September 2011 - Test - lists.nanog.org

(no subject)
by mjp16＠ieee.uow.edu.au 21 Sep '11

21 Sep '11

Your message was not delivered due to the following reason: Your message was not delivered because the destination server was unreachable within the allowed queue period. The amount of time a message is queued before it is returned depends on local configura- tion parameters. Most likely there is a network problem that prevented delivery, but it is also possible that the computer is turned off, or does not have a mail system running right now. Your message was not delivered within 5 days: Host 86.112.1.86 is not responding. The following recipients could not receive this message: <nanog(a)nanog.org> Please reply to postmaster(a)ieee.uow.edu.au if you feel this message to be in error.

1 0

insurance
by harbor235 21 Sep '11

21 Sep '11

Curious if anyone out there is acting as an independent contractor, consultant, or small business, if so do you use professional liability insurance? What should I look out for and is there any good brokers that offer inexpensive yet reliable insurance? thanks as always, Mike

9 10

Re: lots of latency on qwest to google?
by Scott Weeks 20 Sep '11

20 Sep '11

--- paul4004(a)gmail.com wrote: From: PC <paul4004(a)gmail.com> You can traceroute from all their POPS here if you'd like: https://kai02.centurylink.com/PtapRpts/Public/BackboneReport.aspx --------------------------------------------- Hmmm, it seems to work with only one vendor's browser. Anyone else notice that? scott

2 1

Re: wet-behind-the-ears whippersnapper seeking advice on building a nationwide network
by Dorn Hetzel 20 Sep '11

20 Sep '11

On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 10:22 AM, Jon Lewis <jlewis(a)lewis.org> wrote: > On Tue, 20 Sep 2011, Dorn Hetzel wrote: > > If what you have is LEC frame relay service over which you have PVCs to >> two >> providers of IP transit service, then, IMO, you are multihomed. Are you >> protected against every single failure mode? No, but then neither are >> many >> folks with more traditional methods of multihoming. You are certainly >> afforded reasonable protection against routing issues on each of your two >> providers. >> > > I'd agree in that case that you do have connectivity to two providers and > are multihomed, though in a very foolish way. > > Past experience has taught me that while Layer 2 LEC frame certainly fails, it may do so quite a bit less often than the rate of routing flaps, peering spats, and everything else that can go wrong at Layers 3..9 ... So while it's not physically diverse, it may still yield a significant reduction in downtime compared to that same T1 direct to a single Layer 3 provider... > > How about a hard T1 to provider A and a GRE tunnel over a 3G router for a >> backup? That's certainly physically diverse... >> > > If I was the ARIN auditor, I'd say that's borderline acceptable as > multihomed. It's not much different from one of your connections being > "wireless", as long as that 3G connection is of sufficient bandwidth to of > meaningful utility if the T1 is down. If your primary connection is > T1/T3/ethernet/etc. and your second is a v.90 modem, then I'd probably call > BS on the claim of being multihomed. > > So now you think ARIN should be judging how much bandwidth is enough, and how much is not? Perhaps I just have a corporate ASN, and my backup connection is the most I can afford to make sure at least email gets through when the primary is down. It's a slippery slope from "v.90 not good enough" to "less than 2xOCn not good enough" where n can be adjusted to suitably limit competition... -dorn

5 6

lots of latency on qwest to google?
by Chris Brookes 20 Sep '11

20 Sep '11

Anyone else seeing a lot of latency to google via qwest? .. 11 2 ms 2 ms 2 ms min-edge-12.inet.qwest.net [207.225.128.1] 12 15 ms 13 ms 12 ms chx-edge-03.inet.qwest.net [67.14.38.5] 13 12 ms 21 ms 13 ms 72.14.214.78 14 13 ms 13 ms 13 ms 72.14.236.178 15 61 ms 61 ms 61 ms 216.239.43.80 16 72 ms 61 ms 62 ms 66.249.94.200 17 152 ms 145 ms 144 ms 216.239.43.213 18 148 ms 149 ms 150 ms 64.233.175.2 19 149 ms 150 ms 149 ms 66.249.94.34 20 212 ms 221 ms 212 ms 66.249.94.105 21 244 ms 244 ms 245 ms 66.249.94.75 22 244 ms 244 ms 244 ms 209.85.241.33 23 244 ms 243 ms 243 ms 74.125.236.52

4 4

DC74
by Robert Johnson 20 Sep '11

20 Sep '11

If anyone here is using DC74 (www.dc74.com) for colocation and would like to share their experiences, I'm all ears. Thanks in advance. Robert

1 0

FW: [arin-announce] Change to Whois Query Behavior
by Mark Kosters 20 Sep '11

20 Sep '11

Apologies for the cross post from ARIN-Announce. Thought that many of you would be interested in hearing about the upcoming ARIN Whois change given the recent discussion on NANOG. Regards, Mark ARIN CTO On 9/19/11 2:00 PM, "ARIN" <info(a)arin.net> wrote: >ARIN announces a pending change to Whois query behavior on port 43. > >Prior to 25 June 2011, a query for an IP address in the ARIN region >would return with that assignment/allocation within the ARIN region, and >a query in the ARIN region for an IP address with no >assignment/allocation would result in a ³no match² response. On 25 June, >a change was misapplied. The intent of this change was to return ARIN¹s >/8 for IP queries within ARIN¹s region for which there is no >assignment/allocation, a behavior meant to align ARIN¹s Whois output >with that of the other RIRs. However, this change introduced an >unintended behavior of returning ARIN¹s /8, in addition to the desired >results, in responses where IP addresses had been assigned or allocated. >This change in behavior has created some confusion. On 2 October, ARIN >will reinstate the previous behavior for Whois IP queries so that >results are returned the way they were before 25 June. > >ARIN has provided two examples of a Whois query for reference: > >* Query with ARIN's /8 returned in the result set hierarchy: >https://www.arin.net/announcements/2011/20110919.html#example1 > >* Query without ARIN's /8 returned in the result set: >https://www.arin.net/announcements/2011/20110919.html#example2 > >Whois-RWS behavior will not change as it was not affected by the >configuration change made on 25 June. > >We apologize for any confusion this has caused. > > > >Regards, >Mark Kosters >Chief Technical Officer >American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) >_______________________________________________ >ARIN-Announce >You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >the ARIN Announce Mailing List (ARIN-announce(a)arin.net) >Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-announce >Please contact info(a)arin.net if you experience any issues.

1 0

4.0.0.0/8?
by Hank Nussbacher 20 Sep '11

20 Sep '11

Did Level3 withdraw 4.0.0.0/8 today and start announcing it as two /9s? -Hank

6 7

Re: insurance
by harbor235 20 Sep '11

20 Sep '11

So what is the difference with E&O and professional insurance? Mike On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Dave Ellis <dave(a)colo4.com> wrote: > My wife works for an insurance Agency and handles small business lines. > Want me to have her contact you? > > > On 09/20/2011 08:00 AM, harbor235 wrote: > >> Than you for the responses, I want to clarify that I am talking about >> professional >> laibility and not general liability insurance. Professional liability >> being >> insurance >> that covers "errors or omissions while executing professional work" that >> may >> adversely >> impact a business your are contracting with. >> >> thanx, >> >> Mike >> >> On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 7:59 AM, harbor235<harbor235(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Curious if anyone out there is acting as an independent contractor, >>> consultant, or small business, >>> if so do you use professional liability insurance? What should I look out >>> for and is there any good >>> brokers that offer inexpensive yet reliable insurance? >>> >>> >>> thanks as always, >>> >>> >>> Mike >>> >>>

2 1

Costa Rican Service providers?
by Joe Freeman 20 Sep '11

20 Sep '11

I'm looking for any providers in Costa Rica that can service a location in San Pedro, San Jose, that can provide me 40Mbps service via Ethernet hand off, that does NOT use RACSA facilities. Please contact me off list.

1 0