Re: DDoS using port 0 and 53 (DNS)
The port number of the Layer 4 connection cannot be determined without executing IP fragment reassembly in that case.Routers normally reassemble fragments they receive, if possible. No, routers normally do *not* reassemble fragments. This is typically done by hosts and firewalls. Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sth...@nethelp.no
Re: DDoS using port 0 and 53 (DNS)
On Jul 25, 2012, at 12:08 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote: The packet is a non-initial fragment if and only if, the fragmentation offset is not set to zero. Port number's not a field you look at for that. I understand all that, thanks. NetFlow reports source/dest port 0 for non-initial fragments. That, coupled with the description of the attack, makes it a near-certainty that the observed attack was a DNS reflection/amplification attack. Furthermore, most routers can't perform the type of filtering necessary to check deeply into the packet header in order to determine if a given packet is a well-formed non-initial fragment or not. And finally, many router implementations interpret source/dest port 0 as - yes, you guessed it - non-initial fragments. Hence, it's not a good idea to filter on source/dest port 0. --- Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net // http://www.arbornetworks.com Luck is the residue of opportunity and design. -- John Milton
Re: DDoS using port 0 and 53 (DNS)
On Jul 25, 2012, at 1:13 PM, sth...@nethelp.no wrote: No, routers normally do *not* reassemble fragments. Absolutely correct. I missed this in the rest of the reply, good catch! --- Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net // http://www.arbornetworks.com Luck is the residue of opportunity and design. -- John Milton
Re: DDoS using port 0 and 53 (DNS)
On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 23:10:52 -0500 Jimmy Hess mysi...@gmail.com wrote: It should be relatively safe to drop (non-fragment) packets to/from port 0. [...] Some UDP applications will use zero as a source port when they do not expect a response, which is how many one-way UDP-based apps operate, though not all. This behavior is spelled out in the IETF RFC 768: Source Port is an optional field, when meaningful, it indicates the port of the sending process, and may be assumed to be the port to which a reply should be addressed in the absence of any other information. If not used, a value of zero is inserted. John
Re: Another LTE network turns up as IPv4-only squat space + NAT
On 7/18/12 6:24 PM, Andrey Khomyakov wrote: So some comments on the intertubes claim that DoD ok'd use of it's unadvertized space on private networks. Is there any official reference that may support this statement that anyone of you have seen out there? The arpanet prefix(10/8) was returned to IANA circa 1990 it's now RFC 1918. everything else is urban myth. --Andrey
Re: DDoS using port 0 and 53 (DNS)
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 8:43 AM, John Kristoff j...@cymru.com wrote: Some UDP applications will use zero as a source port when they do not expect a response, which is how many one-way UDP-based apps operate, though not all. This behavior is spelled out in the IETF RFC 768: That would only be applicable if the box was expecting to receive UDP and not send a response. I'm not sure I can think of anything but specialized, vertical applications that would have that behavior with port zero (syslog and SNMP traps send without expecting a response, but they don't use port zero in any implementation I've seen, and neither is generally allowed to be received from the internet at large). In addition to the fragments, these packets might also be non-TCP/UDP (ICMP, GRE, 6to4 and other IP-IP, etc). If the host doesn't expect to receive large UDP packets, you can block UDP fragments. Note that recursive DNS servers would need UDP fragments (well, if you want to do large DNS packets - if you set the right options, you can turn that off). But if you aren't generally providing UDP services, blocking UDP packets, especially to stop an attack, wouldn't hurt (you can also block anything with the MF bit set). If you block these fragments at your provider's router, and it is a DNS amplification attack, you're problems are probably solved until the hacker figures it out. Just make sure you think of things like recursive DNS and other applications that may be using UDP fragments.
RE: DDoS using port 0 and 53 (DNS)
Can netflow _properly_ capture whether a packet is a fragment or not? If not, does IPFIX address this? Frank -Original Message- From: Jimmy Hess [mailto:mysi...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 12:08 AM To: Roland Dobbins Cc: Frank Bulk; nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: DDoS using port 0 and 53 (DNS) On 7/24/12, Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net wrote: Frank Bulk frnk...@iname.com wrote: can't exam them for more detail, but wondering if there was some collective wisdom about blocking port 0. Yes - don't do it, or you will break the Internet. These are non-initial Without a packet capture to look at, that's really just a blind assumption. A port number of a non-initial fragment does not exist at all, because the Layer 4 info is unavailable in that case, something _might_ lie and say the port number is 0, but it should not -- there is no TCP header with any port numbers, the only fields available to check against on such packets are Layer 3 fields such as protocol, source, destination address. The port number of the Layer 4 connection cannot be determined without executing IP fragment reassembly in that case.Routers normally reassemble fragments they receive, if possible. An access list statement attempting to match against non-present Layer 4 information, should not work; on a stateful firewall, the presence of the rule might trigger a fragment reassembly, on a router, the non-applicable ACL entry referring to a non-existent port number will generally be ignored. A full capture should not be necessary. You determine if a packet is a fragment by examining the MF flag, bit 50, and fragmentation offset of the IPv4 header; bits 51 through 63. You only need to look at the first 8 bytes of the IP header. If the MF bit is set to 0, and the fragmentation offset is also all bits 0, then the packet is not part of a fragment. The packet is a non-initial fragment if and only if, the fragmentation offset is not set to zero. Port number's not a field you look at for that. -- -JH
Re: DDoS using port 0 and 53 (DNS)
On Jul 25, 2012, at 9:52 PM, Joel Maslak wrote: In addition to the fragments, these packets might also be non-TCP/UDP (ICMP, GRE, 6to4 and other IP-IP, etc). NetFlow will report the correct protocol number. --- Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net // http://www.arbornetworks.com Luck is the residue of opportunity and design. -- John Milton
Re: DDoS using port 0 and 53 (DNS)
On Jul 25, 2012, at 10:27 PM, Frank Bulk wrote: Can netflow _properly_ capture whether a packet is a fragment or not? No. If not, does IPFIX address this? Yes. But this is all a distraction. We are now down in the weeds. Your customers were victims of a DNS reflection/amplification attack. The issue of fragmentation is moot. The defense methodologies already discussed are how folks typically deal with these attacks. There isn't an ovearching network access policy list you can apply at your edges or ask your peers/upstreams to apply which will mask them - the optimal approach is to deal with them on a case-by-case basis. --- Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net // http://www.arbornetworks.com Luck is the residue of opportunity and design. -- John Milton
Paging Deutsche Telekom
Any DTAG engineers on list? We are having a serious problem with them at present. Cheers, James.
Re: Paging Deutsche Telekom
n...@telekom.de cip-p...@nmc-m.dtag.de for bgp related On 2012-07-25, at 12:59 PM, James Bensley jwbens...@gmail.com wrote: Any DTAG engineers on list? We are having a serious problem with them at present. Cheers, James.
IPv6 only streaming video
http://video.v6.labs.lacnic.net/jw/ Server can not be found since yesterday. Has the URL been changed? Tina 408-859-4996
Re: IPv6 only streaming video
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 1:11 PM, Tina TSOU tina.tsou.zout...@huawei.com wrote: http://video.v6.labs.lacnic.net/jw/ Server can not be found since yesterday. Has the URL been changed? did you mean to email the lacnic folks?
Re: IPv6 only streaming video
The licence expired. We will see if we can get another one. Cheers, as On 25 Jul 2012, at 15:58, Arturo Servin wrote: Oh! We had it as a test service. We didn't know that it was been used by more people, so probably somebody turn it off. I will look around to restart it. Thanks! as On 25 Jul 2012, at 15:37, Tina TSOU wrote: We got offline after discussion in NANOG in May. This IPv6 only streaming video worked well until recently. We use it in my enterprise network. I just could not find his contact in my mailbox. So I hope he can find me again. Does the link accessible from your IPv6 host? Tina @ 2001:db8:1::e8e2:7822:9d12:e12e -Original Message- From: christopher.mor...@gmail.com [mailto:christopher.mor...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Christopher Morrow Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 11:27 AM To: Tina TSOU Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: IPv6 only streaming video On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 1:11 PM, Tina TSOU tina.tsou.zout...@huawei.com wrote: http://video.v6.labs.lacnic.net/jw/ Server can not be found since yesterday. Has the URL been changed? did you mean to email the lacnic folks?
RE: IPv6 only streaming video
Dear all, If you know there is any testing or commercial IPv6 only streaming video we can access, let me know. Thank you. Tina -Original Message- From: Arturo Servin [mailto:aser...@lacnic.net] Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 12:14 PM To: Tina TSOU Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: IPv6 only streaming video The licence expired. We will see if we can get another one. Cheers, as On 25 Jul 2012, at 15:58, Arturo Servin wrote: Oh! We had it as a test service. We didn't know that it was been used by more people, so probably somebody turn it off. I will look around to restart it. Thanks! as On 25 Jul 2012, at 15:37, Tina TSOU wrote: We got offline after discussion in NANOG in May. This IPv6 only streaming video worked well until recently. We use it in my enterprise network. I just could not find his contact in my mailbox. So I hope he can find me again. Does the link accessible from your IPv6 host? Tina @ 2001:db8:1::e8e2:7822:9d12:e12e -Original Message- From: christopher.mor...@gmail.com [mailto:christopher.mor...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Christopher Morrow Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 11:27 AM To: Tina TSOU Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: IPv6 only streaming video On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 1:11 PM, Tina TSOU tina.tsou.zout...@huawei.com wrote: http://video.v6.labs.lacnic.net/jw/ Server can not be found since yesterday. Has the URL been changed? did you mean to email the lacnic folks?
Re: IPv6 only streaming video
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Tina TSOU tina.tsou.zout...@huawei.com wrote: Dear all, If you know there is any testing or commercial IPv6 only streaming video we can access, let me know. Thank you. youtube will stream at you over ipv6 ... did you just need some thing to stream at you over ipv6? I think you can even (if you do the 'i have cable/etc' dance) stream the olympics from nbc over v6 these days.
RE: IPv6 only streaming video
My enterprise users need to turn off IPv4 on their hosts to experience YouTube IPv6 only streaming video. Courtesy to Owen. It is an enterprise network here, I can't dictate for everyone. Some people prefer dual stack host, some people prefer IPv6 only host. Youtube works in our IPv6 only host and dual stack host. Ipv6.netflix.com doesn't seem to work in our dual stack host and IPv6 only host. Do you have the URL of IPv6 only stream video about the Olympics from nbc? Tina -Original Message- From: christopher.mor...@gmail.com [mailto:christopher.mor...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Christopher Morrow Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 1:49 PM To: Tina TSOU Cc: Arturo Servin; nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: IPv6 only streaming video On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Tina TSOU tina.tsou.zout...@huawei.com wrote: Dear all, If you know there is any testing or commercial IPv6 only streaming video we can access, let me know. Thank you. youtube will stream at you over ipv6 ... did you just need some thing to stream at you over ipv6? I think you can even (if you do the 'i have cable/etc' dance) stream the olympics from nbc over v6 these days.
RE: DDoS using port 0 and 53 (DNS)
Another nice emerging tool [I say emerging because it's been around forever but nobody implements it] to deal with this is Flowspec, using flowspec you can instruct your Upstream to block traffic with much more granular characteristics. Instead of dropping all traffic to the IP address, you can drop (for example) udp dst 80 traffic to the IP address, or traffic from a particular source to a particular DST. It can also be initiated by your side without interaction from the upstream ISP. Just saying =) -Drew -Original Message- From: Frank Bulk [mailto:frnk...@iname.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2012 11:41 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: DDoS using port 0 and 53 (DNS) Several times this year our customers have suffered DDoS' ranging from 30 Mbps to over 1 Gbps, sometimes sustained, sometimes in a several minute spurts. They are targeted at one IP address, and most times our netflow tool identifies that a large percentage of the traffic is port 0. The one from today had about 89% port 0 and 11% port 53 (DNS). If it happens repeatedly or continuously we just have our upstream provider blackhole the target (victim) IP address. I've been tempted to ask our upstream provider to block all traffic to us that's targeted to tcp or udp port 0 -- is that safe to do? I found two NANOG archives that talk about this http://www.nanog.org/mailinglist/mailarchives/old_archive/2005-04/msg00091.h tml http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/18990 and the first suggests that port zero could really be fragmented packets. Unfortunately I don't have packet captures of any of the attacks, so I can't exam them for more detail, but wondering if there was some collective wisdom about blocking port 0. Regards, Frank
Re: DDoS using port 0 and 53 (DNS)
In message CADb+6TD6EMN7i9G99hPrhBh2ck-NwRqUuoQ1ubmnsHYN=ix...@mail.gmail.com, Joel Maslak writes: On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 8:43 AM, John Kristoff j...@cymru.com wrote: Some UDP applications will use zero as a source port when they do not expect a response, which is how many one-way UDP-based apps operate, though not all. This behavior is spelled out in the IETF RFC 768: That would only be applicable if the box was expecting to receive UDP and not send a response. I'm not sure I can think of anything but specialized, vertical applications that would have that behavior with port zero (syslog and SNMP traps send without expecting a response, but they don't use port zero in any implementation I've seen, and neither is generally allowed to be received from the internet at large). In addition to the fragments, these packets might also be non-TCP/UDP (ICMP, GRE, 6to4 and other IP-IP, etc). If the host doesn't expect to receive large UDP packets, you can block UDP fragments. Note that recursive DNS servers would need UDP fragments (well, if you want to do large DNS packets - if you set the right options, you can turn that off). But if you aren't generally providing UDP services, blocking UDP packets, especially to stop an attack, wouldn't hurt (you can also block anything with the MF bit set). If you block these fragments at your provider's router, and it is a DNS amplification attack, you're problems are probably solved until the hacker figures it out. Just make sure you think of things like recursive DNS and other applications that may be using UDP fragments. Actually *all* IPv6 node are supposed to support EDNS so *all* IPv6 hosts should be expecting to receive fragmented UDP for DNS. Add to that all hosts that do DNSSEC validation in the stub resolver / application. With DANE this will be any host with a web browser. Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
Re: IPv6 only streaming video
My enterprise users it is generally best if vendors do not speak for users and vice versa randy
Re: IPv6 only streaming video
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 5:09 PM, Tina TSOU tina.tsou.zout...@huawei.com wrote: My enterprise users need to turn off IPv4 on their hosts to experience YouTube IPv6 only streaming video. Courtesy to Owen. I think if you have a dual-stack host you'll just get the v6 version of stream... I suppose there are happy-eyeball cases where v4 may win the race though? Is that what you're seeing in this case? (do the hosts even attempt a lookup, and a subsequent connect to the v6 address, presuming a was returned to them) It is an enterprise network here, I can't dictate for everyone. Some people prefer dual stack host, some people prefer IPv6 only host. Youtube works in our IPv6 only host and dual stack host. ok, so... win? Ipv6.netflix.com doesn't seem to work in our dual stack host and IPv6 only host. Do you have the URL of IPv6 only stream video about the Olympics from nbc? nbc looks to be using youtube for the streams, so ... any one of their streams should go over v6 (or v4). This one isn't olympics related, but streamed over v6 to me... http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=UUXy7f-o2lGoF1PZ-FKeDtSgv=NXXMd3CBpUQfeature=player_detailpage Tina -Original Message- From: christopher.mor...@gmail.com [mailto:christopher.mor...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Christopher Morrow Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 1:49 PM To: Tina TSOU Cc: Arturo Servin; nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: IPv6 only streaming video On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Tina TSOU tina.tsou.zout...@huawei.com wrote: Dear all, If you know there is any testing or commercial IPv6 only streaming video we can access, let me know. Thank you. youtube will stream at you over ipv6 ... did you just need some thing to stream at you over ipv6? I think you can even (if you do the 'i have cable/etc' dance) stream the olympics from nbc over v6 these days.
Re: Weekly Routing Table Report
On 21/07/2012, at 6:40 AM, Jared Mauch wrote: On Jul 20, 2012, at 4:30 PM, Ron Broersma wrote: On Jul 20, 2012, at 1:04 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 05:10:41 +1000, Routing Analysis Role Account said: BGP routing table entries examined: 418048 So, whatever happened to that whole the internet will catch fire when we get to 280K routing table entries or whatever it was? :) We added memory where we could, or bought bigger routers. The new (conventional wisdom) limit is 1M routes. I think you mean 512k IPv4 with 256k of IPv6 (taking double space). 512K of IPv4? That's getting close! Geoff
Re: IPv6 only streaming video
Dear Randy, I'm responsible for IPv6 deployment in my enterprise network, the users are my colleagues. In this context, I'm not vendor, not operator. Tina On Jul 25, 2012, at 5:20 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote: My enterprise users it is generally best if vendors do not speak for users and vice versa randy
Re: IPv6 only streaming video
On 7/25/12 13:15 , Tina TSOU wrote: Dear all, If you know there is any testing or commercial IPv6 only streaming video we can access, let me know. Thank you. speaking as a content provider, ipv6-only service requests are misguided. Tina -Original Message- From: Arturo Servin [mailto:aser...@lacnic.net] Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 12:14 PM To: Tina TSOU Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: IPv6 only streaming video The licence expired. We will see if we can get another one. Cheers, as On 25 Jul 2012, at 15:58, Arturo Servin wrote: Oh! We had it as a test service. We didn't know that it was been used by more people, so probably somebody turn it off. I will look around to restart it. Thanks! as On 25 Jul 2012, at 15:37, Tina TSOU wrote: We got offline after discussion in NANOG in May. This IPv6 only streaming video worked well until recently. We use it in my enterprise network. I just could not find his contact in my mailbox. So I hope he can find me again. Does the link accessible from your IPv6 host? Tina @ 2001:db8:1::e8e2:7822:9d12:e12e -Original Message- From: christopher.mor...@gmail.com [mailto:christopher.mor...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Christopher Morrow Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 11:27 AM To: Tina TSOU Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: IPv6 only streaming video On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 1:11 PM, Tina TSOU tina.tsou.zout...@huawei.com wrote: http://video.v6.labs.lacnic.net/jw/ Server can not be found since yesterday. Has the URL been changed? did you mean to email the lacnic folks?
Re: DDoS using port 0 and 53 (DNS)
On Jul 26, 2012, at 5:13 AM, Drew Weaver wrote: Another nice emerging tool [I say emerging because it's been around forever but nobody implements it] to deal with this is Flowspec, using flowspec you can instruct your Upstream to block traffic with much more granular characteristics. flowspec is essentially S/RTBH with layer-4 granularity (it can do some other things, as well). I certainly hope that vendors who've not yet implemented it will do so, it's a great tool, as you say. Even customer-triggered S/RTBH is very useful, and some ISPs have implemented it for their customers. --- Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net // http://www.arbornetworks.com Luck is the residue of opportunity and design. -- John Milton
Re: Another LTE network turns up as IPv4-only squat space + NAT
On Jul 19, 2012, at 3:50 PM, Måns Nilsson wrote: No, reusing somebody's prefix is A Very Bad Idea. Concur 100%. There is no security value to doing this whatsoever - quite the opposite, given the possible negative consequences to reachability and, thus, availability. --- Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net // http://www.arbornetworks.com Luck is the residue of opportunity and design. -- John Milton
Re: IPv6 only streaming video
Dear Joel, Who requests IPv6 only service? Tina On Jul 25, 2012, at 8:48 PM, Joel jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote: On 7/25/12 13:15 , Tina TSOU wrote: Dear all, If you know there is any testing or commercial IPv6 only streaming video we can access, let me know. Thank you. speaking as a content provider, ipv6-only service requests are misguided. Tina -Original Message- From: Arturo Servin [mailto:aser...@lacnic.net] Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 12:14 PM To: Tina TSOU Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: IPv6 only streaming video The licence expired. We will see if we can get another one. Cheers, as On 25 Jul 2012, at 15:58, Arturo Servin wrote: Oh! We had it as a test service. We didn't know that it was been used by more people, so probably somebody turn it off. I will look around to restart it. Thanks! as On 25 Jul 2012, at 15:37, Tina TSOU wrote: We got offline after discussion in NANOG in May. This IPv6 only streaming video worked well until recently. We use it in my enterprise network. I just could not find his contact in my mailbox. So I hope he can find me again. Does the link accessible from your IPv6 host? Tina @ 2001:db8:1::e8e2:7822:9d12:e12e -Original Message- From: christopher.mor...@gmail.com [mailto:christopher.mor...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Christopher Morrow Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 11:27 AM To: Tina TSOU Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: IPv6 only streaming video On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 1:11 PM, Tina TSOU tina.tsou.zout...@huawei.com wrote: http://video.v6.labs.lacnic.net/jw/ Server can not be found since yesterday. Has the URL been changed? did you mean to email the lacnic folks?
Re: IPv6 only streaming video
I'm responsible for IPv6 deployment in my enterprise network, the users are my colleagues. In this context, I'm not vendor, not operator. i smell cows
Re: IPv6 only streaming video
Do u mean I am a cow? I stop breast feeding this year. Tina On Jul 25, 2012, at 9:47 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote: I'm responsible for IPv6 deployment in my enterprise network, the users are my colleagues. In this context, I'm not vendor, not operator. i smell cows
Re: IPv6 only streaming video
Oh I did not, because we have been using http://video.v6.labs.lacnic.net/jw/, and it stopped working recently, and I could not find the contact any more, so I came back to NANOG list which we were connected. Tina On Jul 25, 2012, at 9:48 PM, Joel jaeggli joe...@bogus.commailto:joe...@bogus.com wrote: On 7/25/12 21:43 , Tina TSOU wrote: Dear Joel, Who requests IPv6 only service? you did... check the title of this thread. Tina On Jul 25, 2012, at 8:48 PM, Joel jaeggli joe...@bogus.commailto:joe...@bogus.com wrote: On 7/25/12 13:15 , Tina TSOU wrote: Dear all, If you know there is any testing or commercial IPv6 only streaming video we can access, let me know. Thank you. speaking as a content provider, ipv6-only service requests are misguided. Tina -Original Message- From: Arturo Servin [mailto:aser...@lacnic.net] Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 12:14 PM To: Tina TSOU Cc: nanog@nanog.orgmailto:nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: IPv6 only streaming video The licence expired. We will see if we can get another one. Cheers, as On 25 Jul 2012, at 15:58, Arturo Servin wrote: Oh! We had it as a test service. We didn't know that it was been used by more people, so probably somebody turn it off. I will look around to restart it. Thanks! as On 25 Jul 2012, at 15:37, Tina TSOU wrote: We got offline after discussion in NANOG in May. This IPv6 only streaming video worked well until recently. We use it in my enterprise network. I just could not find his contact in my mailbox. So I hope he can find me again. Does the link accessible from your IPv6 host? Tina @ 2001:db8:1::e8e2:7822:9d12:e12e -Original Message- From: christopher.mor...@gmail.commailto:christopher.mor...@gmail.com [mailto:christopher.mor...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Christopher Morrow Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 11:27 AM To: Tina TSOU Cc: nanog@nanog.orgmailto:nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: IPv6 only streaming video On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 1:11 PM, Tina TSOU tina.tsou.zout...@huawei.commailto:tina.tsou.zout...@huawei.com wrote: http://video.v6.labs.lacnic.net/jw/ Server can not be found since yesterday. Has the URL been changed? did you mean to email the lacnic folks?
Re: IPv6 only streaming video
On 7/25/12 21:59 , Tina TSOU wrote: Oh I did not, because we have been using http://video.v6.labs.lacnic.net/jw/, and it stopped working recently, and I could not find the contact any more, so I came back to NANOG list which we were connected. I think you'll find content providers have little interest in delivering v6 only service, the occasional noble test site notwithstanding. v6 enabled however is readily available. Joels-MacBook:~ jjaeggli$ host youtube.com youtube.com has address 74.125.225.40 youtube.com has address 74.125.225.35 youtube.com has address 74.125.225.34 youtube.com has address 74.125.225.39 youtube.com has address 74.125.225.41 youtube.com has address 74.125.225.33 youtube.com has address 74.125.225.37 youtube.com has address 74.125.225.32 youtube.com has address 74.125.225.36 youtube.com has address 74.125.225.46 youtube.com has address 74.125.225.38 youtube.com has IPv6 address 2001:4860:b007::5d Tina On Jul 25, 2012, at 9:48 PM, Joel jaeggli joe...@bogus.com mailto:joe...@bogus.com wrote: On 7/25/12 21:43 , Tina TSOU wrote: Dear Joel, Who requests IPv6 only service? you did... check the title of this thread. Tina On Jul 25, 2012, at 8:48 PM, Joel jaeggli joe...@bogus.com mailto:joe...@bogus.com wrote: On 7/25/12 13:15 , Tina TSOU wrote: Dear all, If you know there is any testing or commercial IPv6 only streaming video we can access, let me know. Thank you. speaking as a content provider, ipv6-only service requests are misguided. Tina -Original Message- From: Arturo Servin [mailto:aser...@lacnic.net] Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 12:14 PM To: Tina TSOU Cc: nanog@nanog.org mailto:nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: IPv6 only streaming video The licence expired. We will see if we can get another one. Cheers, as On 25 Jul 2012, at 15:58, Arturo Servin wrote: Oh! We had it as a test service. We didn't know that it was been used by more people, so probably somebody turn it off. I will look around to restart it. Thanks! as On 25 Jul 2012, at 15:37, Tina TSOU wrote: We got offline after discussion in NANOG in May. This IPv6 only streaming video worked well until recently. We use it in my enterprise network. I just could not find his contact in my mailbox. So I hope he can find me again. Does the link accessible from your IPv6 host? Tina @ 2001:db8:1::e8e2:7822:9d12:e12e -Original Message- From: christopher.mor...@gmail.com mailto:christopher.mor...@gmail.com [mailto:christopher.mor...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Christopher Morrow Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 11:27 AM To: Tina TSOU Cc: nanog@nanog.org mailto:nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: IPv6 only streaming video On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 1:11 PM, Tina TSOU tina.tsou.zout...@huawei.com mailto:tina.tsou.zout...@huawei.com wrote: http://video.v6.labs.lacnic.net/jw/ Server can not be found since yesterday. Has the URL been changed? did you mean to email the lacnic folks?
