Re: OT: Sign of the Coming Apocalypse
finally after waiting for it 4ever Joshua On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 6:06 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote: > (that's next winter, right?) > > I've just seen a TV ad for Duke Nukem Forever, in a Hulu airing of > The Daily Show. > > Cheers, > -- jr 'Finally??' a > -- > Jay R. Ashworth Baylink > j...@baylink.com > Designer The Things I Think RFC > 2100 > Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover > DII > St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 > 1274 > >
Re: ip 6 questions
On 06/12/2011 03:31 PM, Tom Hill wrote: On Sun, 2011-06-12 at 14:46 -0400, Deric Kwok wrote: We will apply ipv6 from ARIN and try to use it in hosting business 1/ Can we use it in our current AS which is using ipv4? If not. Do we have to apply new AS? No, you can route IPv6& IPv4 from the same ASN. 2/ Can arin not allow us to apply ipv4 for the future after we apply ipv6? If you need IPv4, apply for it. You might have a *better* chance if you already have a plan to implement IPv6, than if you have not considered it. 3/ Any advices to do ipv6 in hosting business Software. Plesk barely has IPv6 support (>10.2) and I'm yet to hear about it from CPanel. FWIW: http://go.cpanel.net/ipv6 -- TL;DR: not there yet. Jima
Re: RE: So... is it time to do IPv6 day monthy yet?
On Jun 14, 2011 10:36 PM, "Ryan Finnesey" < ryan.finne...@harrierinvestments.com> wrote: > > I think this would be helpful. > Agreed. You don't need anybody's permission, kick it off. The last v6day was an isoc effort, there can be a separate nanog effort or your own. Cb > Cheers > Ryan > > > -Original Message- > From: Ryan Pavely [mailto:para...@nac.net] > Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2011 11:08 AM > To: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: So... is it time to do IPv6 day monthy yet? > > I was thinking the same thing. Good call :) > > Ryan Pavely >Net Access Corporation >http://www.nac.net/ > > > On 6/8/2011 10:40 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote: > > It certainly sounds like it might be. > > > > Cheers, > > -- jra > > >
Re: The stupidity of trying to "fix" DHCPv6
Ricky Beam wrote: > > And IPv6 has been designed (poorly, it would now appear) for huge "LAN"s > -- LANs are supposed to be /64, after all. Ethernet is not designed for huge LANs. If you want that you need to make significant changes - http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mas90/MOOSE/ Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finchhttp://dotat.at/ Fisher, German Bight: Southerly or southwesterly backing southeasterly, 3 or 4, occasionally 5 in Fisher at first, increasing 5 or 6 in Fisher later. Slight, increasing moderate in Fisher. Rain later. Moderate or good, occasionally poor later.
Re: The stupidity of trying to "fix" DHCPv6
On 06/14/2011 03:25 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote: I urge everyone in this thread to try a simple experiment. Configure an IPv6 segment in your lab. Make sure there is no IPv4 on it, not on the router, and that the IPv4 stack (to the extent possible) is disabled on the hosts. Now try to use one of the hosts to access IPv6 content. Been there, done that, fairly happily -- with both Windows 7 and Linux (Fedora 13 or 14, I forget). You'll find the box does SLAAC just fine and gets an address. You'll find RA's provide a default gateway and can get your packets out to the world. You'll also find absolutely nothing works, at a bare minimum because you have no DNS servers. Err, no, that's not universally true. The version of NetworkManager in recent-ish Fedora and Ubuntu (can't attest to other distros) supports the RDNSS field in RAs (available in radvd since 1.0, ~2006-11-01). You do need to explicitly disable IPv4 in NM, however, or it'll consider the lack of DHCPv4 to be a general network failure. RHEL 5 won't work without manually configuring a DNS address; everything I've heard indicates that RHEL 6 supports RDNSS, however. Windows 7 is a bit of an odd duck; without any defined DNS servers it defaults to the following (deprecated) site-local addresses: fec0:0:0:::1%1 fec0:0:0:::2%1 fec0:0:0:::3%1 Adding a route/config for those on your actual DNS server(s) allows Windows to get working DNS, as well. (I don't recall if I had to explicitly disable IPv4 to get IPv6-only working, though.) I will agree that Windows XP is more or less dead in the water in your defined scenario (I've heard you can shoehorn IPv6 DNS servers into its config, but it's not trivial; I haven't confirmed this); I haven't tested Vista but I believe its behavior is probably closer to 7 than XP. The IETF is working on one solution, which is to add DNS information to the RA's! So now you'll configure your routers to hand out DNS servers to clients, and then everything else (NTP servers, Domain Controllers, etc) in DHCP! Oh, oops; you did touch upon this. You might want to let the people who've implemented RDNSS in software know that the IETF is working on it. I'm sure that'll be a relief. Jima
RE: OT: Sign of the Coming Apocalypse
Mine got delivered to my office yesterday! :) Dennis Burgess, Mikrotik Certified Trainer Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik & WISP Support Services Office: 314-735-0270 Website: http://www.linktechs.net LIVE On-Line Mikrotik Training - Author of "Learn RouterOS" > -Original Message- > From: Joshua William Klubi [mailto:joshua.kl...@gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 4:39 AM > To: Jay Ashworth > Cc: NANOG > Subject: Re: OT: Sign of the Coming Apocalypse > > finally after waiting for it 4ever > > Joshua > > On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 6:06 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote: > > > (that's next winter, right?) > > > > I've just seen a TV ad for Duke Nukem Forever, in a Hulu airing of The > > Daily Show. > > > > Cheers, > > -- jr 'Finally??' a > > -- > > Jay R. Ashworth Baylink > > j...@baylink.com > > Designer The Things I Think RFC > > 2100 > > Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover > > DII > > St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 > > 1274 > > > >
Re: The stupidity of trying to "fix" DHCPv6
On 15 jun 2011, at 16:52, Tony Finch wrote: > Ethernet is not designed for huge LANs. If you want that you need > to make significant changes - http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mas90/MOOSE/ Hm: "Our object is to design a communication system which can grow smoothly to accommodate several buildings full of personal computers and the facilities needed for their support." Ethernet: Distributed Packet Switching for Local Computer Networks Robert M. Metcalfe and David R. Boggs Communications of the ACM Volume 19 Issue 7, July 1976
Re: The stupidity of trying to "fix" DHCPv6
In a message written on Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 10:22:12AM -0500, Jima wrote: > Oh, oops; you did touch upon this. You might want to let the people > who've implemented RDNSS in software know that the IETF is working on > it. I'm sure that'll be a relief. Maybe I'm missing something, but the last update on this was RFC 5006 I think, which is marked as "experimental", and I thought the IETF still had a working group discussing it. That is, I didn't think it was a finalized standard yet. -- Leo Bicknell - bickn...@ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ pgpfwvpmkFsSV.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: The stupidity of trying to "fix" DHCPv6
On 15 jun 2011, at 18:39, Leo Bicknell wrote: > Maybe I'm missing something, but the last update on this was RFC > 5006 I think, which is marked as "experimental", and I thought the > IETF still had a working group discussing it. You missed the upgrade to proposed standard: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6106 > That is, I didn't think it was a finalized standard yet. The IETF rarely gets around to bringing something from proposed standard to standard. For instance, HTTP and BGP aren't standards either.
Consequences of BGP Peering with Private Addresses
Hey All, So we're running out of peering space in our /24 and we were considering using private /30's for new peerings. Are there any horrific consequences to picking up this practice? Cheers, James
Re: Consequences of BGP Peering with Private Addresses
On Jun 15, 2011, at 12:47 PM, James Grace wrote: > So we're running out of peering space in our /24 and we were considering > using private /30's for new peerings. Are there any horrific consequences to > picking up this practice? "Horrific"? How about: "Most peers won't bring up a session." What happens if the peer is using 1918 space internally? -- TTFN, patrick
Re: Consequences of BGP Peering with Private Addresses
On 15/06/2011 17:47, James Grace wrote: So we're running out of peering space in our /24 and we were considering using private /30's for new peerings. Are there any horrific consequences to picking up this practice? yes. it causes nasty problems if you use urpf (as you should), in particular with pmtu discovery and traceroute. Nick
Re: Consequences of BGP Peering with Private Addresses
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 9:47 AM, James Grace wrote: > Hey All, > > So we're running out of peering space in our /24 and we were considering > using private /30's for new peerings. Are there any horrific consequences to > picking up this practice? > You can reclaim space by switching your peerings to /31s where possible. If you go down the private space route, make sure you and your peers know about "next hop self" Cameron
Re: Consequences of BGP Peering with Private Addresses
IPv4? IPv6? are you planning to do NAT or PAT? Are you using a bogous ASN 64512 through 65534 to be used for private purposes? /30 -> 4 addresses/2 hosts -> you can't do a mesh configuration w/ that subnet mask.. --- On Wed, 6/15/11, James Grace wrote: > From: James Grace > Subject: Consequences of BGP Peering with Private Addresses > To: nanog@nanog.org > Date: Wednesday, June 15, 2011, 6:47 PM > Hey All, > > So we're running out of peering space in our /24 and we > were considering using private /30's for new peerings. > Are there any horrific consequences to picking up this > practice? > > Cheers, > James > > >
Re: The stupidity of trying to "fix" DHCPv6
> > Ethernet is not designed for huge LANs. If you want that you need > > to make significant changes - http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mas90/MOOSE/ > > Hm: > > "Our object is to design a communication system which can grow smoothly to > accommodate several buildings full of personal computers and the facilities > needed for their support." > > Ethernet: Distributed Packet Switching for Local Computer Networks > Robert M. Metcalfe and David R. Boggs > Communications of the ACM Volume 19 Issue 7, July 1976 So let's change it slightly: Ethernet is not designed for huge broadcast domains. How big is huge? To some degree it depends on how broadcast "chatty" the protocols used are - but there's also the matter of having a size which makes it possible to troubleshoot. Personally I'd prefer an upper limit of a few hundred computers. Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sth...@nethelp.no
Re: Consequences of BGP Peering with Private Addresses
i guess you have a lot of ibgp sessions ..:-) bgp finite state model http://www.inetdaemon.com/tutorials/internet/ip/routing/bgp/operation/finite_state_model.shtml http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:C5Rq3DV63akJ:citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.71.3908%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf+BGP+finite+machine&hl=en&gl=uk&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESiwviFqLXrhPybI3RwpVftr_qlgTSZbIzw2b6rlIEAKE8pqIN-D_2BpJIDacMx18AVSBpZtVAYLoPiUcsLbzDOVAcH9whrXJqB8zFm6R7ImuKNoC8dkYD_OHliYNrldoLGde9Hc&sig=AHIEtbQa0Typ1WE3rB9ztWZaYFIA8t-mag http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4271 --- On Wed, 6/15/11, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: > From: Patrick W. Gilmore > Subject: Re: Consequences of BGP Peering with Private Addresses > To: "NANOG list" > Date: Wednesday, June 15, 2011, 6:54 PM > On Jun 15, 2011, at 12:47 PM, James > Grace wrote: > > > So we're running out of peering space in our /24 and > we were considering using private /30's for new > peerings. Are there any horrific consequences to > picking up this practice? > > "Horrific"? How about: "Most peers won't bring up a > session." > > What happens if the peer is using 1918 space internally? > > -- > TTFN, > patrick > > >
Re: The stupidity of trying to "fix" DHCPv6
On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 19:04:44 +0200, sth...@nethelp.no said: > How big is huge? To some degree it depends on how broadcast "chatty" > the protocols used are - but there's also the matter of having a > size which makes it possible to troubleshoot. Personally I'd prefer > an upper limit of a few hundred computers. And whatever you do, don't be like one med school and build a flat net so big that spanning tree won't converge. ;) pgp8F9sViVLs1.pgp Description: PGP signature
SORBs Human
Could a human being from SORBs please contact me off-list? Your robot isn't functional, and you are listing one of our ARIN allocations as dynamic, when it is not. (Yes, I know that 'no one uses' SORBs. Customers don't care.) Nathan
Re: The stupidity of trying to "fix" DHCPv6
On 06/15/2011 11:45 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: On 15 jun 2011, at 18:39, Leo Bicknell wrote: Maybe I'm missing something, but the last update on this was RFC 5006 I think, which is marked as "experimental", and I thought the IETF still had a working group discussing it. You missed the upgrade to proposed standard: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6106 That is, I didn't think it was a finalized standard yet. The IETF rarely gets around to bringing something from proposed standard to standard. For instance, HTTP and BGP aren't standards either. Thanks for the citation, right. I also probably should also have cited http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_IPv6_support_in_operating_systems -- the notable holdouts to RDNSS (that support DHCPv6) seem to be Windows, Solaris, AIX, and IBM i. Unfortunate. Jima
Eircom Networks (of Ireland) contact me off list please
EHLO Folks, Can someone from Eircom please contact me? -- Landon Stewart SuperbHosting.Net by Superb Internet Corp. Toll Free (US/Canada): 888-354-6128 x 4199 Direct: 206-438-5879 Web hosting and more "Ahead of the Rest": http://www.superbhosting.net
Re: SORBs Human
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 05:26:19PM +, Nathan Eisenberg said: >Could a human being from SORBs please contact me off-list? Your robot isn't functional, and you are listing one of our ARIN allocations as dynamic, when it is not. > >(Yes, I know that 'no one uses' SORBs. Customers don't care.) > >Nathan we've been thru this. please respect the sacrifices previous humans have made on our collective behalf. google nanog + sorbs. let's move this project forward, perhaps hiring a skiptracer and a negotiator to be very persuasive in person to fix sorbs once and for all. anyone who uses sorbs as a filter is breaking internets. tell your customers target's admins. /kc -- Ken Chase - k...@sizone.org Toronto CANADA
Re: AAAA on various websites, but they all forgot to enable them on their nameservers....
Octavio Alvarez wrote: In fact. Although a website of mine worked flawlessly in a dual-stack but it did NOT in an IPv6-only environment. Unfortunately, the problem has to be fixed in the DNS provider, which though supporting records was enough to "support IPv6". Why not run your own nameserver if it is your website assuming you own the domain? Out of curiosity, what are the options you need to use to properly enable bind for IPv6? To me it appears there isn't that much to it, it almost works out of the box with 1 or 2 things turned on. Then you just add the appropriate zone files or records. Am I missing something blatantly obvious that will break it? dig -6 +trace is our friend here. How would you apply this command to determine correct IPv6 resolving? Thanks, Jeroen -- http://goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/ http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/faq/plural-of-virus.html
Re: AAAA on various websites, but they all forgot to enable them on their nameservers....
On 6/15/2011 12:14, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
> Octavio Alvarez wrote:
>> In fact. Although a website of mine worked flawlessly in a dual-stack
>> but it did NOT in an IPv6-only environment. Unfortunately, the problem
>> has to be fixed in the DNS provider, which though supporting
>> records was enough to "support IPv6".
>
> Why not run your own nameserver if it is your website assuming you own
> the domain?
>
> Out of curiosity, what are the options you need to use to properly
> enable bind for IPv6? To me it appears there isn't that much to it, it
> almost works out of the box with 1 or 2 things turned on. Then you just
> add the appropriate zone files or records. Am I missing something
> blatantly obvious that will break it?
>
listen-on-v6 { any; };
Simple as that. Indicate individual addresses, if preferred. Or switch
to a DNS provider that has made this monumental configuration effort.
~Seth
Re: AAAA on various websites, but they all forgot to enable them on their nameservers....
Seth Mattinen wrote:
listen-on-v6 { any; };
Yeah that's what I did. But I keep reading about how these big name
companies messed it up in some subtle or not so subtle way and I keep
thinking I must have missed something. Because surely those big
companies can't find it that difficult, can they? :-)
Simple as that. Indicate individual addresses, if preferred. Or switch
to a DNS provider that has made this monumental configuration effort.
I'd rather have the fuzzy warm feeling of accomplishment of IPv6
enabling my own nameserver.
Thanks,
Jeroen
--
http://goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/
http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/faq/plural-of-virus.html
Re: AAAA on various websites, but they all forgot to enable them on their nameservers....
On 6/15/2011 12:32, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
> Seth Mattinen wrote:
>> listen-on-v6 { any; };
>
> Yeah that's what I did. But I keep reading about how these big name
> companies messed it up in some subtle or not so subtle way and I keep
> thinking I must have missed something. Because surely those big
> companies can't find it that difficult, can they? :-)
>
>> Simple as that. Indicate individual addresses, if preferred. Or switch
>> to a DNS provider that has made this monumental configuration effort.
>
> I'd rather have the fuzzy warm feeling of accomplishment of IPv6
> enabling my own nameserver.
>
I can send you a copy of my config offlist if you'd like; there's really
nothing to it and it's been going along fine for as long as I can
remember. In the simple case of answering on a v6 address I can't see
how that could go wrong unless the network it was on had other IPv6
failings.
~Seth
Re: AAAA on various websites, but they all forgot to enable them on their nameservers....
In a message written on Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 12:32:09PM -0700, Jeroen van Aart
wrote:
> Seth Mattinen wrote:
> >listen-on-v6 { any; };
>
> Yeah that's what I did. But I keep reading about how these big name
> companies messed it up in some subtle or not so subtle way and I keep
> thinking I must have missed something. Because surely those big
> companies can't find it that difficult, can they? :-)
But you see, those big companies didn't have a place in the Excel
spreadsheet for DNS changes to indicate an IPv6 address, so the DNS
team couldn't submit the right information to the Firewall team,
but it all doesn't matter because the network team hadn't actually
made IPv6 work yet as there was no business case.
No, I'm not cynical. :)
--
Leo Bicknell - bickn...@ufp.org - CCIE 3440
PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
pgp8rtQbLHEZZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: AAAA on various websites, but they all forgot to enable them on their nameservers....
Leo Bicknell wrote: but it all doesn't matter because the network team hadn't actually made IPv6 work yet as there was no business case. Ahhh, ok, well at least I know I did it right the first time. No, I'm not cynical. :) It probably reflects daily practice for many big organisations, sadly. Luckily I can configure dns, firewall/routing and (ipv6) networking myself, so no need of passing along spreadsheets (besides I really hate spreadsheets). Seth Mattinen wrote: > I can send you a copy of my config offlist if you'd like; there's really > nothing to it and it's been going along fine for as long as I can That won't be necessary, thanks. I think I have configured it correctly and created the correct IPv6 records. Just wanted to make sure. Greetings, Jeroen -- http://goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/ http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/faq/plural-of-virus.html
Re: AAAA on various websites, but they all forgot to enable them on their nameservers....
In message <4df91ab3.6020...@mompl.net>, Jeroen van Aart writes:
> Leo Bicknell wrote:
> > but it all doesn't matter because the network team hadn't actually
> > made IPv6 work yet as there was no business case.
>
> Ahhh, ok, well at least I know I did it right the first time.
>
> > No, I'm not cynical. :)
>
> It probably reflects daily practice for many big organisations, sadly.
> Luckily I can configure dns, firewall/routing and (ipv6) networking
> myself, so no need of passing along spreadsheets (besides I really hate
> spreadsheets).
>
> Seth Mattinen wrote:
> > I can send you a copy of my config offlist if you'd like; there's really
> > nothing to it and it's been going along fine for as long as I can
>
> That won't be necessary, thanks. I think I have configured it correctly
> and created the correct IPv6 records. Just wanted to make sure.
>
> Greetings,
> Jeroen
>
>
> --
> http://goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/
> http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/faq/plural-of-virus.html
>
You tell named to listen on IPv6 (listen-on-v6). It already uses IPv6
to make queries unless you turned it off on the command line with "named -4".
To go IPv6 only on a dual stack machine use "named -6".
You add records to the zones for the nameservers.
You update your glue records in the parent zone to include records
as well as A records.
You add IPv6 address to resolv.conf or equivalent (DHCPv6, the new RA option).
You can mark non-local ula's as bogus and your one local ulas as good in
named.conf.
servers fc00::/7 {
bogus yes;
};
servers fdxx::::/48 {
bogus no;
};
If you are only using IPv6 internally
servers ::/0 {
bogus yes;
};
servers {
bogus no;
};
You should also be doing this at the routing level.
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
Re: AAAA on various websites, but they all forgot to enable them on their nameservers....
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 08:05:14AM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote: > You tell named to listen on IPv6 (listen-on-v6). It already uses IPv6 > to make queries unless you turned it off on the command line with "named -4". > To go IPv6 only on a dual stack machine use "named -6". > You add records to the zones for the nameservers. > You update your glue records in the parent zone to include records > as well as A records. > You add IPv6 address to resolv.conf or equivalent (DHCPv6, the new RA option). > > You can mark non-local ula's as bogus and your one local ulas as good in > named.conf. And you check all your ACLs and TSIG server definitions etc. because suddenly zone transfers, DNS UPDATEs and other stuff (rndc!) might magically use IPv6 and don't match your ACLs etc. anymore. Best regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: d...@cluenet.de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
Re: The stupidity of trying to "fix" DHCPv6
On Wed, 2011-06-15 at 17:52 +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > "Our object is to design a communication system which can grow smoothly to > accommodate several buildings full of personal computers and the facilities > needed for their support." > > Ethernet: Distributed Packet Switching for Local Computer Networks > Robert M. Metcalfe and David R. Boggs > Communications of the ACM Volume 19 Issue 7, July 1976 To be fair, though, the concept of "large LAN" might have changed a little since 1976... and "buildings full" is not exactly a precise unit of measurement. Regards, K. -- ~~~ Karl Auer (ka...@biplane.com.au) +61-2-64957160 (h) http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer/ +61-428-957160 (mob) GPG fingerprint: DA41 51B1 1481 16E1 F7E2 B2E9 3007 14ED 5736 F687 Old fingerprint: B386 7819 B227 2961 8301 C5A9 2EBC 754B CD97 0156 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
IETF Fellowship Announcement (IETF 82 and 83)
Dear Colleagues, The Internet Society has announced that it is inviting applications for its latest Internet Society Fellowships to the IETF, part of its Next Generation Leaders (NGL) programme (www.InternetSociety.org/Leaders). The Fellowship programme allows engineers from developing countries to attend an Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) meeting. As you know, the IETF is the Internet's premier standards-making body, responsible for the development of protocols used in IP-based networks. IETF participants represent an international community of network designers, operators, vendors, and researchers involved in the technical operation of the Internet and the continuing evolution of Internet architecture. Fellowships will be awarded through a competitive application process. The Internet Society is currently accepting fellowship applications for the next two IETF meetings: * IETF 82, 13 - 18 Nov 2011, Taipei, TW * IETF 83, 25 - 30 March, Paris, FR http://www.isoc.org/educpillar/fellowship/index.php Fellowship applications for both IETF meetings are due by 15 July 2011. Please note that this fellowship is aimed at individuals from developing regions that possess a solid level of technical education and enough knowledge about concrete areas of IETF work to follow and benefit from the meeting’s technical discussions. I encourage you to pass on information about this program to individuals involved in your network that have a keen interest in the Internet standardisation activities of the IETF. The Internet Society Fellowships to the IETF are sponsored by Afilias, Google, Microsoft, and Intel. The Internet Society’s Next Generation Leaders programme is sponsored by Nominet Trust, the Association Française pour le Nommage Internet en Coopération (AFNIC), SIDN, and the European Commission. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to contact Steve Conte . Kind Regards, Steve Conte Internet Society - Steve Conte co...@isoc.org
good geographic for servers reaching the South East Asia market
Hi All, I guess this is a bit off-topic since this is the North American network operators group, but I was wondering if anybody had much experience with fiber infrastructure in the South East Asia area. For reference, generally the WikiPedia entry on South East Asia describes the service delivery area: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southeast_Asia Basically looking for tips on what cities/countries/locations have as much (mostly submarine cabling in this case?) fiber connectivity and redundancy. From there I can trim down where to begin looking specifically at data centers and colocation options. Also, if anybody offhand has any tips on political stability and/or the risk of some kind of unwanted censorship by a given country, that would be helpful as well. Feel free to post back on-list or off-list. Thanks, - Michael DeMan
Large jump in global table prefix count?
Anyone else notice a rather large jump in the global table size? We just gained around 20K prefixes in just the last few hours. From http://www.cidr-report.org/as2.0/#General_Status Top 20 Net Increased Routes per Originating AS Prefixes Change ASnum AS Description 19227 115->19342 AS15557 LDCOMNET NEUF CEGETEL (formerly LDCOM NETWORKS) Tnx Chris -- Chris Griffin cgrif...@ufl.edu Sr. Network Engineer - CCNP Phone: (352) 273-1051 CNS - Network Services Fax: (352) 392-9440 University of Florida/FLR Gainesville, FL 32611
Re: Large jump in global table prefix count?
On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 22:51:52 EDT, Chris Griffin said: > PrefixesChange ASnum AS Description > 19227 115->19342 AS15557 LDCOMNET NEUF CEGETEL (formerly LDCOM > NETWORKS) Somehow, I get the feeling that a network engineer at AS15557 is about to have a very bad work shift. ;) pgp0XVaZcNrwu.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: good geographic for servers reaching the South East Asia market
Singapore, with a fallback / DR location in say Hong Kong. [Or vice versa depending on what parts of south east asia you want .. for india, singapore would be your best bet] On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 5:20 AM, Michael DeMan wrote: > > For reference, generally the WikiPedia entry on South East Asia describes the > service delivery area: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southeast_Asia > > Basically looking for tips on what cities/countries/locations have as much > (mostly submarine cabling in this case?) fiber connectivity and redundancy. > From there I can trim down where to begin looking specifically at data > centers and colocation options. -- Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.li...@gmail.com)
Firehost as a cloud provider
Anyone have experience with Firehost? I have a personal site that I am considering hosting with them and due to the content, am worried about security but don't want to spend the cycles building NIDs and HIDs for myself. I due need PCI compliance as well. If things take off, I'll look at a dedicated server solution but cloud for things while they are in beta seems to fit. Thanks, Bobbyjim
