- Test - lists.nanog.org

DreamHost admin contacts
by Andy Ringsmuth 16 Oct '09

16 Oct '09

Any chance there's someone from DreamHost on NANOG? Or that someone might have a way to reach them other than by filing a trouble ticket with them? POP has seemingly been down all day, with Webmail sporadic at best. Just migrated my company's e-mail over to them last week, and with this, of course our company president has been putting a severe squeeze on me to fix it. Barring that, what recommendations might the NANOG community have for an extremely rock-solid e-mail hosting company? I realize that may mean self-promotion, but hey, bring it on. Much appreciated! -Andy

9 9

Re: multicast nightmare #42
by Philip Lavine 15 Oct '09

15 Oct '09

Thank you Eric you are a genius, that has solved and issue that has plagued me for 3 years. the problem was exactly as you said over subscription of the 8 ports tied to 1 ASIC ________________________________ From: Eric Ortega <eric_ortega(a)mmi.net> To: Philip Lavine <source_route(a)yahoo.com> Sent: Wed, October 14, 2009 9:51:43 AM Subject: Re: multicast nightmare #42 Depending on the model of blade there is an 8-to-1 over subscription on the 4500s. I have had all kinds of headaches with this myself. The 48 port SFP "gig" blade can only have 1 gig per each set of 8 ports. The aggregate ports are known as "gigaports". The layout is gigaport 1 = 1,3,5,7,9,11,13,15 gigaport 2 = 2,4,6,8,10,12,14,16 and so on. I bet that if add up the total bandwidth in each gigaport you might be over the "limit" Philip Lavine wrote: > >I wish that was the case but the switch is a 4500 and the data >rates are less than 100 mbps on a 1 gig blade/sup > > > > ________________________________ From: >Eric Ortega <eric_ortega(a)mmi.net> >To: Philip Lavine ><source_route(a)yahoo.com> >Sent: Wed, October 14, >2009 8:24:59 AM >Subject: Re: multicast >nightmare #42 > >Are you over subscribing >either the link or the backplane of the switching device? > >>Philip Lavine wrote: > >Please explain how this would be possible: >> >>1 sender >>1 mcast group >>1 receiver >>---------------- >> = no data loss >> >>1 sender >>1 mcast group >>2+ receivers on same VLAN and physical segment >>-------------------- >>= data loss >> >> >> >> >> > >-- > > >Eric R. Ortega >Network Engineer >Midcontinent Communications >605.357.5720 >eric_ortega(a)gmail.com > -- Eric R. Ortega Network Engineer Midcontinent Communications 605.357.5720 eric_ortega(a)gmail.com

2 1

multicast nightmare #42
by Philip Lavine 14 Oct '09

14 Oct '09

Please explain how this would be possible: 1 sender 1 mcast group 1 receiver ---------------- = no data loss 1 sender 1 mcast group 2+ receivers on same VLAN and physical segment -------------------- = data loss

5 6

Contact for netsolmail.net / networksolutionsemail.com
by Denis F. 14 Oct '09

14 Oct '09

Hello and sorry to bother you with my OT query. I'm looking for a technical contact at netsolmail.net or networksolutionsemail.com to troubleshoot an issue. It seems their SMTP servers can't join mine and I can't see what's wrong on my side. Thank you very much in advance, Denis

1 0

Seeking old NANOG list mbox archives
by Fyodor 14 Oct '09

14 Oct '09

Hi All. I run a web archive for network security mailing lists at http://seclists.org and have decided to add NANOG. I find that this list often delves into security issues, including botnets, malware, DoS attacks, ways to contain them, etc. So I've added a page with the monthly archives since 2003, excerpts of the latest posts, RSS feeds, searching, etc: http://seclists.org/nanog/ The problem is that I have only been a list member for 6 years, while the NANOG list has a rich history going back to 1994 ('92 if you count the NSFNET Regional-Techs list it was formed from). I'd love to make that whole history available. If anyone has archives going back further than mine, please let me know. Traditional Unix-style mbox files are preferred, but I'll take whatever I can get and massage them into mboxes. Thanks, Fyodor

1 0

blackholes.us RBL is defunct and wildcarded
by Mark Jeftovic 14 Oct '09

14 Oct '09

This is somewhat of a stability issue as I'm seeing a lot of remote mailservers affected. The blackholes.us series of RBLs (geotargetted IP space by country) is no more, hasn't been for awhile. It has now been wildcarded and answers positive to all queries. http://www.circleid.com/posts/20091013_unwelcome_afterlife_for_a_long_dead_… Sorry if this is known, I checked the archives and didn't see anything. -mark -- Mark Jeftovic <markjr(a)easydns.com> / Jabber: markjr(a)easysip.com Founder / President, easyDNS Technologies Inc. Company Website: http://www.easyDNS.com Better Living Through Private World Domination: http://PrivateWorld.com

2 1

[NANOG-announce] A few notes on recent events and items of interest for NANOG 47
by David Meyer 13 Oct '09

13 Oct '09

Folks, A few notes on recent events and items of interest: (i). The NANOG Steering Committee approved the 2009 Election Ballot. It will be posted on Sunday, October 18 by noon when the polls open. (ii). Charter amendments http://nanog.org/governance/elections/2009elections/2009charteramend.php (iii). SC Candidates http://nanog.org/governance/elections/2009elections/2009sc_candidates.php (iv). Current PC Candidates http://nanog.org/governance/elections/2009elections/2009pc_candidates.php (v). Important dates - Voting for the 2009/2010 NANOG SC opens: 1200 EDT 10-18-09 - Voting for the 2009/2010 NANOG SC closes: 0915 EDT 10-21-09 - PC Candidate Information posted/nominations close: 10-19-09 The NANOG 47 agenda has been posted, so please check that out. We have a great line-up of topics and presenters. We hope to see many more in Dearborn. For those who are considering a NANOG Sponsorship, we encourage you to contact marketing(a)merit.edu. The community really appreciates the support and vendors do have a wonderful opportunity to showcase their products. Thanks, and see you all in Dearborn. Dave _______________________________________________ NANOG-announce mailing list NANOG-announce(a)nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-announce

1 0

Re: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering
by Deepak Jain 13 Oct '09

13 Oct '09

Perhaps someone from HE can re-confirm their open peering policy for us? If they aren't (open) anymore, I'm impressed by the bravado... Deepak ----- Original Message ----- From: Marco Hogewoning <marcoh(a)marcoh.net> To: Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick(a)ianai.net> Cc: NANOG list <nanog(a)nanog.org> Sent: Mon Oct 12 12:15:34 2009 Subject: Re: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering On Oct 12, 2009, at 6:09 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: > It is sad to see that networks which used to care about > connectivity, peering, latency, etc., when they are small change > their mind when they are "big". The most recent example is Cogent, > an open peer who decided to turn down peers when they reached > transit free status. > > I never thought HE would be one of those networks. Do we have any proof it's HE rejecting peering or is it that Cogent en Telia alike that are to proud to ask and think they can have a piece of the pie as they did with v4 ? MarcoH

10 13

IPv6 in the ARIN region
by Seth Mattinen 13 Oct '09

13 Oct '09

New thread: who will route the full IPv6 table? So far I'm seeing PI /48's out of 2620:0:/23 from: NTT, 2914 AT&T, 7018 Sprint, 1239 and 6175 Hurricane, 6939 Level 3, 3356 Global Crossing, 3549 Qwest, 209 Did I miss anyone? Qwest only carries one route (out of 4 total) though, don't know if that's an exception or they only have one ARIN PI customer. ~Seth

7 6

.se disappeared?
by Ben White 13 Oct '09

13 Oct '09

Does anyone else also see trouble reaching .se domains at the moment? -- Ben

10 11