Re: Netalyzr Android: call for volunteers

[Marcin Cieslak]

On Sun, 5 Oct 2014, Srikanth Sundaresan wrote:


If you're interested, you can download and run the app from
Google Play [1]. 


[1] 
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=edu.berkeley.icsi.netalyzr.android&hl=en


For those few who use Android (Cyanogenmod)
and opt out of using Google services, is
a direct .apk download available somewhere?

If the app itself is open source, .apk
could be provided by the alternative
markets such as fdroid.org

//Marcin

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation for Loopback Address

[Mark Andrews]

In message 
, William 
Herrin writes:
> On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 1:41 AM, Faisal Imtiaz  
> wrote:
> > A follow up question on this topic..
> >
> > For Router Loopback Address  what is wisdom in allocating a /64 vs /128 
> > ?
> > (the BCOP document suggests this, but does not offer any explanation or 
> > merits of one over the other).
> 
> Hi Faisal,
> 
> One of the viewpoints held by some in the IETF is that an IPv6 address
> is not 128 bits. Rather, it is 64 bits of network space and 64 bits of
> host space. I'm told this viewpoint is responsible for the existence
> of a 128 bit address instead of IPv6 using 64 bit addresses.

IPNG looked at 48 bits, 64 bits and 128 bits addresses.  48 and 64
bits would both have left everyone tightly managing subnet sizes
and allocation sizes like we do in IPv4.  IPv6 went to 128 bits to
*allow* for a 64/64 split eventually where one didn't have to tightly
manage subnet sizes and allocations.  Earlier plans looked at 48
bits for the subnet size based in Ethernet MAC.  It went to 64 bits
with 48 bit MAC's padded to 64 bits to account for 64 bit MAC's and
because a 64/64 split would possibly be more efficient / simpler.

No one was making it a hard split at the time.

> If you follow that reasoning, the subnet mask should always be /64, no
> matter where the address is assigned.
> 
> There are, of course, excellent operational reasons not to religiously
> follow that plan.
> 
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org

Re: Netalyzr Android: call for volunteers

[Jay Ashworth]

Is spiffy... but any chance that you could add testing for intermediate carrier 
BCP 38 compliance?

On October 5, 2014 6:43:31 PM EDT, Srikanth Sundaresan  
wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>Netalyzr is a free network measurement and debugging app developed 
>by the International Computer Science Institute, Berkeley.
>
>It is designed to check for a wide range of network problems and
>neutrality 
>violations, including unadvertised port filtering, DNS wildcarding, and
>
>hidden proxy servers. Our browser applet has more than a million runs.
>
>Netalyzr for Android was released in October 2013. We are happy to 
>announce a new release that has new tests for better middlebox 
>probing and a better UI. 
>
>If you're interested, you can download and run the app from
>Google Play [1].  If you already have the app, please consider
>updating and re-running it - it would be very helpful for us to 
>capture updates regarding how the mobile Internet is evolving.
>
>Oh and: please consider watching our talk at NANOG 62 on Monday [2]!
>
>Thanks,
>The Netalyzr Team.
>
>[1]
>https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=edu.berkeley.icsi.netalyzr.android&hl=en
>[2] https://www.nanog.org/meetings/abstract?id=2419

-- 
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation for Loopback Address

[joel jaeggli]

On 10/12/14 3:00 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 1:41 AM, Faisal Imtiaz  
> wrote:
>> A follow up question on this topic..
>>
>> For Router Loopback Address  what is wisdom in allocating a /64 vs /128 ?
>> (the BCOP document suggests this, but does not offer any explanation or 
>> merits of one over the other).
> 
> Hi Faisal,
> 
> One of the viewpoints held by some in the IETF is that an IPv6 address
> is not 128 bits. Rather, it is 64 bits of network space and 64 bits of
> host space. I'm told this viewpoint is responsible for the existence
> of a 128 bit address instead of IPv6 using 64 bit addresses.
> 
> If you follow that reasoning, the subnet mask should always be /64, no
> matter where the address is assigned.

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6164

Is a standards track document.

it is imho a repudiation of the assumptions about the dimensions of the
host field.

> There are, of course, excellent operational reasons not to religiously
> follow that plan.
> 
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
> 
> 
> 




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: large BCP38 compliance testing

[Jay Ashworth]

- Original Message -
> From: "Alain Hebert" 

> > Gee, Alain...
> >
> > where would people find a wiki like that?
> 
> On google maybe...
> 
> I see someone is already squatting http://www.bcp38.info :(
> ( /end_of_friday_silliness )

[ For those who were not playing the home game, Alain and I *run* bcp38.info,
  with... a little less help from the community than we were hoping for. :-) ]

Cheers,
-- jra
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth  Baylink   j...@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think   RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates   http://www.bcp38.info  2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA  BCP38: Ask For It By Name!   +1 727 647 1274

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation for Loopback Address

[William Herrin]

On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 1:41 AM, Faisal Imtiaz  wrote:
> A follow up question on this topic..
>
> For Router Loopback Address  what is wisdom in allocating a /64 vs /128 ?
> (the BCOP document suggests this, but does not offer any explanation or 
> merits of one over the other).

Hi Faisal,

One of the viewpoints held by some in the IETF is that an IPv6 address
is not 128 bits. Rather, it is 64 bits of network space and 64 bits of
host space. I'm told this viewpoint is responsible for the existence
of a 128 bit address instead of IPv6 using 64 bit addresses.

If you follow that reasoning, the subnet mask should always be /64, no
matter where the address is assigned.

There are, of course, excellent operational reasons not to religiously
follow that plan.

Regards,
Bill Herrin



-- 
William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: 
May I solve your unusual networking challenges?

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation for Loopback Address

[Randy Carpenter]

- On Oct 12, 2014, at 8:53 AM, Sander Steffann san...@steffann.nl wrote:

> Hi,
> 
>> Op 11 okt. 2014, om 23:00 heeft Roland Dobbins  het 
>> volgende
>> geschreven:
>> 
>>> On Oct 11, 2014, at 2:09 PM, Tim Raphael  wrote:
>>> 
 From my research, various authorities have recommended that a single /64 be
 allocated to router loopbacks with /128s assigned on interfaces.
>>> 
>>> Yes, this is what I advocate for loopbacks.
> 
> I often use the first /64 for loopbacks. Loopbacks are often used for
> management, iBGP etc and having short and easy to read addresses can be
> helpful. Something like 2001:db8::1 is easier to remember and type correctly
> than e.g. 2001:db8:18ba:ff42::1 :)
> 
> Cheers,
> Sander

I concur. I think think some have gotten confused with the suggesting of 
allocating a /64 for *ALL* loopbacks versus allocating a full /64 per loopback. 
Loopbacks should be /128, but all loopbacks for a site should be within a 
single /64 (the first one for reasons others, including Sander have said.

-Randy

Re: AT&T AVPN BGP Communities

[Christopher Morrow]

presumably you looked at charlie's site already?

http://onesc.net/communities/

On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 6:05 PM, Andrey Khomyakov
 wrote:
> paging AT&T peeps
>
> Does anyone have AT&T's AVPN BGP communities reference guide?
> e.g. 13979:120 to set local_pref to 120 and so on.
>
> Thanks in advance!
>
> --Andrey

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation for Loopback Address

[Sander Steffann]

Hi,

> Op 11 okt. 2014, om 23:00 heeft Roland Dobbins  het 
> volgende geschreven:
> 
>> On Oct 11, 2014, at 2:09 PM, Tim Raphael  wrote:
>> 
>>> From my research, various authorities have recommended that a single /64 be 
>>> allocated to router loopbacks with /128s assigned on interfaces.
>> 
>> Yes, this is what I advocate for loopbacks.

I often use the first /64 for loopbacks. Loopbacks are often used for 
management, iBGP etc and having short and easy to read addresses can be 
helpful. Something like 2001:db8::1 is easier to remember and type correctly 
than e.g. 2001:db8:18ba:ff42::1 :)

Cheers,
Sander

Re: astraceroute on MAC

[James Aldridge]

On 10/10/2014 22:30, Mansoor Nathani wrote:
> Hi Anurag
> 
> Here is sample output from using the mtr command: the -z flag shows AS
> Numbers however, I am not sure where they come from or are looked up.

It appears to be using the Team Cymru service -
http://www.team-cymru.org/Services/ip-to-asn.html

> mtr can be downloaded :
> https://code.google.com/p/rudix/downloads/detail?name=mtr-0.82-0.pkg

... or as part of MacPorts


Regards,
James