- Test - lists.nanog.org

Postini Exiting ISP Business?
by Paul Stewart 14 Jan '13

14 Jan '13

Hey there. We have been using Postini for a number of years as our anti-spam/anti-virus protection for customer email accounts. Mid last year we received a notice from Google that "In 2013, we plan to transition your Postini services to Google Apps for Business." As part of this notice we were also told "You don't need to make any changes to your Postini service or sign up for a Google Apps account. Your Postini service will continue as usual until your migration begins. We will be in touch at least 60 days before your renewal date." In mid November, Google sent us a letter that stated that we had until the end of 2013 to basically get off their service or to contact their preferred partner (Tech Excel) and migrate to Google Apps with them. Recently we have now been told in email by someone at Postini that we "must transition ASAP" and that we really only had til the end of 2012. Geesh, talk about confusing.. Not a great way to treat a long term customer! Anyone else getting the complete "run around" by Postini? We are fine with leaving them, especially now. Having said that, I'm interested in hearing about competitive solutions either in appliances or in cloud based - this is *not* an invitation for sales people to call me please. Thanks, Paul

7 6

Brocade XMR/MLX VLAN bit counters (Cacti graphs for brocade VLANS) (95% billing).
by James Wininger 14 Jan '13

14 Jan '13

All, We are running into an issue with Brocade where we are finding it difficult to to graph VLAN interfaces for bits (in/out) across a tagged (trunk) interface. On Cisco this is not an issue. So what we end up with in Cacti is a blank (no data) graph. I have been all over these devices with snmpwalk etc (typical tool set). Has anyone found a "fix" or work around for this? Or perhaps I should be asking a different question….Is there a better tool/mindset for 95% billing since this is what we are doing with this info. -- Jim Wininger "Don't find fault, find a remedy." - Henry Ford

6 5

Re: ripe/ncc likes cookies
by Scott Weeks 14 Jan '13

14 Jan '13

--- scott(a)doc.net.au wrote: From: Scott Howard <scott(a)doc.net.au> That seems to be a perfectly acceptable use of cookies for me, and is something that could not reliably be done any other way. -------------------------------- How many cookies does nanog.org require for you to allow to look at their site? Seems to me it operates very well without them. Job well done NANOG! :-) scott

2 1

RE: ripe/ncc likes cookies
by Scott Weeks 13 Jan '13

13 Jan '13

---------------------------- Many browsers can be configured into three states (1) accept anything (2) reject third-party cookies (3) reject all cookies. --------------------------- Or "ask me every time". Sites should not require cookies just to look around. I get it if there's a transaction to be made, but just to look? :-( Especially a site like RIPE! scott ps. the www.cookielaw.org site uses the GOOG's Urchin cookies as well as one of their own. No one asked my permission.

2 1

Re: De-funding the ITU
by Bill Woodcock 13 Jan '13

13 Jan '13

On Jan 12, 2013, at 9:59 PM, <bmanning(a)vacation.karoshi.com> wrote: > its not that black/white. The ITU-R is actually -very- useful I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say that, but we can't withdraw from it, which is why it's called out as an exception in the petition. -Bill

1 0

De-funding the ITU
by Bill Woodcock 13 Jan '13

13 Jan '13

Please consider signing this petition: http://DeFundTheITU.org …so we can stop paying for both sides of this idiotic fight. Note that if the U.S. pulls its funding from the ITU, that's 10%, and if all of the countries that stood with us at the WCIT do so, that would be 74% of the ITU's member revenue. Those of us who support the Internet are paying for three-quarters of the fight against the Internet. As Smokey the Bear would say, only WE can prevent stupidity. As Pogo Possum said, "We have met the enemy, and the enemy is us!" Time to correct that. Redirect $11M/year from the ITU to Internet governance organizations like the IETF. -Bill

2 1

Re: De-funding the ITU
by james jones 13 Jan '13

13 Jan '13

On Saturday, January 12, 2013, james jones wrote: > And done! > > On Saturday, January 12, 2013, Bill Woodcock wrote: > >> >> Please consider signing this petition: >> >> http://DeFundTheITU.org >> >> …so we can stop paying for both sides of this idiotic fight. Note that >> if the U.S. pulls its funding from the ITU, that's 10%, and if all of the >> countries that stood with us at the WCIT do so, that would be 74% of the >> ITU's member revenue. Those of us who support the Internet are paying for >> three-quarters of the fight against the Internet. As Smokey the Bear would >> say, only WE can prevent stupidity. As Pogo Possum said, "We have met the >> enemy, and the enemy is us!" Time to correct that. Redirect $11M/year >> from the ITU to Internet governance organizations like the IETF. >> >> -Bill >> >> >> >> >>

1 0

Re: Question about DOCSIS DHCP vs ARP
by Jean-Francois Mezei 13 Jan '13

13 Jan '13

On 13-01-11 19:59, Karl Brumund wrote: > JF, > > Long ago been fixed. Look at Cisco CMTS config documentation, particularly cable-source-verify. Many thanks. In particular, you need "cable-source-verify dhcp" to prevent self assigned IPs that are unused by neighbours. Is this something that is now basically a default for all cable operators ? Or does this command add sufficient load to the CMTS that some cable operators choose to not use it for performance purposes ? What happens when a CMTS reboots and has an enpty database of DHCP leases ? Does it then query the DHCP server for every IP/MAC it sees that it doesn't yet know about ?

2 1

[NANOG-announce] NANOG 57 Update
by Betty Burke <betty＠nanog.org> 12 Jan '13

12 Jan '13

Colleagues: I write to share a few NANOG 57<http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog57/index.html>, February 4-5, 2013, meeting updates with you. The NANOG Program Committee, once again, delivered a NANOG program full of great content. The NANOG 57 agenda<http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog57/agenda.php> will continue to be updated and complete links will be in place shortly. The new NANOG Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday program is now in place. If you have not yet secured your room, do not delay. The Renaissance Orlando at Seaworld, *NANOG block<https://resweb.passkey.com/Resweb.do?mode=welcome_gi_new&groupID=10487120> Group Rate Expires Saturday, January 19, 2013.* Register today, and take advantage of registration fee savings. *The current registration rate will expire on Friday, January 18, 2013.* You can register, manage your registration, and retrieve receipts from the NANOG portal (ARO) <http://nanog.org/login>. To create a new account, or recover your password, click here<https://secretariat.nanog.org/ibin/c5i?rid=48> . Be sure to Join NANOG <http://www.nanog.org/membership_main.html> today and receive a $25 discount on standard registration fees for any NANOG conference as well as have a voice in guiding future NANOG activities. Lastly, a few NANOG 57 Sponsorship opportunities<http://www.nanog.org/sponsors/sponsor_opportunities.html>remain. Send a note to marketing(a)nanog.org and secure your sponsorship. I look forward to seeing many of you in sunny Orlando in February 2013! Should you have any questions, please send them along to nanog-support(a)nanog.org. All best. Betty ------------------------------------------------------------- Betty Burke NANOG Executive Director 48377 Fremont Boulevard, Suite 117 Fremont, CA 94538 Tel: +1 510 492 4030 www.nanog.org _______________________________________________ NANOG-announce mailing list NANOG-announce(a)mailman.nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-announce

1 0

Question about DOCSIS DHCP vs ARP
by Jean-Francois Mezei 12 Jan '13

12 Jan '13

In the old days of DOCSIS, I was able, during failures of DHCP (for various reasons) to self assign a "nearby" IP address in the same subnet and this worked fine as long as that IP wasn't being used by someone else at the time. While this was done to cope with some failures or bad policy at the cable company with no ill intent, I realise that I could have used this technique to do bad stuff on the internet with DHCP logs pointing to some neighbour (or poiting to nothing). Has this "loophole" been plugged with the advent of DOCSIS2 and now DOCSYS3 software ? Or is DHCP still just a "suggestion" of what IP to use, with ARP being the authoritative mechanism used by the CMTS to know the MAC address associated with an IP address ? If this has been solved, at what level was it done ? is it the DOCSYS modem that sets up a filter based on a DHCP response to only let traffic "from" the assigned IP address through ? Or would it be done at the CMTS (again based on the DHCP response being recorded) ? I ask this in the context of the law where one party tries to sue another based on IP address (such as Voltage Pictures suing thousands of IP addresses). If B can use the IP address that DHCP assigned to A and A gets sued, it becomes rather difficult to prove.

1 0