- Test - lists.nanog.org

download speed very fast.
by Deric Kwok 03 Mar '11

03 Mar '11

Hi all Do you know about sppedboost? Why it can suddenly burst to higher transfer rate from first 10M Can you share what equipment behinds to make it work? eg: cisco, juniper? Thank you so much

5 4

Re: [BEWARE] David J. Moore
by isabel dias 03 Mar '11

03 Mar '11

If you can't be good be carefull! A "relation" is just a relationship between sets of information What is a relation? A Relation is a group of Functions ----- Original Message ---- From: isabel dias <isabeldias1(a)yahoo.com> To: literalka(a)gnaa.eu; full-disclosure(a)lists.grok.org.uk; nanog(a)nanog.org; irc-security(a)lists.irc-unity.org; dronebl-discussion(a)dronebl.org Sent: Thu, March 3, 2011 4:07:46 PM Subject: Re: [BEWARE] David J. Moore The only reason why you feel that way is cause you haven't been made aware and your network of friends is not "helping you at all" so do speak up and make yourself heard! ----- Original Message ---- From: Leon Kaiser <literalka(a)gmail.com> To: full-disclosure(a)lists.grok.org.uk; nanog(a)nanog.org; irc-security(a)lists.irc-unity.org; dronebl-discussion(a)dronebl.org Sent: Thu, March 3, 2011 2:03:18 PM Subject: [BEWARE] David J. Moore This is the man who poisoned DroneBL. He is a bad man. Keep your children safe. http://raged.tittybang.org/ Leon ======================================================== Leon Kaiser - Head of GNAA Public Relations - literalka(a)gnaa.eu || literalka(a)goatse.fr http://gnaa.eu || http://security.goatse.fr 7BEECD8D FCBED526 F7960173 459111CE F01F9923 "The mask of anonymity is not intensely constructive." -- Andrew "weev" Auernheimer ========================================================

1 0

Cross connect from Telx to Level 3 @ 111 8th Ave
by Andy Ashley 03 Mar '11

03 Mar '11

Hi, Does anyone know if it is possible to get a cross connect from Telx (room 524) to Level 3 (room 304) at 111 8th Ave? Neither Telx or L3 can do this without serious complication and prohibitive cost. (contact me off list please) Thanks. Regards, Andy Ashley. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.

1 0

Interesting google redirects.
by Wil Schultz 03 Mar '11

03 Mar '11

Has anyone else had complaints that www.google.com is occasionally redirecting (http 302) to www.google.com.hk this morning? -wil

1 0

39.0.0.0/8 on table already ?
by Danny Pinto 03 Mar '11

03 Mar '11

Hi , I saw 39.0.0.0/8 from AS273 on global table till last week .Was it a genuine advertisement or some tests ongoing with 39.0.0.0/8 or any other previously reserved spaces . I am updating my bogons lists and want to know any experiments happening with previous reserved spaces. Thanks, Dan

2 1

Re: Ranges announced by Level3 without permitions.
by Network Department 03 Mar '11

03 Mar '11

Hi! 1) RIPE NCC policy requires all routes must be present at the RIPE DB and RIPE IPs could be officially announced outside RIPE Region. 2) Resources owners don't know anything about these routes.. so it means that ranges were announces without permission by third party company. On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 9:05 AM, Owen DeLong <owen(a)delong.com> wrote: > > On Mar 2, 2011, at 11:55 PM, Alfa Telecom wrote: > >> Hello All! >> >> Maybe somebody could help me with some issue: >> >> Ranges below are announced by Level3 >> >> 79.110.224.0/20 *[BGP/170] 08:23:34, MED 0, localpref 150, from 213.248.64.245 >> AS path: 3356 >> 79.110.64.0/20 *[BGP/170] 08:25:07, MED 0, localpref 150, from 213.248.64.245 >> AS path: 3356 >> >> Both ranges are from RIPE region and couldn't be announced from ARIN ASN at all. We're sponsored LIR for both companies, I sent several emails to Level3 noc, made several calls but they still announce these ranges. >> ------------------ >> Andrew > > Why can't they be announced from ARIN ASN? Many network ranges issued by RIPE > are held by companies with operations in north america and are announced in > North America from North American ASNs. > > If you are saying that the announcement from Level 3 is not on behalf of the companies > for whom you are the sponsoring LIR, then, perhaps the registered customers (to whom > the addresses are listed in whois) should contact Level 3 directly so that they can > validate the resource registrants properly before removing the routes. > > If I misunderstand what you are attempting to say, I apologize, but, your message is > hard to understand. > > Owen > > -- Network Department Alfa Telecom s.r.o. http://www.alfatelecom.cz email: ripe(a)alfatelecom.cz phone: +420 226 020 362

1 0

TWTelecom DNS issues...
by Wil Schultz 03 Mar '11

03 Mar '11

ns1.twtelecom.net and ns2.twtelecom.net (along with some other DNS servers, ns1.orng.twtelecom.net and ns1.ptld.twtelecom.net) suddenly stopped serving DNS for domains it's not authoritative for this morning. Requests are being actively refused from within their network. Caused a small issue for us, just thought I'd pass along. -wil

4 5

Switch with 24x SFP PVLAN QinQ Layer 2
by Adam Armstrong 02 Mar '11

02 Mar '11

Hi All, I'm scouring the Internet for potential devices to use in a FTTB/FTTP scenario. Requirements are basically just 24/48 SFP ports, PVLAN and selective QinQ. Most devices that fit the requirements are Layer 3, which pushes the cost per port too high. Has anyone come across anything I've not found yet? Thanks, adam.

9 10

Re: What vexes VoIP users?
by Jay Ashworth 02 Mar '11

02 Mar '11

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Michael Thomas" <mike(a)mtcc.com> > Yes, really. The only difference was which L2 channels the RTP > packets were flowed onto, which was determined by the MGCP/SIP > signalling and interaction with the telephony gateway. There > is a **very** complicated state machine that deals with this > using some bastardized IETF protocols (COPS IIRC). Ok, see, now I (like, I suspect, Frank Bulk) am confused again: when you say "which L2 channels the RTP packets were flowed onto", that sounds to me a *whole* lot like "which VLAN on the end-user drop carried the RTP packets from the terminal adapter in their cable box to our concentrator"... which is pretty much the point I was originally trying to make, if perhaps in slightly different terms. Am I still misunderstanding you? Cheers, -- jra

3 2

IPv6? Why, you are the first one to ask for it!
by George Bonser 02 Mar '11

02 Mar '11

Fairly major global network provider likes to call themselves a "Tier 1". Asking about native IPv6 in one of their colo facilities in the UK. They say their US facilities won't be v6 capable until Q4 2011. The UK rep acted like it was the first he'd ever heard of it and implied we were the very first to ask for it. Note to providers: That might have worked a couple of years ago but when we hear that today, we know it is false. Please be honest in your responses to that question. If you aren't going to deploy it for another year or two, just say so. The notion that we are the very first ones to ever ask for it from a global provider in a major country is just lame. George

18 20