Hi,
I was just reading
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/egov/b-1-information.html#IPV6, released
some time back in 2005, and it seems that the US Govt. had set the
target date of 30th June 2008 for all federal govt agencies to move
their network backbones to IPv6. This deadline is almost here. Are
No, and no. Shouldn't be a surprise. (all is the dealbreaker, certain
agencies are on the ball, but most are barely experimenting).
On Sat, 15 Mar 2008, Glen Kent wrote:
:
:Hi,
:
:I was just reading
:http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/egov/b-1-information.html#IPV6, released
:some time back in
On 15/03/2008, at 7:19 PM, Glen Kent wrote:
I have another related question:
Do all ISPs atleast support tunneling the IPv6 pkts to some end point?
For example, is there a way for an IPv6 enthusiast to send his IPv6
packet from his laptop to a remote IPv6 server in the current
circumstances if
Hello,
Guyz please try to reach my network 194.9.82.0/24 from your networks.
Am seeeing routing loops from several looking glasses.
above.net, Alameda.net. but from traceroute.eu. the block comes down ok.
Kindly anyone assist.
--
Best Regards,
Felix Bako
Network Engineer
Africa Online, Kenya
On Sat, Mar 15, 2008, Felix Bako wrote:
Hello,
Guyz please try to reach my network 194.9.82.0/24 from your networks.
Am seeeing routing loops from several looking glasses.
above.net, Alameda.net. but from traceroute.eu. the block comes down ok.
Kindly anyone assist.
Uh, still seems to be
My understanding of the mandate is that they (the Department and Agencies)
demonstrate passing IPv6 traffic on their backbone from one system out to their
backbone and back to another system.
A number of agencies, if I remember the number of about 30 have IPv6
allocations. IRS has
Tracing route to uu-194-009-082-001.uunet.co.ke [194.9.82.1] over a maximum
of 30 hops:
1 8 ms 8 ms 7 ms ssrb230a-vpn-3080-1-e2.ns.ufl.edu
[128.227.166.116]
2 8 ms 7 ms 8 ms 128.227.252.109
3 7 ms 7 ms 7 ms ssrb230a-ewan-msfc-1-v704-1.ns.ufl.edu
Guyz,
Does anyone know what i can do to expediate Above.Net to fix this issue
quickly.
There Noc they said they were checking now for more than 4 hrs
Regards
Felix
Robert D. Scott wrote:
Tracing route to uu-194-009-082-001.uunet.co.ke [194.9.82.1] over a maximum
of 30 hops:
1 8 ms
Are you talking to them, or your upstream provider? If your provider is not
yet engaged do so.
Above net is doing something, the loop is bigger now. 11:30 EDST -4
11 156 ms 208 ms 224 ms 64.125.26.77
12 117 ms 116 ms 117 ms 64.125.26.69
13 119 ms 121 ms 125 ms
On Sat, 15 Mar 2008, Felix Bako wrote:
Guyz,
Does anyone know what i can do to expediate Above.Net to fix this issue
quickly.
There Noc they said they were checking now for more than 4 hrs
I see it differently from here:
traceroute to 194.9.82.1 (194.9.82.1), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
Does anyone know what i can do to expediate Above.Net to fix this issue
quickly.
There Noc they said they were checking now for more than 4 hrs
I see it differently from here:
From here (Oslo, Norway, Level3 as one of our transit providers) it
works fine - I can even ping 194.9.82.137.
On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 06:31:40PM +0300, Felix Bako wrote:
Guyz,
Does anyone know what i can do to expediate Above.Net to fix this issue
quickly.
There Noc they said they were checking now for more than 4 hrs
I'm seeing an inconsistent origin AS for this /24 from Above.net and PCCW.
#
Seeing slightly different results from here. Aside from the fact the
network I'm on is a little slow,
Tracing route to uu-194-009-082-001.uunet.co.ke [194.9.82.1]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
111 ms 2 ms 1 ms 192.168.15.1
2 *** Request timed out.
3
Felix:
There's still a routing look at above.net, as documented by others and the
other listserv you posted this on (cisco-nsp?).
1276 ms73 ms79 ms chp-brdr-01.inet.qwest.net [205.171.139.150]
1378 ms77 ms75 ms so-4-1-0.mpr2.ord7.us.above.net
[64.125.12.149]
14
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Felix Bako
Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 2:11 AM
To: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Routing Loop
Guyz please try to reach my network 194.9.82.0/24 from
[more accurate subject line]
On Mar 14, 2008, at 1:33 PM, Felix Bako wrote:
Hello,
There is a routing loop while accesing my network 194.9.82.0/24 from
some networks on the Internet.
| This is a test done from lg.above.net looking glass.
1 ten-gige-2-2.mpr2.ams2.nl.above.net
A bit more analysis of this at the moment, and a few recommendations
and related pointers is available here:
http://tinyurl.com/2nqg2a
-danny
There's also somewhat odd data in RADB (look at the changed: line):
route: 194.9.64.0/19
descr: SES-Newskies Customer Prefix
origin:AS16422
remarks: SES-Newskies Customer Prefix
notify:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mnt-by:MNT-NWSK
changed: [EMAIL
On Mar 15, 2008, at 4:49 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
There's also somewhat odd data in RADB (look at the changed: line):
route: 194.9.64.0/19
descr: SES-Newskies Customer Prefix
origin:AS16422
remarks: SES-Newskies Customer Prefix
notify:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
7018 is still seeing announcements from 6461,
and the Oregon Routeviews server route-views.routeviews.org also sees
many announcements
from different ISPs seeing it announced from 6461.
The whois entry for Above.net lists the NOC as
RTechHandle: NOC41-ORG-ARIN
RTechName: AboveNet NOC
Unlike the Youtube outage where PTA had issued a directive asking all
ISPs to block Youtube - What is the reason most often cited for such
mishaps? The reason i ask this is because the ISPs that
inadvertently hijack someone elses IP space, need to explicitly
configure *something* to do this. So,
I see this at 9:10pm PST:
traceroute uu-194-009-082-001.uunet.co.ke
traceroute to uu-194-009-082-001.uunet.co.ke (194.9.82.1), 64 hops max,
40 byte packets
1 64-192-2-193.static.unwiredbb.com (64.192.2.193) 14 ms 15 ms 14 ms
2 64-192-0-253.static.unwiredbb.com (64.192.0.253) 15 ms 14
Wow! Its close to 20 hours now, and folks have still not fixed the problem!
I hope they're not many IPs NATed behind that unfortunate /24 that has
been cherry picked by AboveNet.
On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 9:31 AM, Bill Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
7018 is still seeing announcements from
On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 9:09 PM, Glen Kent [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unlike the Youtube outage where PTA had issued a directive asking all
ISPs to block Youtube - What is the reason most often cited for such
mishaps? The reason i ask this is because the ISPs that
inadvertently hijack
A popular reason from longer ago was enterprises that used
arbitrary addresses for their internal networks,
which was safe because they'd never be connected to the real internet.
RFC1918 has made that problem mostly go away,
but as recently as 1995 I had a customer who was a bank that was
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- -- Bill Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've seen two popular reasons for doing it accidentally
- Fat fingers when configuring IP addresses by hand
- Using old routing protocols such as IGRP or RIP and autosummarizing
routes,
usually done by a
On Sat, Mar 15, 2008, Danny McPherson wrote:
A bit more analysis of this at the moment, and a few recommendations
and related pointers is available here:
http://tinyurl.com/2nqg2a
Its a good writeup. :)
It almost sounds like Felix should talk to some friendly SP's and organise
/25
27 matches
Mail list logo
