Re: Are specific "route" objects in RIR databases needed?

[Darren O'Connor]

I can't say what everyone else does, but we only make exact matches from route 
object to prefix-list

http://www.mellowd.co.uk/ccie

> On 30 Jan 2014, at 21:48, "Martin T"  wrote:
> 
> Job, Tore: ok, I see. So "route" object in RIR routing registry database
> for each announced prefix is needed only because some ISPs create filters
> exactly the size of the "route" object in database? So for example if there
> is a "route" object for 192.0.2.0/24 in RIR database, then ISP-A might
> create a following strict prefix-filter entry:
> 
> policy-options {
>policy-statement EXAMPLE {
>term prefixes {
>from {
>route-filter 192.0.2.0/24 exact;
>}
>then next policy;
>}
>then reject;
>}
> }
> 
> On the other hand, ISP-B might create loose filter based on the same
> "route" object like this:
> 
> policy-options {
>policy-statement EXAMPLE {
>term prefixes {
>from {
>route-filter 192.0.2.0/24 upto /32;
>}
>then next policy;
>}
>then reject;
>}
> }
> 
> 
> PS: this is a theoretical question :) I'm also for keeping the BGP table as
> short as possible.
> 
> 
> regards,
> Martin
> 
>> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 5:13 PM, Tore Anderson  wrote:
>> 
>> * Job Snijders
>> 
 On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 06:51:59PM +0200, Martin T wrote:
 
 for example there is a small company with /22 IPv4 allocation from
 RIPE in European region. This company is dual-homed and would like to
 announce 4x /24 prefixes to both ISPs. Both ISP's update their
 prefix-lists automatically based on records in RIPE database. For
 example Level3 uses this practice at least in Europe. If this small
 company creates a "route" object for it's /22 allocation, then is it
 enough? Theoretically this would cover all four /24 networks. Or in
 which situation it is useful/needed to have "route" object for each
 /24 prefix?
>>> 
>>> You should create a route object for each route that you announce, if
>>> you announce 4 x /24 you should create a route: object for each /24.
>> 
>> +1
>> 
>>> ps. Can you please send 20 dollarcent per /24 to my paypal account
>>> (j...@instituut.net) with the reference "deaggregation fee"?
>> 
>> Indeed.
>> 
>> Martin, I'd suggest announcing the 4 x /24s to each ISP tagged with the
>> no-export community in order to achieve whatever you are trying to do,
>> *in addition* to the covering /22. That way you're not polluting Job,
>> my, and everyone else's routing tables more than necessary, only your
>> own ISPs', but then again you're actually paying them for the privilege.
>> 
>> Tore
>> 

Re: Updated ARIN allocation information

[Mark Andrews]

In message , "Justin M
. Streiner" writes:
> On Fri, 31 Jan 2014, Mark Andrews wrote:
> 
> > In Australia I would sue Telstra, Optus, ... if their customers
> > couldn't reach me due to routes being filtered.  I would take this
> > to the ACCC (Australian Competition and Consumer Commission) as a
> > restraint of trade issue.
> 
> And if the provider doing the filtering isn't in $your_country?  I'm sure 
> a few tech-savvy lawyers are salivating over this one.
> 
> jms

I figure there will be similar problem for other business in other
countries and they will fight a similar battles.  Eventually the
regulators will step in because it is bad for small businesses to
be shut out of the Internet.

Hopefully most/all eyeball networks will be delivering IPv6
connectivity before allocations like these are needed.  Collectively
you only have yourselves to blame if there are needed in earnest.

Mark
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org

Re: Updated ARIN allocation information

[Justin M. Streiner]

On Fri, 31 Jan 2014, Mark Andrews wrote:


In Australia I would sue Telstra, Optus, ... if their customers
couldn't reach me due to routes being filtered.  I would take this
to the ACCC (Australian Competition and Consumer Commission) as a
restraint of trade issue.


And if the provider doing the filtering isn't in $your_country?  I'm sure 
a few tech-savvy lawyers are salivating over this one.


jms

Re: Is there such a thing as a 10GBase-T SFP+ transciever

[Chris Balmain]

You may wish to consider twinax for short distance 10G over copper with 
SFP+ at both ends


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twinaxial_cabling#SFP.2B_Direct-Attach_Copper_.2810GSFP.2BCu.29

Typically marketed as "direct-attach" (you can't remove the cables from 
the transceivers, it's all integrated)


On 31/01/14 12:26, james jones wrote:

I would like to know if anyone has seen one of these? If so where? Also if
they don't exist why? It would seem to me that it would make it a lot
easier to play mix and match with fiber in the DC if they did. Would be so
hard to make the 1G SFPs faster (trying to be funny here not arrogant).


-James

Re: Is there such a thing as a 10GBase-T SFP+ transciever

[joel jaeggli]

On 1/30/14, 5:26 PM, james jones wrote:
> I would like to know if anyone has seen one of these? If so where? Also if
> they don't exist why? It would seem to me that it would make it a lot
> easier to play mix and match with fiber in the DC if they did. Would be so
> hard to make the 1G SFPs faster (trying to be funny here not arrogant).

the current chipsets don't fit in the the power/cooling budget of a spf+
transceiver envelope


> 
> -James
> 




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Is there such a thing as a 10GBase-T SFP+ transciever

[james jones]

I would like to know if anyone has seen one of these? If so where? Also if
they don't exist why? It would seem to me that it would make it a lot
easier to play mix and match with fiber in the DC if they did. Would be so
hard to make the 1G SFPs faster (trying to be funny here not arrogant).


-James

Re: Updated ARIN allocation information

[Mark Andrews]

In message <52eaeae2.6090...@rollernet.us>, Seth Mattinen writes:
> On 1/30/14, 15:58, Mark Andrews wrote:
> > The moment /24's aren't
> > readily available and they are forced into using this range anyone
> > filtering on /24 in this range is leaving themselves open to lawsuits.
> 
> 
> Because why? Cartels? Illuminati? I want to travel by stargate. Who do I 
> sue?

In Australia I would sue Telstra, Optus, ... if their customers
couldn't reach me due to routes being filtered.  I would take this
to the ACCC (Australian Competition and Consumer Commission) as a
restraint of trade issue.

> ~Seth
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org

Re: Updated ARIN allocation information

[Seth Mattinen]

On 1/30/14, 15:58, Mark Andrews wrote:

The moment /24's aren't
readily available and they are forced into using this range anyone
filtering on /24 in this range is leaving themselves open to lawsuits.



Because why? Cartels? Illuminati? I want to travel by stargate. Who do I 
sue?


~Seth

RE: looking for good AU dedicated server providers..

[James Braunegg]

Have a look on Webhosting Talk Australia, this where a lot of Australian 
providers hang out ;-)

http://webhostingtalk.com.au
 
Kindest Regards

James Braunegg
P:  1300 769 972  |  M:  0488 997 207 |  D:  (03) 9751 7616
E:   james.braun...@micron21.com.au  |  ABN:  12 109 977 666   
W:  www.micron21.com.au   T: @micron21



This message is intended for the addressee named above. It may contain 
privileged or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient 
of this message you must not use, copy, distribute or disclose it to anyone 
other than the addressee. If you have received this message in error please 
return the message to the sender by replying to it and then delete the message 
from your computer.

-Original Message-
From: richo [mailto:ri...@psych0tik.net] 
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2014 6:55 AM
To: Mark Blackman
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: looking for good AU dedicated server providers..

On 30/01/14 19:50 +, Mark Blackman wrote:
>
>We’ve got a client who is happily using Intervolve.

I used to have 2 racks with intervolve. I'd use them again.

Re: Updated ARIN allocation information

[Mark Andrews]

In message <384bf687-ad8a-4919-9eab-723a09854...@puck.nether.net>, Jared Mauch 
writes:
> 
> On Jan 30, 2014, at 12:17 AM, Mark Andrews  wrote:
> 
> > Or you could just accept that there needs to be more routing slots
> > as the number of businesses on the net increases.  I can see some
> > interesting anti-cartel law suits happening if ISP's refuse to
> > accept /28's from this block.
> 
> i suspect it will be more sean doran style 'pay me for your slot'.

A /8 slot costs as much as a /28 slot to hold process etc.  A routing
slot is a routing slot.  The *only* reason this isn't a legal problems
at the moment is people can still get /24s.  The moment /24's aren't
readily available and they are forced into using this range anyone
filtering on /24 in this range is leaving themselves open to lawsuits.

Now as this range is allocated for transition to IPv6 a defence for
edge networks may be "we can reach all their services over IPv6"
but that doesn't work for transit providers.  Eyeball networks would
need to ensure that all their customers had access to IPv6 and even
that may not be enough.

This range adds a maximum of 245760 (2^18-2^14) routes to the global
routing table.  Do you really want to go to court for this many routes?

Mark
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org

Re: Fw: ipv6 newbie question

[Randy Bush]

> I guess as a follow up question. Do you use the EUI-64 address as the
> Default gateway or the link local.
>> rfc 6164

what's link local?  does it do vrrp?  :)

randy

Re: Updated ARIN allocation information

[Jared Mauch]

On Jan 30, 2014, at 12:17 AM, Mark Andrews  wrote:

> Or you could just accept that there needs to be more routing slots
> as the number of businesses on the net increases.  I can see some
> interesting anti-cartel law suits happening if ISP's refuse to
> accept /28's from this block.

i suspect it will be more sean doran style 'pay me for your slot'.

Re: Are specific "route" objects in RIR databases needed?

[Martin T]

Job, Tore: ok, I see. So "route" object in RIR routing registry database
for each announced prefix is needed only because some ISPs create filters
exactly the size of the "route" object in database? So for example if there
is a "route" object for 192.0.2.0/24 in RIR database, then ISP-A might
create a following strict prefix-filter entry:

policy-options {
policy-statement EXAMPLE {
term prefixes {
from {
route-filter 192.0.2.0/24 exact;
}
then next policy;
}
then reject;
}
}

On the other hand, ISP-B might create loose filter based on the same
"route" object like this:

policy-options {
policy-statement EXAMPLE {
term prefixes {
from {
route-filter 192.0.2.0/24 upto /32;
}
then next policy;
}
then reject;
}
}


PS: this is a theoretical question :) I'm also for keeping the BGP table as
short as possible.


regards,
Martin

On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 5:13 PM, Tore Anderson  wrote:

> * Job Snijders
>
> > On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 06:51:59PM +0200, Martin T wrote:
> >
> >> for example there is a small company with /22 IPv4 allocation from
> >> RIPE in European region. This company is dual-homed and would like to
> >> announce 4x /24 prefixes to both ISPs. Both ISP's update their
> >> prefix-lists automatically based on records in RIPE database. For
> >> example Level3 uses this practice at least in Europe. If this small
> >> company creates a "route" object for it's /22 allocation, then is it
> >> enough? Theoretically this would cover all four /24 networks. Or in
> >> which situation it is useful/needed to have "route" object for each
> >> /24 prefix?
> >
> > You should create a route object for each route that you announce, if
> > you announce 4 x /24 you should create a route: object for each /24.
>
> +1
>
> > ps. Can you please send 20 dollarcent per /24 to my paypal account
> > (j...@instituut.net) with the reference "deaggregation fee"?
>
> Indeed.
>
> Martin, I'd suggest announcing the 4 x /24s to each ISP tagged with the
> no-export community in order to achieve whatever you are trying to do,
> *in addition* to the covering /22. That way you're not polluting Job,
> my, and everyone else's routing tables more than necessary, only your
> own ISPs', but then again you're actually paying them for the privilege.
>
> Tore
>

Re: FW: Updated ARIN allocation information

[William Herrin]

On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 10:22 PM, Christopher Morrow
 wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 5:16 PM, Seth Mattinen  wrote:
>> On 1/29/14, 14:01, Leslie Nobile wrote:
>>>
>>> Additionally, ARIN has placed  23.128.0.0/10 in its reserves in accordance
>>> with the policy "Dedicated IPv4 block to facilitate IPv6 Deployment" (NRPM
>>> 4.10).
>>
>> I know ARIN doesn't care about routability and all that, but good luck with
>> those /28s.
>
> I do wonder though what the purpose of this block is?

https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#four10

"4.10 Dedicated IPv4 block to facilitate IPv6 Deployment

When ARIN receives its last /8 IPv4 allocation from IANA, a contiguous
/10 IPv4 block will be set aside and dedicated to facilitate IPv6
deployment. Allocations and assignments from this block must be
justified by immediate IPv6 deployment requirements. Examples of such
needs include: IPv4 addresses for key dual stack DNS servers, and
NAT-PT or NAT464 translators."

This was set aside just in case the IPv4 market doesn't pan out and
you can no longer get BGPable /24's. The presumption is that if we hit
the kind of crunch this block is reserved for, convincing folks to
route /28's will be the least of our problems.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William D. Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. .. Web: 
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004

Re: looking for good AU dedicated server providers..

[richo]

On 30/01/14 19:50 +, Mark Blackman wrote:


We’ve got a client who is happily using Intervolve.


I used to have 2 racks with intervolve. I'd use them again.

RE: looking for good AU dedicated server providers..

[Nanda Kumar]

Carlos,

Take a look at this: www.aryaka.com it's a managed services with private links. 

I can give you more details if this is what you're looking for. 

Best,
Nanda

-Original Message-
From: Carlos Kamtha [mailto:kam...@ak-labs.net] 
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2014 7:20 PM
To: Nanda Kumar
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: looking for good AU dedicated server providers..


well sorta. 

The box will provide services to clients. so it has to be robust and free from 
bandwidth limitations.

On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 11:42:58PM +, Nanda Kumar wrote:
> Carlos,
> 
> Is this for Wan connectivity between where you're and Australia?
> 
> Best,
> Nanda

Re: looking for good AU dedicated server providers..

[Mark Blackman]

On 29 Jan 2014, at 23:37, Carlos Kamtha  wrote:

> Hello, 
> 
> Was wondering if anyone could share any experiences.  
> 
> Prerequsites:
> 
> a.) reliable upstream provider with established peering. 
> 
> b.) relatively acessible support staff. 
> 
> c.) FreeBSD preferring but CentOS is ok...
> 
> 
> any help would greatly be appreciated. 
> 
> 
> Cheers, 
> Carlos. 
> 

We’ve got a client who is happily using Intervolve.

Re: Fw: ipv6 newbie question

[Philip Lavine]

I guess as a follow up question. Do you use the EUI-64 address as the Default 
gateway or the link local.



On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 2:19 PM, Randy Bush  wrote:
  
rfc 6164

Re: looking for good AU dedicated server providers..

[Matt Palmer]

On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 08:49:53AM -0500, Carlos Kamtha wrote:
> The box will provide services to clients. so it has to be robust and
> free from bandwidth limitations.

That's going to get expensive.  .au bandwidth is a touch on the pricey side.

- Matt

Re: FW: Updated ARIN allocation information

[Robert McKay]

On Wed, 29 Jan 2014 14:16:43 -0800, Seth Mattinen wrote:

On 1/29/14, 14:01, Leslie Nobile wrote:
Additionally, ARIN has placed  23.128.0.0/10 in its reserves in 
accordance with the policy "Dedicated IPv4 block to facilitate IPv6 
Deployment" (NRPM 4.10).  There have been no allocations made from 
this block as of yet, however, once we do begin issuing from this 
block, the minimum allocation size for this /10 will be a /28 and the 
maximum allocation size will be a /24.  You may wish to adjust any 
filters you have in place accordingly.



I know ARIN doesn't care about routability and all that, but good
luck with those /28s.


"This block will be subject to a minimum size allocation of /28 and a 
maximum size allocation of /24. ARIN should use sparse allocation when 
possible within that /10 block."


Thanks for the initial sparse allocation for some time the /28 will be 
the only tennant of the covering /24 so they will be able to advertise 
the /24 aggregate as well as the /28. In time the reachability of the 
/28s should improve and if some other /28 is allocated inside an already 
populated /24 then as long as they can both see each other's /28s they 
can still both advertise the /24 aggregate - or perhaps agree for a 
common transit provider to do it. As acceptance of the /28s improves 
further and less traffic flows to the aggregates, perhaps large 
providers would agree to replace the customer /24 aggregates with a 
single /10 aggregate to help out the (hopefully few) stragglers who 
still filter /28s.


-Rob

Re: Are specific "route" objects in RIR databases needed?

[Tore Anderson]

* Job Snijders

> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 06:51:59PM +0200, Martin T wrote:
> 
>> for example there is a small company with /22 IPv4 allocation from
>> RIPE in European region. This company is dual-homed and would like to
>> announce 4x /24 prefixes to both ISPs. Both ISP's update their
>> prefix-lists automatically based on records in RIPE database. For
>> example Level3 uses this practice at least in Europe. If this small
>> company creates a "route" object for it's /22 allocation, then is it
>> enough? Theoretically this would cover all four /24 networks. Or in
>> which situation it is useful/needed to have "route" object for each
>> /24 prefix?
> 
> You should create a route object for each route that you announce, if
> you announce 4 x /24 you should create a route: object for each /24. 

+1

> ps. Can you please send 20 dollarcent per /24 to my paypal account
> (j...@instituut.net) with the reference "deaggregation fee"?

Indeed.

Martin, I'd suggest announcing the 4 x /24s to each ISP tagged with the
no-export community in order to achieve whatever you are trying to do,
*in addition* to the covering /22. That way you're not polluting Job,
my, and everyone else's routing tables more than necessary, only your
own ISPs', but then again you're actually paying them for the privilege.

Tore

Re: Are specific "route" objects in RIR databases needed?

[Job Snijders]

On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 06:51:59PM +0200, Martin T wrote:

> for example there is a small company with /22 IPv4 allocation from
> RIPE in European region. This company is dual-homed and would like to
> announce 4x /24 prefixes to both ISPs. Both ISP's update their
> prefix-lists automatically based on records in RIPE database. For
> example Level3 uses this practice at least in Europe. If this small
> company creates a "route" object for it's /22 allocation, then is it
> enough? Theoretically this would cover all four /24 networks. Or in
> which situation it is useful/needed to have "route" object for each
> /24 prefix?

You should create a route object for each route that you announce, if
you announce 4 x /24 you should create a route: object for each /24. 

Some providers will create filters solely based on existing route
objects, others will create filters based on all route objects, AND 
allow up to a /24 regardless. I would err to the safe side. 

Kind regards,

Job

ps. Can you please send 20 dollarcent per /24 to my paypal account
(j...@instituut.net) with the reference "deaggregation fee"?


pgpwh26blVeHQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Are specific "route" objects in RIR databases needed?

[Martin T]

Hi,

for example there is a small company with /22 IPv4 allocation from
RIPE in European region. This company is dual-homed and would like to
announce 4x /24 prefixes to both ISPs. Both ISP's update their
prefix-lists automatically based on records in RIPE database. For
example Level3 uses this practice at least in Europe. If this small
company creates a "route" object for it's /22 allocation, then is it
enough? Theoretically this would cover all four /24 networks. Or in
which situation it is useful/needed to have "route" object for each
/24 prefix?



regards,
Martin

Re: Updated ARIN allocation information

[Phil Rosenthal]

On Jan 29, 2014, at 10:22 PM, Christopher Morrow  
wrote:

> maybe these weren't meant to be used outside the local ASN? :)
> I do wonder though what the purpose of this block is? If it's to be
> used inside the local ASN (as seems to be indicated based upon minimum
> allocation sizes) then why not use the IETF marked 100.64/10 space
> instead? Global-uniqueness? ok, sure...

Seems like the obvious use case is for 6to4 NAT gateways, which would mean that 
global reachability would be expected.

-Phil

Re: FW: Updated ARIN allocation information

[Justin M. Streiner]

On Thu, 30 Jan 2014, Tore Anderson wrote:


I wouldn't worry if I were you. I'll wager you $100 that pretty much all
of the people requesting a block from ARIN under this policy (or any
other) is going to go for a /24 (or larger). There is some precedent;
RIPE policy has not mandated a minimum assignment size for IPv4 PI, at
least not in the last decade, yet the NCC has made almost no assignments
smaller than /24.


Depends on the burn rate on that /10...

jms

Re: Terremark Miami

[joel jaeggli]

On 1/28/14, 5:29 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:
> So essentially, you are looking for a 'direct' x-connect to AWS ?
> and not wanting to go thru a peering fabric or any other network ?

just as an aside amazon peer routes are in my experience regional so if
the goal is to offload traffic in miami bound for prineville you may not
get the oregon DC routes from an east coast peer.

A direct connect partner probably has no such considerations.

> 
> Regards
> 
> Faisal Imtiaz
> Snappy Internet & Telecom
> 7266 SW 48 Street
> Miami, FL 33155
> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
> 
> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 
> 
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Warren Bailey" 
>> To: "Faisal Imtiaz" 
>> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
>> Sent: Monday, January 27, 2014 10:55:08 PM
>> Subject: Re: Terremark Miami
>>
>> We¹re looking at potential connectivity need of 100mbps from a customer
>> colocated in NAP of America¹s in Miami to some stuff living in AWS land.
>> We weren¹t particularly thrilled about the aspect of a GRE tunnel over the
>> internet (our AWS stuff does some data manipulation) and wanted to use the
>> Amazon Direct Connect functionality. It seems like they do this direct
>> connect as select peering points, and there were no options for anything
>> in Miami. It may just be easier to buy something off of the provider to
>> run the traffic over to a colo with AWS connectivity. I¹m really just
>> looking for sexy ways to avoid the internet as a transit route for this
>> data (the data doesn¹t have anything to do with the internet).
>>
>> On 1/27/14, 3:43 PM, "Faisal Imtiaz"  wrote:
>>
>>> What kind of issue are you running into ?
>>>
>>> I believe AWS is present on the NOTA/NAP peering fabric, and as such if
>>> one was to get access to the NOTA/NAP peering fabric they should be able
>>> to peer / pass traffic directly to them.
>>>
>>> Regards.
>>>
>>> Faisal Imtiaz
>>> Snappy Internet & Telecom
>>> 7266 SW 48 Street
>>> Miami, FL 33155
>>> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
>>>
>>> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net
>>>
>>> - Original Message -
 From: "Warren Bailey" 
 To: nanog@nanog.org
 Sent: Monday, January 27, 2014 6:14:30 PM
 Subject: Terremark Miami

 Anyone out there listening have experience getting traffic originating
 at NAP
 of Americas in Miami to AWS in a non-suck (internet) manner? I know AWS
 has
 direct connect, but they are mum about options in MIA.

 Thanks in advance!
 //warren

>>
>>
> 
> 




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Updated ARIN allocation information

[Owen DeLong]

As the author of the policy which set this block aside, I speak only from my 
perspective as the author and not officially on behalf of ARIN or the AC in any 
way:

The intent is to provide very small allocations/assignments for organizations 
which need some amount of IPv4 for a best-effort to facilitate networking after 
IPv4 general runout.

While I recognize that organizations may or may not be able to get these routes 
accepted, the reality is that IPv4 runout is going to create interesting 
routing scenarios and other problems. I figured having a predictable prefix 
where people could at least make a best effort was better than simply allowing 
chaos through the entire address space.

Indeed, much popcorn will be required. That is why my networks are all IPv6 
capable already.

Owen


> On Jan 29, 2014, at 10:22 PM, Christopher Morrow  
> wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 5:16 PM, Seth Mattinen  wrote:
>>> On 1/29/14, 14:01, Leslie Nobile wrote:
>>> 
>>> Additionally, ARIN has placed  23.128.0.0/10 in its reserves in accordance
>>> with the policy "Dedicated IPv4 block to facilitate IPv6 Deployment" (NRPM
>>> 4.10).  There have been no allocations made from this block as of yet,
>>> however, once we do begin issuing from this block, the minimum allocation
>>> size for this /10 will be a /28 and the maximum allocation size will be a
>>> /24.  You may wish to adjust any filters you have in place accordingly.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I know ARIN doesn't care about routability and all that, but good luck with
>> those /28s.
> 
> maybe these weren't meant to be used outside the local ASN? :)
> I do wonder though what the purpose of this block is? If it's to be
> used inside the local ASN (as seems to be indicated based upon minimum
> allocation sizes) then why not use the IETF marked 100.64/10 space
> instead? Global-uniqueness? ok, sure...
> 
> There will need to be popcorn though, for this event.
> 
> -chris

Re: FW: Updated ARIN allocation information

[Tore Anderson]

* Justin M. Streiner

> In the worst case, this would add another 262,144 routes (/10 fully
> assigned, and all assignments are /28s) to the global IPv4 route view.
> Realistically, the number will be a good bit smaller than that, but only
> time will tell for sure exactly how much smaller.  Wash/rinse/repeat for
> any other RIR that adopts a similar policy.

I wouldn't worry if I were you. I'll wager you $100 that pretty much all
of the people requesting a block from ARIN under this policy (or any
other) is going to go for a /24 (or larger). There is some precedent;
RIPE policy has not mandated a minimum assignment size for IPv4 PI, at
least not in the last decade, yet the NCC has made almost no assignments
smaller than /24.

Tore

Re: looking for good AU dedicated server providers..

[Carlos Kamtha]

On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 01:52:31PM +1100, Matt Palmer wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 06:37:35PM -0500, Carlos Kamtha wrote:
> > b.) relatively acessible support staff. 
> 
> Accessable for what?  Hardware maintenance, or full-service outsourced
> sysadmin assistance?  What timezones, and what communication method?

Remote hands in the event that there is no serial console available
over the network. hardware maint. for sure. 

timezones dont matter but the box *must* be based in AU. email  
comm is fine as long as someone responds within a reasonable
timeframe.. 

> 
> (Also, there's AusNOG if you want to get local opinions)
> 

thanks :)

Re: looking for good AU dedicated server providers..

[Carlos Kamtha]

well sorta. 

The box will provide services to clients. so it has to be robust and
free from bandwidth limitations.

On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 11:42:58PM +, Nanda Kumar wrote:
> Carlos, 
> 
> Is this for Wan connectivity between where you're and Australia?
> 
> Best,
> Nanda 

Re: FW: Updated ARIN allocation information

[Justin M. Streiner]

On Thu, 30 Jan 2014, Mark Andrews wrote:


Or you could just accept that there needs to be more routing slots
as the number of businesses on the net increases.  I can see some
interesting anti-cartel law suits happening if ISP's refuse to
accept /28's from this block.


In the worst case, this would add another 262,144 routes (/10 fully 
assigned, and all assignments are /28s) to the global IPv4 route view. 
Realistically, the number will be a good bit smaller than that, but only 
time will tell for sure exactly how much smaller.  Wash/rinse/repeat for 
any other RIR that adopts a similar policy.


jms