Re: Transition Planning for IPv6 as mandated by the US Govt
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Joe Abley wrote: | I'm sure for many small networks a Soekris box would do fine. For the | record, FreeBSD also runs on more capable hardware. Can attest to that. I have picked up Nathan's handywork and used it on other hardware. some work is needed, but nevertheless quite useful for small networks. the soekris boxes are of good value nevertheless for something like this. thanks ~ -gaurab -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFH3paBSo7fU26F3X0RAi2iAKC86xc9nqiK7CQDIgE5Jxmaf6xKhACg6oXg d9Ky9Rd4+kA0uH5ecLlIGVQ= =O5IL -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: more-specifics via IX
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Bradley Urberg Carlson wrote: I have a few customers' customers, who appear at a local IX. Due to the MLPA-like nature of the IX, I hear their prefixes both at the IX and via my own transit customers. I normally use localpref to prefer customer advertisements over peers' advertisements. There is a customer's customer who is advertising more-specifics at the IX (and using a different source AS, to boot). I can think of a couple ways to prevent hearing these, but thought I should ask for suggestions first. I have seen the opposite of this as well. ISP X announces an aggregate at the local IX, but has some more specifics announced to the transit providers for TE needs. To avoid sending/receiving traffic over transit links and prefer peering route, they were suggested to also announce their more specific to their peers. In your case, if your customer's customer is multihomed, they might be announcing more specific in line with their own routing policies. If you don't like it - then you'd setup a specific filter, resulting most probably in asymmetrical routing. thanks - gaurab -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHFJMlSo7fU26F3X0RAqYLAJ9suyoqQ5Q9qU6lJKaaH0imAznsUACgxKxk CDM0aL0Ij32L5By3lnVjFuQ= =CgYZ -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: IPv6 Training?
Hi, there have been regular IPv6 workshops both at APRICOT (www.apricot.net) and SANOG (www.sanog.org), for the last few years. Nathan Ward wrote: self-guided)? Looking to send several 1st and 2nd tier guys, for some platform/vendor-agnostic training. Any clues? If you want books, http://safari.oreilly.com/. We have used the 'IPv6 Network Administration' by Murphy Malone as supplementary material for the above workshops and would recommend it. You know it's a good book for operators when the authors have taken pain to contact RIPE-NCC and put in a whole sub-chapter on RIR policies etc.. Of course, YMMV, thanks -- gaurab
Re: Collocation Access
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Dec 28, 2006, at 3:49 PM, Joe Abley wrote: I gave my Ontario drivers licence to Equinix security in LA, once, and they refused to accept it as proof of ID since it wasn't government issued. I said it was; they disagreed. I tried to explain that there was more than one government in the world, but I got blank looks, and had to head out back past building security and up to the roof in the adjacent parking garage to get my passport. Hmm!! may be folks in San francisco don't care so much. last time i went to a San Francisco facility, i handed them my Nepalese driving license (no, wasn't carrying my passport), and they didn't blink at all. though when i came back, they did ask me what the hell an 'auto rickshaw' was :-). Generally, as long as i had a pre-authorized ticket open for access to equipment, any form of ID with a picture has worked. thanks For some reason it seemed a good idea to get all my various passports while I was there (I have three), and when I made it back inside I handed them all over together. I realised about two seconds after handing them over that I was probably doing a stupid thing. A whole group of them appeared, and huddled around my passports with their backs to me. They seemed on the verge of calling the FBI. They gave the passports back, eventually, and I didn't go to jail. So it could have been worse. :-) Joe -- gaurab /+9779851038080 gaurab at lahai dot com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin) iD8DBQFFlBFOSo7fU26F3X0RApKKAKD9E+ZZre2lpN33JZdhsx4DUBYeLQCgmRAQ cVwe2M8yPMwu6eA7n0ZIDO0= =sko+ -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Undersea fiber cut after Taiwan earthquake - PCCW / Singtel / KT e tc connectivity disrupted
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, Information seems to suggest that these all have one or other faults due to the earthquake. Some probably have more serious problems then others. SMW3 (Sea-me-we 3). FNAL and FEA (FLAG North Asia Loop) ; RNAL = Reach North Asia Loop APCN2 (Asia Pacific Network 2) C2C - Singtel's coast to coast EAC = East Asia Crossing (EAC) Traffic is gradually coming back through ad-hoc setups and re-routes, but cable providers are saying minimum 3 weeks for full recovery. thanks On Dec 27, 2006, at 9:58 AM, Joe Provo wrote: According to Chungwa, Sea-Me-We3 and APCN2 are affected. Satellite connectivity is already being mentioned for supplanting surviving regional connectivity. -- RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin) iD8DBQFFk049So7fU26F3X0RAgOqAKDKqfTGXHwRUqgTPLjU4mTa8aULkQCgjVkr F90LvIihrjjLkRok1rL2y7Q= =qd+e -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Undersea fiber cut after Taiwan earthquake - PCCW / Singtel / KT e tc connectivity disrupted
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Dec 28, 2006, at 5:35 AM, Jared Mauch wrote: I've wondered how many boats/subs exist for these repairs and if attempting to do them all in parallel is going to be a big problem. With 6 systems having outages, it will be interesting to see when various paths/systems come back online and if there is a gating factor in underseas repair gear being available in the region. Much of the affected cables are managed under the SEAIOCMA (South East Asia Indian Ocean Cable Maintenance Agreement). I am not sure how many ships they have on stand-by in the region, but probably not enough to send out one ship to each of the faults, given that multiple faults have been reported on most cable systems. I presume, the more important cable systems - those with higher stakes for the SEAIOCMA signatories will get repaired first followed by others. thanks -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin) iD8DBQFFk3IZSo7fU26F3X0RApmJAKDZpWgD67Kuqq8lSs7wEQquCVbfbQCguf61 bnrQWB66C0pOjl+5O7TYmVU= =yVXA -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: 41/8 announcement
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Well, there was an update on this topic on the AfNOG list. I thought nanog list should find this interesting. On May 24, 2006, at 7:00 AM, Mikisa Richard wrote: This thread has been dead for awhile now but it never was really solved. Turns out the folks at fastweb (Italy) NAT there adsl clients but instead of using the rfc1918 space like most people, they use unassigned global /8s. Well 41/8 is one of there NATted allocations for Turin. No amount of emails will get them to respond, calling isn't any better as I get only Italian speaking people at the other end. Any ideas out there? - -end quote from afnog mailing list --- thanks On May 22, 2006, at 11:46 AM, Ernest B. M wrote: Apologies for duplicates] Dear Colleagues, Please note that AfriNIC received the IPv4 address range 41.0.0.0/8 from the IANA in April 2005. You may wish to adjust any filters you have in place accordingly. Reachability tests can be conducted with 41.223.252.1 as a target IP address. Kind Regards, Ernest, AfriNIC. -- gaurab /+9779851038080 gaurab at lahai dot com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin) iD8DBQFEdAnbSo7fU26F3X0RAtpjAJ9Gnf7uDLFofrqsinGFSc6tQO8v6ACeIDvB 5QH2WGSazy09vlwWBpUZ5JE= =bEnl -END PGP SIGNATURE-
SANOG7: Call for Papers
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 SANOG 7 16-24 January 2006, Mumbai, India Call for Papers http://www.sanog.org/sanog7/cfp.htm Deadline for proposals : 1 December, 2005 Acceptance Notification: 15 December, 2005 Paper Confirmation : 1 January, 2006 Please submit Online at https://submission.sanog.org/paper/ The following is an open call for papers/presentations for the two- day conference at the 7th South Asian Network Operators Group (SANOG) Meeting. Presentations are expected to be 20-30 minutes long with technical content. Marketing and sales content in presentations is against the spirit of the SANOG and is strictly prohibited. Please respond to this call for papers/presentations by making submissions online at https://submission.sanog.org/paper/ The conference will be comprised of 6 session in two days, including the plenary. The tracks are for general ideas, and feel free to propose talks that you think are relevant to the operational and Internet research community. The topics given below are not exclusive. Track 1: Network operations In this session we invite papers, reports and presentations from network operators, equipment vendors and academic institutions conducting network research on operational issues. Possible topics for this track are: - - Prevention and mitigation of Denial of Service attacks including intrusion - - Routing policies and architecture for scalable IP and broadband networks - - Technology updates and trends in security and routing - - MPLS and QoS implementation experiences - - Traffic management and measurement - - Network migration issues (IPv4 to v6, Layer 2 to IP etc.) Track 2: Applications and Services This track will discuss various services that can be enabled on packet networks. Papers and presentations are invited from developers, operators, equipment vendors and research organizations on the following and related topics - - Voice and Multimedia over IP - - Managed network services including Security and VPNs - - Mail servers, SPAM prevention, - - Wireless Technology and Applications Track 3: Peering and IXP This is a new track at SANOG. This is to cater to the growing demand on the newly established Internet Exchange Points in the region. As local ISPs are going international, we would like to invite both regional and international experts to share their ideas and experience on these topics. - - Internet Exchange Points Operations - - Peering Techniques and Policies - - BGP Multihoming Techniques Track 4: Regional updates This track is fairly broad, and will include updates from ISPs, regional Internet exchanges, APNIC, routing table updates and such information that would be useful to the SANOG community. You are also welcome to submit proposals for BoFs, tutorials and other tracks. On behalf of Ananth Nagarajan, Program Chair - SANOG Sumon Ahmed Sabir, Program Co-Chair - SANOG and the SANOG Programme Committee -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin) iD8DBQFDKaaeSo7fU26F3X0RAipsAKDlvKAKH16cI6fphhKEF4HADidRTwCcDcAl K5sn/F/ipeWsvrNjXIOeR0g= =jkeN -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: as numbers
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Anyone who uses the argument of inter-domain routing that are not seen by any data collectors on the Internet should be pointed at RFC1930 and told to renumber their private ASNs. Just because public route collectors can't see use of an ASN, that doesn't mean the ASN isn't in use; just because it can't be seen doesn't mean it's private-use: it might still feature on routes announced on the Internet, even if the routes don't propagate globally. For a trivial example of this, consider a multilat route server at an exchange point. Unless you measure from within (or downstream of) a peer of the route server, you'll never see the AS number in an AS_PATH attribute. It's fairly clear to me that this is not a suitable candidate for private-use numbering, however. I can see that happening all over the place where external connectivity is pre-dominantly over satellite, or where there is a monopoly in transit services. The ASN are used mainly at the local IXP, where RFC 1930 and private ASN won't be useful, but at the same time external connectivity is default routed to the transit provider. Thus the ASN are not seen in any AS_PATH by any data collector, doesn't mean that they are not being used. thanks -- gaurab /+9779851038080 gaurab at lahai dot com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin) iD8DBQFC7ltOSo7fU26F3X0RAnbuAKC7BtfKZ8lD1g+v2bdcn0EAryCU6QCcDxB2 YiXVItqcDhB5i+mAijEBNzQ= =LJLZ -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: INOC-DBA setup help?
Hi folks since i am the current operator, feel free to write directly to me if you don't get a response in 36-48 hours. [EMAIL PROTECTED] hasn't responded to any of my emails but I don't know how active that address is. Is this still a live service? If it's simply a thanks -- gaurab /+9779851038080
Re: Korea Telecom Contacts?
I realize that AP is a tough area to cover; I spent three years doing ISP work in Tokyo. Like I said in my reply to Suresh, I'd love to be able to drop more than one POP in the region. F's locations in New Zealand, Hong Kong, and Seoul sound pretty ideal. Unfortunately, I only have room for one POP on the budget. HKIX would be your best bet, considering it's connectivity to Far East, Pacific, South East, South Asia as well as west Asia both over fiber and satellite. It's also a more competitive market than Singapore or Seoul - more bang for you buck. -- gaurab /+97714499393
