On Thu, 5 Sep 2002, Andy Dills wrote:
> This is all ignoring the considerable amount of dead space in 128/2. Does
> anybody keep statistics about what percentage of useable space is
> announced?
See the CAIDA web site (www.caida.org). It is chock full of interesting
statistics about the Interne
On Wed, 4 Sep 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I used the list posted at iana and created the list in the what I think
> is better for use by own whois server. Its likely to be of use to others.
>
> Also based on suggestion by Sean Donelan column has been added if
> /8 block is or should be rou
I used the list posted at iana and created the list in the what I think
is better for use by own whois server. Its likely to be of use to others.
Also based on suggestion by Sean Donelan column has been added if
/8 block is or should be routable or not (my own opinion).
The list is available at
I have to second that. Riverstone is definitely a solid box.
Featurewise, routing protocols are excellent, but services are not quite
there. (I.E. it doesn't support any IP tunneling protocol in any shape or
form. GRE is extremely useful under some circumstances, but sadly,
not with riverstone)
The latest Cooke Report made the following statement:
"They are, he says, the Internet Core Networks that announced
anonymously on December 5, 2001 their decision to move their peering
to Equinix Exchanges. He identifies them as UUNET, Sprint, Cable and
Wireless, Genuity, Level 3, Qwest, and
On Wed, 4 Sep 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > List the 128-191/8 allocations first. Getting this information from the
> > RIR's has been tedious.
> Unless IANA was responsible for those initial allocations, it should not
> be IANA's task to make this list. And if IANA makes such a list I think
> List the 128-191/8 allocations first. Getting this information from the
> RIR's has been tedious.
Unless IANA was responsible for those initial allocations, it should not
be IANA's task to make this list. And if IANA makes such a list I think it
should be separate from the /8 list presented
Whoops that should be http://www.cisco.com/public/cons/isp/security/
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> Barry Raveendran Greene
> Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 1:29 PM
> To: John Crain; 'Jeffrey Meltzer'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sub
List the 128-191/8 allocations first. Getting this information from the
RIR's has been tedious. After that, details on each /8 for all 256 lines
would be useful. It is a stepping stone to some of other suggestions that
are bound to come out of this thread.
Rob Thomas and I have been playing aro
On Wed, 4 Sep 2002, John M. Brown wrote:
> I'm concerned with having "to much data" in the system. This invites
> mistakes, potential abuse and other problems.
>
> By having only:
>
> RESERVED or ALLOCATED
I'm ok with anything, as long as we try to move in the forward direction.
BTW, IANA nee
Actually let me correct myself...
The format I think would be better is:
block date-of-current-allocation registrycomment/purpose
I don't want to see separate lines below like "(Formerly Stanford
University - Apr 93)". This should be part of the comment on the same line
and date
Yes. 256 lines is probably better, just to make it easily portable.
Also I'd like to see the list of how the ips are split between reginal
registries for whois purposes. For example blocks like 3.0.0.0/8 or
4.0.0.0/8 have records in ARIN. I think therefore they should be listed as
ARIN blocks
> RESERVED or ALLOCATED
>
> and having that publishd by IANA, we reduce the potential of
> mistakes affecting "real users".
>
Actually, this was part of the original RAdb.
All the RESERVED space was mapped to AS-0.
This was not considered useful and it was
I'm concerned with having "to much data" in the system. This invites
mistakes, potential abuse and other problems.
By having only:
RESERVED or ALLOCATED
and having that publishd by IANA, we reduce the potential of
mistakes affecting "real users".
If the RIR's are going to provide more da
Cool, maybe we're making progress. The last N times this has come up,
the biggest X the big IP backbones showed a distinct lack of interest
or in one case extreme hostility to the idea.
I've suggested an AS-NULL(AS0) or AS-RESERVED machine parsable macros for
unassigned prefixes which should h
I can't say personally I like the Foundry's. When I was testing (granted
this was 2 years ago.) I saw some traffic when they were under near
wireline load and holding full tables. I'm sure their vastly improved,
just as Riverstone has. But Foundry's CLI just doesn't cut it for me.
Again, the Foun
A good number of private replies from people and their "day job"
addresses. Most have asked for prior permission before
quoting them.
In general, three default-free global backbone providers
stated they would love to see something like this available,
from IANA is the prefered answer.
Some
I'm a big fan of both Foundry and Riverstone, as BGP speaking routers. I've
had great luck with both. Foundry has some annoying bugs at first, but these
seem to have been resolved. I recommend both.
- Daniel Golding
>
> On Wed, 4 Sep 2002, Deepak Jain wrote:
>
> :: Boxes like Foundry, Extreme
On Wed, 4 Sep 2002 05:30:46 -0400 (EDT), "jeffrey.arnold" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Foundry makes a very good, very stable bgp speaker. I've had them in
> my network alongside cisco's and juniper's for a couple of years
> now, and i've never run into any bgp implementation problems that i
> wou
Another box I personally feel is very overlooked is Riverstone. They
make an excellent box, the CLI is incredible (especially for maintenance
windows. When will Cisco learn to have a Scratchpad or a commit
feature?), and all-in-all they are a very feature rich box. The only
*major* problem I had
On Wed, 04 Sep 2002 10:08:00 -0400
David Charlap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> John M. Brown wrote:
> >
> > In the last 72 hours I've seen over 3GB of data hit a network
> > I play with with source IP's of IANA-RESERVED space.
>
> Just out of curiosity, do you know that these are bogus sourc
They are not bogus, hence the sub-deligation, and hence a
good reason to have a more detailed source of information.
I would suspect that this block should be "chopped" a bit to
reflect the IANA/ICANN usage.
This block was first routed on the internet via AS 226 around
late summer early fall 1
We need to be careful, at the RIR level, that data being published doesn't
get mucked up. If a RIR publishes a netblock as "unallocated" and that happens
to knock people off the net, then the RIR's need to be willing to solve that problem
7x24x365.
Having the IANA, or other entity publishing a
> While there is a recursion issue in the BGP<->IGP scenario, BGP would be
> just as "broke" if the only path between two nodes (and whatever nodes are
> behind them) had their BGP session removed. Misconfigurations do not imply
> bad network designs. Bugs are bugs (whether they be OSPF or ISIS
John M. Brown wrote:
>
> In the last 72 hours I've seen over 3GB of data hit a network
> I play with with source IP's of IANA-RESERVED space.
Just out of curiosity, do you know that these are bogus source
addresses? Some of the IANA-RESERVED block is actually valid and is
used by IANA's comp
*NANOG 26 Meeting Information*
Registration is now open for the 26th Meeting
of the North American Network Operators' Group
(NANOG). The meeting will be hosted by the
University of Oregon and Sprint.
The NANOG 26 meeting (October 27-29) will be
held back-to-back with the ARIN X m
>
>BGP is not a bug-free protocol.
>
>BGP is the easiest protocol to *debug* when the problem shows up.
>
>BGP does not help to accidently affect *unaffected* paths when
>a problem shows up.
While there is a recursion issue in the BGP<->IGP scenario, BGP would be
just as "broke" if the only pat
Daniel,
Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
> Speaking for myself too:
[...]
>
> I know that the RIRs have efforts underway to publish such authoritative lists.
> I do not know the exact status of this work. But I fully agree with your requirement
> for a *single* *authoritative* list.
>
Yes, we at the
Speaking for myself too:
I have been wanting an *authoritative* *single* listing of unallocated address space
for at least 6 years. Note that this is at a finer granularity than the IANA
allocations list and it would have much more frequent changes than the IANA list
as address space is allocate
On Wed 04 Sep 2002 (11:35 +0100), Neil J. McRae wrote:
> > A supplier I don't think I'm at liberty to name. When they were good,
> > they were very, very good. But when they were bad they were horrid.
> >
> > Another supplier I don't wish to name. Mostly worked, but crashed if
> > you made e
On Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 11:35:52AM +0100, Neil J. McRae wrote:
>
> > A supplier I don't think I'm at liberty to name. When they were good,
> > they were very, very good. But when they were bad they were horrid.
> >
> > Another supplier I don't wish to name. Mostly worked, but crashed if
> >
On Wed, 4 Sep 2002, Peter van Dijk wrote:
> One Dutch ISP that shall remain unnamed (and is not one I work for or
> have worked for) deployed Extreme on AMS-IX, with Extreme's BGP
> implementation.
>
> It broke horribly.
Then again, AMSIX and their Foundry's break every other day as well :)
In
> A supplier I don't think I'm at liberty to name. When they were good,
> they were very, very good. But when they were bad they were horrid.
>
> Another supplier I don't wish to name. Mostly worked, but crashed if
> you made even the slighest configuration change.
I'm guessing one of them
On Wed 04 Sep 2002 (09:49 +0200), Peter van Dijk wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 03:39:25AM -0400, Deepak Jain wrote:
> [snip]
> > Boxes like Foundry, Extreme, Redback and many others all talk BGP
> > (at least to a first approximation) but is their lack of use in
> > the core/edge/CPE a
On Wed, 4 Sep 2002, Deepak Jain wrote:
:: Boxes like Foundry, Extreme, Redback and many others all talk BGP
:: (at least to a first approximation) but is their lack of use in
:: the core/edge/CPE a lack of scale, stability, performance or just
:: interest?
::
Foundry makes a very good, very
On Wed, 4 Sep 2002, Deepak Jain wrote:
> Boxes like Foundry, Extreme, Redback and many others all talk BGP
> (at least to a first approximation) but is their lack of use in
> the core/edge/CPE a lack of scale, stability, performance or just
> interest?
With Extreme, it's certainly (in my e
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Peter van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 03:39:25AM -0400, Deepak Jain wrote:
>[snip]
>> Boxes like Foundry, Extreme, Redback and many others all talk BGP
>> (at least to a first approximation) but is their lack of use in
>> the core
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space
If folks want me to split it to show 256 lines (one per /8) I can have
that happen.
Don't want to have multiple sources of the data, so for now that's
probably easiest.
I'll watch this discussion with interest. If people think something is
usef
On Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 03:39:25AM -0400, Deepak Jain wrote:
[snip]
> Boxes like Foundry, Extreme, Redback and many others all talk BGP
> (at least to a first approximation) but is their lack of use in
> the core/edge/CPE a lack of scale, stability, performance or just
> interest?
One Dut
It has been a long time since I have seen this thread hashed out,
so I figured I'd bring it up publicly.
Is anyone comfortable using (in a network with > 5 routers) any
non-Cisco or non-Juniper routers for BGP speaking? (Zebra/Gated
boxes only count if customer traffic is carried throug
40 matches
Mail list logo
