On 1/15/12, nanog-request@nanog.org <nanog-request@nanog.org> wrote:
Send NANOG mailing list submissions to nanog@nanog.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to nanog-request@nanog.org
You can reach the person managing the list at nanog-owner@nanog.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of NANOG digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Whois 172/12 (Alex Ryu) 2. RE: Whois 172/12 (Network IP Dog) 3. Re: Monday Night Footbal -- on Google? (Mark Tinka) 4. Re: Whois 172/12 (Suresh Ramasubramanian) 5. Re: Whois 172/12 (Jay Moran) 6. accessing multiple devices via a script (Abdullah Al-Malki) 7. Re: accessing multiple devices via a script (Phil Regnauld) 8. Re: accessing multiple devices via a script (Joel jaeggli) 9. Re: accessing multiple devices via a script (Justin Krejci) 10. Re: accessing multiple devices via a script (Kurth Bemis) 11. RE: Whois 172/12 (Keith Medcalf)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1 Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 09:43:24 -0600 From: Alex Ryu <r.hyunseog@ieee.org> To: bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Whois 172/12 Message-ID: <CAM9zEH5_P2o2s8rT6TaE1OeE4dZC2GamWpgDAoZU_i1iq=p4Cw@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Similar to 1.0.0.0/8 case, which was allocated to APNIC last year or so...
On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 6:47 AM, <bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com> wrote:
On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 06:36:12AM -0600, Robert Bonomi wrote:
From nanog-bounces+bonomi=mail.r-bonomi.com@nanog.org ?Sun Jan 15 02:02:00 2012 Subject: Re: Whois 172/12 From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net> Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 02:58:11 -0500 To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Read RFC1918.
Likely a machine on his local network (i.e. behind the same NAT box) is hitting him.
Patrick, ? I'v read RFC-1918. ? I cannot find *any* reference to ?172.0/12, as the OP was asking about. ?172.16/12, yes. but not 172.0/12. ?Can you please clarify your advice?
ZZ
? ? ? ?so as a stylistic point, ? 172/12 ?is supposed to equal 172.0.0.0/12?
? ? ? ?if memory serves, back in the day, there were records of allocations in this space, ? ? ? ?pre-ARIN. When RFC 1918 was settled on, there were some folks blocking 172.0.0.0/8 ? ? ? ?so there was talk of relocating those folks into other space.
/bill
------------------------------
Message: 2 Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 08:16:42 -0800 From: "Network IP Dog" <network.ipdog@gmail.com> To: "'Suresh Ramasubramanian'" <ops.lists@gmail.com>, "'Patrick W. Gilmore'" <patrick@ianai.net> Cc: 'NANOG list' <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: RE: Whois 172/12 Message-ID: <4f12fbf5.a24de70a.66e1.fffff79b@mx.google.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
<quote>Jesus. 172.16/12 fine .. that's rfc1918. The rest of 172/8 is mostly unallocated.</quote>
What's with the language?
Ephesians 4:32 & Cheers!!!
-----Original Message----- From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:ops.lists@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2012 12:35 AM To: Patrick W. Gilmore Cc: NANOG list Subject: Re: Whois 172/12
Jesus. 172.16/12 fine .. that's rfc1918. The rest of 172/8 is mostly unallocated.
On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick@ianai.net> wrote:
Read RFC1918.
Likely a machine on his local network (i.e. behind the same NAT box) is hitting him.
But that is not guaranteed. A packet with a source address of 172.0.x.x
-- Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists@gmail.com)
------------------------------
Message: 3 Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 00:17:55 +0800 From: Mark Tinka <mtinka@globaltransit.net> To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Monday Night Footbal -- on Google? Message-ID: <201201160017.59546.mtinka@globaltransit.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
On Thursday, January 12, 2012 12:06:42 PM Jay Ashworth wrote:
I'm not saying you need the whole 19mbps (though, remember here, we are not talking about "Additional Carriage"; we are talking about *being the only way people can see that game* -- and my example was the Super Bowl).. but unless MPEG algorithms have gotten *much* better than I'm aware of, 5mb/s is probably not enough for the Super Bowl. And you'd really be better off with some FEC, too, even if it costs you a couple frames extra delay.
For broadcast networks, what we're seeing they like is that unlike satellite transmissions, there is more flexibility for them on IP (IPTv), which would let them lift compression rates and pack more data into a stream.
But because most of them are primarily satellite broadcasting houses, only starting to roll-out IPTv, they need to maintain parity on both transmission media.
Whatever the case, 5Mbps would be too low. At 1080i, we have a customer pushing HD channels at about 13Mbps a piece, give or take.
Mark.