Re: Ancient history (was Re: 44/8)
On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 12:43 PM David Conrad wrote: > In some cases, there was a ‘caretaker’ assigned (ARRL for 44/8 and @Home > for 24/8) who acted as a pseudo-registry: they did (or at least were supposed > to do) sub-assignments for entities that met (IANA- and pseudo-registry-) > defined criteria. Hi David, Did you mean to say ARRL here? If you did, can you explain how 44/8 ended up with an organization unaffiliated with ARRL? One that I'll note: a. Has no public participation (unlike ARRL which has open membership and elections) b. Was established only this decade at ARIN's urging c. Is a 501(c)3 organization which has announced but not yet delivered plans for reducing its administrative overhead from 100%. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin b...@herrin.us https://bill.herrin.us/
Ancient history (was Re: 44/8)
Jimmy, I have been staying out of this particular food fight, but speaking purely in a personal capacity as someone who had a small role in early addressing stuff ages ago, I did want to clarify a couple of things: On Jul 23, 2019, at 11:05 AM, Jimmy Hess wrote: > People sought an > allocation from IANA originally, but that does not give IANA nor > any contact listed by IANA "ownership" or "management" authority > over usage of this IP address space outside of their registry which > is supposed to accurately cover the internet: but the AMPRnet is Not > a block of networks on the internet, and not under the purview > of IETF or IANA, anyways --- its just a community that uses > TCP/IP mostly in isolated discrete networks which can be neither > allocated, nor managed, nor get their individual assignments > within 44/8 from any central authority. Yes and no. There were actually a number of “class As” that Postel directed to be assigned based on layer 2 technology, e.g., 14/8 for X.25, 24/8 (I believe) for IP over CATV, 44/8 for IP over amateur radio, maybe a block assigned for IP over satellite (4/8? I don’t remember). In some cases, there was a ‘caretaker’ assigned (ARRL for 44/8 and @Home for 24/8) who acted as a pseudo-registry: they did (or at least were supposed to do) sub-assignments for entities that met (IANA- and pseudo-registry-) defined criteria. However, the informal assignments were, like all assignments of the day, based on the assumption that the addresses were supposed to be used to provide IP networking and if the addresses weren’t so used, they were to be returned to IANA. This was actually put in practice with 14/8 (which unfortunately didn’t have a ‘caretaker’ so we at IANA had to try to track down the remaining IP over X.25 users starting around 2007 or so IIRC — a bit challenging, but ultimately accomplished). I have vague memories of asking Brian Kantor (as the assignee in the IANA registry) about returning 44/8 back when we were cleaning up 14/8 but my recollection was that I was informed it would be too hard given the number, distribution, and global nature of the sub-assignments. In any event, this is largely irrelevant: there weren’t any contracts or other written agreements, it was all informal and based on folks doing the right thing, without fully agreed upon terms of what the “right thing” was (other than “for the good of the Internet” I suppose). > In a way; it just means the IANA registry data became > corrupted/Less accurate Due to IANA's failure to clearly > state a policy for the maintenance of the allocations and/or > ARDC "converting" ownership or being allowed to take > up a false pretense of ownership of the registry allocation. Err, no. It’s inappropriate to blame IANA here. IANA has a clear policy: management of IP addresses was delegated on a regional basis starting with RFC 1366/1466 around 1990, then RFC 2050 and finally RFC 7020. The existing IANA IPv4 registry largely consists of pointers to the RIRs as the delegatees of responsibility for the address space. If you have concerns with address policy, the proper place to raise those concerns is with the RIRs (and in the case of 44/8, ARIN). Regards, -drc signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
Re: Traffic visibility tools
On 7/24/19 09:16, Kenny Taylor wrote: > > Good morning, > > > > I hate to pull away from the 44/8 fire (KJ6BSQ here, and former > AMPRnet user), but I’d like to get some advice from the community on > traffic visibility tools.. > > > > We use a pair of appliances called Exinda for traffic shaping and > visibility. The current appliances are end-of-support and the > replacements are hugely expensive after GFI acquired Exinda. Traffic > shaping is less of a concern now, as circuit speeds have caught up > with our users, but visibility is still a big need. Those boxes do > two things very well: 1) identification of FQDNs using SSL cert > inspection on HTTPS traffic and 2) categorization of the traffic (i.e. > Netflix, Youtube, etc.). We have Netflow monitoring using PRTG, but > seeing something like > ‘ec2-34-214-76-39.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com’ in Netflow logs > isn’t very useful. > tls 1.3 encrypted SNI or QUIC and then DOH will eventually make https opaque. Whether this is soon or not I guess is an open question but passive inspection will probably become less useful over time. it seems likely to cause industry / monitoring product change as well. > > We’re looking for something that could sit either inline or hang off a > SPAN port, handle 5-10 Gbit of traffic, do the SSL cert FQDN > identification, and preferably group results by site/subnet/category. > What would you guys recommend? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Kenny Taylor > > WAN Engineer > > Kern Community College District > > > pEpkey.asc Description: application/pgp-keys
Traffic visibility tools
Good morning, I hate to pull away from the 44/8 fire (KJ6BSQ here, and former AMPRnet user), but I'd like to get some advice from the community on traffic visibility tools.. We use a pair of appliances called Exinda for traffic shaping and visibility. The current appliances are end-of-support and the replacements are hugely expensive after GFI acquired Exinda. Traffic shaping is less of a concern now, as circuit speeds have caught up with our users, but visibility is still a big need. Those boxes do two things very well: 1) identification of FQDNs using SSL cert inspection on HTTPS traffic and 2) categorization of the traffic (i.e. Netflix, Youtube, etc.). We have Netflow monitoring using PRTG, but seeing something like 'ec2-34-214-76-39.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com' in Netflow logs isn't very useful. We're looking for something that could sit either inline or hang off a SPAN port, handle 5-10 Gbit of traffic, do the SSL cert FQDN identification, and preferably group results by site/subnet/category. What would you guys recommend? Thanks, Kenny Taylor WAN Engineer Kern Community College District
Re: 44/8
- Original Message - > From: "Randy Bush" > my deep sympathies go out to those folk with real work to do whose mail > user agents do not have a `delete thread` key sequence. For some people, Randy, this *is* real work, even if they're not getting paid for it. And didn't you, like, co-author procmail? :-) 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: 44/8
On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 6:46 PM Owen DeLong wrote: > Not entirely true. A lot of 44/8 subnets are used for transporting amateur > radio information across the internet and/or for certain limited > applications linking amateur radio and the internet. > See HamWAN.org for the Seattle area multi-megabit ham network on 44/8 space. -- Joe Hamelin, W7COM, Tulalip, WA, +1 (360) 474-7474
Re: CenturyLink/Level3 feedback
We have had the worst experience in 20 years dealing with century link and
turning up new transit circuits , its been over 9 months since we ordered
circuits in LA Chicago and Ashburn and we still do not have our sessions up
with links. Level3 has been ruined...
On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 7:14 PM Stephen Frost wrote:
> Since there was a comment on this again, I figure I'll provide an update
> ('just' the facts...)- it's now been two more weeks with no evidence of
> any progress being made, the equipment's been just sitting there, with
> CL going a week without providing any update until prodded and then it
> was "let me get back to you"...
>
> So, no idea when/if this circuit is going to actually get turned up...
>
> * Ryan Gelobter (rya...@atwgpc.net) wrote:
> > I wish CenturyLink would better manage both the legacy level3 portal and
> > the current centurylink portal. The fact that I cant just go into 1 place
> > and see all of my circuits now is annoying.
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 10:52 AM Cummings, Chris
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I was always taught that “if you can't say anything nice, don't say
> > > nothing at all”—That being said, my last CenturyLink turnup was worse
> than
> > > my last AT&T turnup. Take that for what it is worth.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > /chris
> > >
>
Re: 44/8
In addition to my day job I also run IT for a 501(c)(3) ham "club" that does amateur radio based public service and emergency communications. Our annual cash donations are about $100. We could never afford an IPv6 allocation or an AS number. I wish we could because I'd love to use some of the AMPRNET space for some of our operations. Our ISP doesn't support IPv6 yet, so I won't even get into that discussion. While we don't have cash, we frequently get donations in the form of [used] equipment. Our entire network backbone is Cisco. Our radio systems are almost exclusively Motorola public safety grade hardware. Our Internet connection is paid for by a served agency. People are happy to donate their time, services, and hardware to us; just not cash. Saying that not having cash on hand means you don't have the resources to do packet radio is not necessarily true. -Matt, NM1B On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 12:44 PM Naslund, Steve wrote: > So, if ARIN allocates a v6 assignment to ARDC how do you plan to use it > without a router or BGP. Whether it's v4 or v6 you need to route it > somewhere. If you have a PC, you can have a router and if you don't have a > PC you probably don't need to worry about any of this. If your club can't > afford the address allocation then you are probably in too expensive a > hobby. That is one of the cheaper things you need to get to do radio data. > > Steven Naslund > Chicago IL > > >Yeah because v6 only is the answer plus tour assuming all of these clubs > have routers and BGP and the money to get an allocation and ASN > > > >
Re: 44/8
On 23/07/2019 02:23, Michel Py wrote: > This is the last attempt that I remember : > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wilson-class-e-02 Of interest can be : https://www.netdevconf.org/0x13/session.html?talk-ipv4-unicast-expansions signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: CenturyLink/Level3 feedback
GTT has this 😁 https://ethervision.gtt.net Rob Wcislo VP, Sales GTT (954)305-2289 On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 8:07 PM -0400, "Ryan Gelobter" mailto:rya...@atwgpc.net>> wrote: I wish CenturyLink would better manage both the legacy level3 portal and the current centurylink portal. The fact that I cant just go into 1 place and see all of my circuits now is annoying. On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 10:52 AM Cummings, Chris mailto:ccummi...@coeur.com>> wrote: I was always taught that “if you can't say anything nice, don't say nothing at all”—That being said, my last CenturyLink turnup was worse than my last AT&T turnup. Take that for what it is worth. /chris
