb > -cjp >

1 0

coresite in reston?
by Christopher Morrow 21 Jun '11

21 Jun '11

<http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/21/f-b-i-seizes-web-servers-knocking-…> apparently had a bad day? fbi raid? (happy to lend a hand if folk who aren't local need assistance getting things put back together... wkumari used to run a list at: newhere.com ) -chris

1 0

Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs
by brunner＠nic-naa.net 21 Jun '11

21 Jun '11

ray, > ... only trust ".band" and that ".com" et. al. are "less secure". "secure" is not a well-defined term. as the .com registry access model accepts credit card fraud risk, a hypothetical registry, say .giro, with wholesale registration at the same dollar price point but an access mechanism accepting less risk than credit card fraud would have less "insecure" registration events. as john levine pointed out, the hstld advisory group attempted to address a property of "zone file(s)." as a member of that advisory group i made public comments on the issues, technical and process, it encountered. > With a $185,000 application fee this tends to really kill small > businesses and conditions the public to favor ecommerce with the > giants, not to mention a nice revenue boost for ICANN. > > Would love to hear the dirt on backroom conversations that led to this > decision... a mainer has been invovled in policy development since, before there was an icann. a vermonter is on the current icann board. when looking for root causes, while the policy recommendation made by the policy development body did not restrict the implementation of the new gtld application process to a single event, staff adversity to law suit risk precluded distinguishing between types of applications based on policy -- say "high policy" applications like the original sponsored applications before "low policy" applications like the original standard applications -- and evaluating one type before the other. i suggest to you that institutional risk adversity (there exists a litigation history with the legacy monopoly operator) is the answer to questions of the form "wny one single, indivisible, wicked expensive, evaluation process for all?" > ... there will be enough public outcry to reverse it... but I'm > not optimistic. i would prefer "participation" over "outcry", and the act of "involvment" seems to be more on point than the mental state of being "optimistic", but milage always varies. on thursday there will be a text from the governmental, and the at large, advisory groups, on applicant support from developing economies. -e

3 2