On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 12:28:39PM -0700, Blake Pfankuch wrote:
AboveNet is experiencing a network event.
Why does that remind me of rain event in
http://youtube.com/watch?v=DagVklB4VHQ
http://youtube.com/watch?v=UjKciefHo38
?
:-)
Sorry for off-topic,
best regards,
Daniel
--
CLUE-RIPE --
On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 10:41:26PM +, Paul Ferguson wrote:
The best you can _probably_ hope for is a opt-in mechanism in
which you are alerted that prefixes you have registered with the
aforementioned system are being originated by an ASN which is not
authorized to originate them.
On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 07:19:07PM -0500, Paul Stewart wrote:
Very nice.. is there an ARIN equal that anyone knows of OR can you use
the RIPE one for ARIN registered space?
as the homepage states:
MyASN is open to be used by anyone. You don't have to be a Local
Internet Registry (LIR) and
On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 06:39:14PM -0800, S. Ryan wrote:
Anyone know how one would get a hold of a Charter.com DNS Administrator?
$ dig charter.com soa +short
ns1.charter.com. ipaddressing.chartercom.com. 2008017401 7200 3600 604800 86400
Try [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Regards,
Daniel
--
CLUE-RIPE
On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 11:24:58AM +0100, Elmar K. Bins wrote:
Before anyone asks: I do get defaults from my transits ;)
Measuring traffic following the defaults before and after implementation
of the filters could be interesting...
Best regards,
Daniel
--
CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: [EMAIL
On Fri, Aug 03, 2007 at 07:47:44PM -0300, Giuliano (UOL) wrote:
It has excellent performance under MPLS, BGP and Multicast Networks.
But a CLI/config as modern as a grammophone. If only they would
copy JunOS instead of IOS... sigh.
But ... I never saw it under extreme conditions with IPv6 ...
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 10:27:29PM -0400, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
providing good news service requires tons of disk space and loads
of network bandwidth,
I'm getting the impression that providing good news service doesn't need
that, only providing good warez service does (and this includes
On Mon, Jun 26, 2006 at 02:06:03AM +, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
There is a flag on one vendor I believe to force it to send 'all paths',
How so? BGP as protocol doesn't allow that, unless you use e.g. route
distinguisher to... distinguish them. But them we're firmly into the
special
On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 08:08:59AM -1000, Scott Weeks wrote:
I can't hear anything on the Real Player stream due to a
very loud hum. Is it me or can something be done?
Same here, together with ~30% packet loss.
Best regards,
Daniel
--
CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL
On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 05:46:01PM -0500, Russell, David wrote:
I personally think that 5 minute sampling is so last century
s/5 minute sampling/polling/
RWSL[1] do deliver their accounting data via scp or FTP to
collector hosts by themselves. Push instead of pull/poll.
SNMP counter polling
On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 01:47:31PM -0800, David Meyer wrote:
IETF). Now, while many in the IETF argue that there is no
such thing as an operator community, I personally see
it differently, and there are many of us who think that
operator input is sorely missing from
On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 12:21:30AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
Hi, here's a member of 'the folks at bit.nl'. Just a quick note to
say that we have been sourcing IPv4 packets from 192.88.99.1 at a rate
of 2.000 to 10.000 packets per second since early 2003, so I'm guessing
we have sent
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 08:21:43AM +0100, Alexander Koch wrote:
I was wondering if someone had done any or some research on
this before...
Yup, when troubleshooting the ERXes former wrong handling of
no MED. :-)
basically I am not sure with all the many
implementations of BGP and all the
problems which MIGHT come up in 25 years if there
is a compelling rationale that we won't be able to cope with it THEN.
:-)
Daniel Roesen wrote:
Uhm, sorry, but that's wrong. /24s are widely(!) accepted and only very
seldom not accepted. There are many (MANY!) folks running on /24 PI
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 07:50:14AM -0600, Kevin Day wrote:
1) IPv6 on the internet overall seems a bit unreliable at the moment.
Entire /32's disappear and reappear, gone for days at a time.
That's certainly true for people not doing it in production. But that
ain't a problem as they aren't
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 08:34:06PM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
The issue with announcing say a /48 is though that networks which filter
will filter it out and will only reach you over the aggregate. Of course
that is their choice, just like yours is to try to announce the /48's in
IPv6, or
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 02:30:18PM -0600, Albert Meyer wrote:
I'd like to see a useful #nanog where network operators could chat.
That channel does exist but is not NANOG-related. Some #nanog folks who
do want to finally chat on-topic hang out there. Quote from one of them:
dude, this is prolly
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 04:43:58PM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Really? Where are the limits of BGP? Can you show me any numbers?
You'd be the first. I'm not aware of any protocol inherent scaling
brickwalls like with other protocols where certain timing constraints
place limits (or
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 02:54:37PM +0100, Pim van Pelt wrote:
| The RIPE NCC received the IPv6 address range 2A01:::/16 from
| the IANA in December 2005.
Yaay, finally decently sized chunks to RIRs. Well done.
You're jumping to conclusions. As Jeroen mentioned, it could be just
someone
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 06:11:17PM -0500, Hannigan, Martin wrote:
Correct. And there you have minimum frame spacing requirements (IFG)
and (e.g. with 10Base2 networks) minimum distance between stations
attached to the bus to allow CSMA/CD work correctly.
Interframe gap has no dependancy
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 07:59:15PM -0600, Kevin Day wrote:
I admit, my experiences are with only a tiny number of users, so I
may have just had bad luck. But, I had trouble finding any of our
IPv6 guinea pigs that didn't take a perceptibly slower route to us
over 6 than they do for 4.
On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 04:06:02AM +0200, Gadi Evron wrote:
I'd like to see a useful #nanog where network operators could chat.
That channel does exist but is not NANOG-related. Some #nanog folks who
do want to finally chat on-topic hang out there. Quote from one of them:
dude, this is
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 09:32:05AM -0500, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
http://www.internetnews.com/infra/article.php/3570211
Well, vendors like Juniper were quick to add extra charges for IPv6
to get more out of this budget. :-) or better :-(
Vendors know that .gov HAS to buy the IPv6 license,
On Mon, Oct 24, 2005 at 01:25:23PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
Are there any configuration tweaks which can locally confine such an
event? Something like the hard prefix limit for BGP, perhaps.
JunOS:
set protocols ospf prefix-export-limit n
set protocols isis level n
On Sun, Oct 23, 2005 at 11:59:15AM +0200, Peter Dambier wrote:
I means, here in germany we cannot see h.root-servers.net
Nonsense. There is nothing like geopolitical routing.
Ok, it is only one of the root servers. But have a look who
h.root-servers.net is. It is one of the originals not an
On Sun, Oct 23, 2005 at 08:00:10PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
On Sun, Oct 23, 2005 at 11:59:15AM +0200, Peter Dambier wrote:
I means, here in germany we cannot see h.root-servers.net
Nonsense. There is nothing like geopolitical routing.
I wouldn't call it geopolitical routing,
On Sun, Oct 23, 2005 at 09:48:58PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
This isn't the first time this has happened to an ISP. 8-(
Indeed.
Are there any configuration tweaks which can locally confine such an
event? Something like the hard prefix limit for BGP, perhaps.
JunOS:
set protocols ospf
On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 12:32:29AM +, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
A few folks that have a deployment going are ahead of the curve, hopefully
they can keep the parts they have running and upgrade away from the 7507
that is their current solution :)
The larger EU/US ISPs that have real
On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 10:57:59AM -0400, Joe Abley wrote:
The big gap in the multi-homing story for v6 is for end sites, since
those are specifically excluded by all the RIRs' policies on PI
addressing right now. Shim6 is intended to be a solution for end sites.
But isn't a solution for
On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 11:50:33AM -0400, Joe Abley wrote:
I think it is far too early to judge how many end sites might find
shim6 an acceptable solution, however -- I'd wait for some
measurement and modelling before I made declarations about that,
You mean in some 5-10 years? When
On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 07:27:37PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
the kicker here is that the applications then need some
serious smarts to do proper source address selection.
Nope. The ULID is supposed to be static, globally unique. Just not
globally routed. Seperating topology
On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 01:11:18PM -0700, Crist Clark wrote:
Actually, doing multihoming and getting PI space are orthogonal in
shim6 last I knew. That is, you could get address space from your N
providers and have one of the providers, say Provider X, to be the
ULID for the end points.
On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 06:06:03PM -0400, Todd Vierling wrote:
That said, even such a distant gateway would be fine for v6 *eyeballs* if
organizations would voluntarily set up 6to4 outbound relays for their own v6
networks. It's as simple as setting up a route to 2002::/16 at the border
with
On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 10:45:33PM -0400, Todd Vierling wrote:
Maybe to start -- but again, what kind of 6to4 traffic level are we
expecting yet?
Peak or average? Think twice before answering. :-)
I'm told there are 6to4 relays seeing in excess of 100mbps. Not bursts.
Can you imagine trying
On Sat, Oct 15, 2005 at 03:15:45AM +, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
But I think the discussion is mood. IETF decided on their goal, and
it's superfluous trying to change that. While watching shim6 we carry
on hoping that we'll get IPv6 multihoming going in the conventional,
proven,
On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 10:21:58PM -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
For some equipment, it still works out to forklift your network.
For example, our current dialup gear doesn't support IPv6 (and AFAIK
no upgrades are available or planned to add it).
How does that hinder your backbone, leased line
On Wed, Oct 12, 2005 at 11:13:12AM -1000, Randy Bush wrote:
also to be noted is that rir statistics on who has what space are
not in the best of shape, ripe's being particularly obfuscated.
*raising an eyebrow*
Would you care to elaborate on that?
Best regards,
Daniel
--
CLUE-RIPE --
On Thu, Oct 13, 2005 at 01:41:26AM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
As I know, BT and P2P (some apps), already are using IPv6 ;-)
I know of no official BitTorrent supporting IPv6... unfortunately.
There were patches floating around, but to my understanding
incompatible, and problems with BT
On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 02:08:01PM -0400, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
You can only be a tier 1 and maintain global reachability if you peer
with every other tier 1. Level 3 is obviously the real thing, and Cogent
is close enough (at least in their own minds :P) that they won't buy
real
On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 03:44:10PM -0400, Charles Gucker wrote:
On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 02:08:01PM -0400, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
You can only be a tier 1 and maintain global reachability if you peer
with every other tier 1. Level 3 is obviously the real thing, and Cogent
is close
On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 03:51:34PM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
I think you and I have a different definition of deny and decision.
I agree that my usage of words was highly suboptimal to express what I
wanted to express. See my other answer.
Cogent was connected to L3. Level 3 TOOK
On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 06:28:22PM +0700, Randy Bush wrote:
those who see full stats at ixes, v4/6 isps, etc will tell you that
actual v6 traffic is miniscule.
Not contesting the quantification, but what typical IXP switches can
do stats based on ethertype? Given that most relevant IPv6
On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 05:58:15PM +0300, Joe Abley wrote:
There are a few exchanges who isolate v6 and v4 traffic on separate
VLANs. Stats based on VLAN are a little easier to come by.
Yeah, a few. Dying quickly. The most relevant IXPs or the IPv6 world
aren't, they run real dual-AFI in a
On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 11:13:42AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The root of all these vulnerabilities is our inability to write
complex software that is free of bugs.
Inability? I'd rather say it's an economic question. Would you want to
pay for proven bug-free software? Think twice (and
On Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 06:25:00PM +0100, Brandon Butterworth wrote:
But we could trade putting content on V6 for them if they make their
network do multicast for us.
Deal?
IPv6 multicast with embedded RP? Deal!
Regards,
Daniel
--
CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL
On Thu, Aug 04, 2005 at 02:54:07PM -0400, Joe Abley wrote:
(slightly queasy, imagining the backscatter and worm probe love you'd
suddenly attract when you advertised your yet-to-be-used /8 for the
first time)
I would guesstimate about 8 Terabyte per day, judging from the traffic
I saw
On Thu, Aug 04, 2005 at 07:35:24PM +0100, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
1. Softbank BB is not on my radar of likely /8 candidates (of course,
geography may be the reason for that)
Indeed, ASPAC is off most of our radars. :)
Given the size of Softbanks subscriber base, I'm not surprised about the
On Thu, Aug 04, 2005 at 09:26:48PM +0100, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
So you ask folks to resort to hacks like NAT or force IPv6-only to
their users when there is still a lack-of-content problem there?
Can you show me your business plan draft for that? I'm curious. :-)
ok, thats not what i
On Sat, Jul 16, 2005 at 01:57:06AM +, Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote:
Someone's been listening:
http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=165702734
The only interesting bit in this article is the complete ignorance
regarding Europe.
Regards,
Daniel
--
CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber:
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 09:05:29PM -0400, Joe Abley wrote:
Other failure modes require a full table (e.g. link failure between
the ISP and its upstream, or some other partial withdrawal of
connectivity).
That's absolutely correct. I've overseen this failure mode.
Consider me embarassed. :-(
On Sat, Jul 09, 2005 at 12:08:08AM +0200, Andre Oppermann wrote:
On the other hand a large DFZ routing table would simply dampen its
growth by itself. If it gets to costly to multihome because of the
hardware requirements only few would be able to so. Ergo we have a
negative feedback system
On Sat, Jul 09, 2005 at 12:52:35AM +0200, Andre Oppermann wrote:
Multihomed end sites usually get away with receiving only default route
or some partial routes from their upstreams. So technically you can
BGP multihome with Cisco 1600 or even smaller easily (dunno where BGP
support is
On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 12:34:53AM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
But it certainly looks like a small DFZ table and portable address
space are fundamentally incompatible.
At least if you want all the advantages that real BGP multihoming has.
Not surprising. :-)
Best regards,
Daniel
--
On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 11:28:31AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://www.wired.com/news/infostructure/0,1377,68004,00.html?tw=wn_6techhead
Dave Clark is proposing that the NSF should fund a new demonstration
network that implements a fundamentally new architecture at many levels.
I'm
On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 11:48:06AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think Dave Clark is talking about something more fundamental than
simply IPv6 and also more far reaching. Also, the experience with
retrofitting most of IPv6's new features into IPv4 shows that it
is good to have role models
On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 02:08:13PM +0200, Alexander Koch wrote:
With public peering you simply never know how much spare
capacity your peer has free.
You also never know with private peering: Backbone links.
Regards,
Daniel
--
CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] --
On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 11:08:42AM -0700, Dan Hollis wrote:
Malicious packets now account for a significant percentage of all ip
traffic.
As a data point:
An unused, never before used or even just announced /21 currently draws
an average of 112pps und 70kbit/s, translating to about 1GB (1
On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 02:07:15PM -0700, Vicky Rode wrote:
Basically I meant to say not congested as the current Internet is.
It is?
Regards,
Daniel
--
CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 11:36:03PM +0200, Andre Oppermann wrote:
The only missing thing there [in OpenBGPD] is full filtering
capabilities which are under development currently.
Oh, and other very basic things like IPv4-multicast, IPv6-unicast and
IPv6-multicast AFI/SAFI support.
Regards,
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 05:29:46PM -0400, Patrick W Gilmore wrote:
Is Cogent filtering the prefixes they get from Verio? Or is Verio
filtering what they send to Cogent? Does it matter?
Or OT tagging their announcements to Sprint in a way that prevents them
being announced to Cogent in order
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 06:52:49PM -0400, German Martinez wrote:
Or OT tagging their announcements to Sprint in a way that prevents them
being announced to Cogent in order to force Cogent into buying transit.
For people interested hereafter our route-server:
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 12:36:22AM +0200, Daniel Roesen wrote:
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 05:29:46PM -0400, Patrick W Gilmore wrote:
Is Cogent filtering the prefixes they get from Verio? Or is Verio
filtering what they send to Cogent? Does it matter?
Or OT tagging their announcements
Dear NANOGers,
people were missing a global mailing list (not regional RIR/NOG)
dedicated to _operational_ matters of the global IPv6 (production, not
6BONE) Internet. To fill this void I've created such a mailing list:
http://lists.cluenet.de/mailman/listinfo/ipv6-ops/
So if you're taking
On Sat, Apr 02, 2005 at 01:48:51PM +0200, Elmar K. Bins wrote:
The other: ICMP has been rate-limited. It might not be the way to
test those locations. An mtr output would be more interesting :)
mtr uses ICMP too.
Regards,
Daniel
--
CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 01:27:31AM +, James A. T. Rice wrote:
What exactly are you attempting to do here? Those announcements will get
dropped on the floor at least in this AS right away:
route-map peers-in deny 5
match as-path 109
AS-Sets, not AS-Paths...
Regards,
Daniel
--
On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 04:20:31AM -0500, Charles Shen wrote:
We did a traceroute end-to-end routing measurement in 2004 and found about
5-10% of measuremnts exhibiting rapidly-variable routing on the time scale
of a single traceroute (seconds to minutes). In other words, the packets
On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 10:08:39PM -0500, James wrote:
AFAIK, multiple routers showing up in a single-hop in traceroute response is
a sign of packet-by-packet load balancing, not flow based.
Not necessarily, and in most cases probably not a fact. Don't forget
that standard UNIX traceroute uses
On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 09:59:39PM -0500, Charles Shen wrote:
From the responses, the answer to the rapidly-variable routing on
the time scale of seconds to minutes seems to be:
1. It could be link layer load balancing, with the two interfaces
belonging to the same router.
2. It could
On Tue, Feb 01, 2005 at 08:17:03AM +0100, Daniel Roesen wrote:
I'm not sure for the GSR platform, but as far as I remember, it's not
supported at all on Engine 2 line cards, and has a performance penalty
otherwise.
Found some reference on that:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/sw/iosswrel
On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 03:10:58PM +0100, Fredy Kuenzler wrote:
wrt IPv6... why not?
flamewar-protection
another thing the world does not need
/flamewar-protection
So why do you peer IPv6 at NYIIX, AMSIX and probably other IXPs as
well?
What strikes me odd is that PAIX-* still uses
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 09:51:36PM +1000, Philip Smith wrote:
Many of the ISPs I've worked with around the world have followed this
path - and they are quite happy. I really think there is absolutely no
need to consider full mesh iBGP any more. I wouldn't go as far as saying
it's history,
On Fri, Dec 31, 2004 at 10:46:56AM -0800, Merike Kaeo wrote:
An IPv6 network is sufficiently different from IPv4 that I encourage
folks to not simply slap an IPv4 security model onto future IPv6
networks.
Can you elaborate on sufficiently different please? Especially
on details which make
On Fri, Dec 31, 2004 at 02:35:49PM -0800, william(at)elan.net wrote:
ipv6 tunnels are seen as good thing (rightly so)
Eh? Not really. Perhaps in developing countries regarding IPv6, but
other regions have moved on to native deployment. :-P
And now off to some new year's eve partying... :-)
On Sat, Nov 27, 2004 at 02:42:55PM +0100, Måns Nilsson wrote:
The current problem is that the RIR membership has self-selected to a
state where they set policies that ensure the end customer has no
alternative except to be locked into their provider's address space.
Do note that, IIRC,
On Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 11:13:55AM +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
We really don't want to arrive at a situation
where it becomes increasingly difficult to obtain an AS number for
those who legitimately need one.
What will be interesting is the definition of legitimate in this
context.
On Sun, Nov 28, 2004 at 01:21:05PM +0100, Henning Brauer wrote:
* Cliff Albert [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-11-28 13:13]:
Therefore I also agree with daniel that there is not really a problem
with the 1 ASN == 1 IPv6 Prefix.
unless I miss something in that proposal that means that we'll see a
On Sun, Nov 28, 2004 at 02:13:17PM +0100, Henning Brauer wrote:
there are a lot of organizations now having PI without having an ASN
and beeing multihomed. a transition to v6 with this policy would make
things much worse for them, so why should they?
Agreed, but currently we are at no PI
On Sun, Nov 28, 2004 at 08:14:12PM +0100, Cliff Albert wrote:
I am looking from a RIPE point of view. Lately I see ISPs popping out of
the ground requesting ASNs and having actually only 1 upstream (there
are 2 upstreams in the routing database, but in the real world there is
only 1
On Sat, Nov 27, 2004 at 10:04:08PM -0500, Leo Bicknell wrote:
I find it interesting that no operators are screaming that there will be
too many routes, but that all the IPv6 researchers are bringing forth
this view.
ACK. All the oh our IPv4 DFZ table explodes today is similarily
unfounded as
On Thu, Nov 25, 2004 at 08:20:01PM +, Ryan O'Connell wrote:
On 25/11/2004 17:47, Owen DeLong wrote:
Why do people keep talking about 200 sites? This is a fallacy.
If you're not assigning IP addresses to other users, (I.e. you're an
Enterprise rather than an ISP) you need 200
On Sun, Nov 14, 2004 at 07:43:18PM -0500, Richard Jimmerson wrote:
Most of the existing IPv6 policy set went into effect August 1, 2002,
in the ARIN region. The provisional IPv6 policy set in place before
that did not exclude end-sites from obtaining IPv6 address space from
ARIN.
And this is
On Sun, Nov 14, 2004 at 07:55:56PM -0800, Randy Bush wrote:
in august 2002 there were no v6 isp's.
you're kidding, right? let's not be too americocentric.
i assure you there were.
ACK, just look at the Allocated column at:
http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/tla/ripe/
On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 05:19:36PM +0100, Simon Leinen wrote:
specified the entire 128 bits... how do you specify only part of
it?
On Solaris, you would use the token option (see the extract from
man ifconfig output below). You can simply put token ::1234:5678
into /etc/hostname6.bge0.
On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 04:23:29PM -0800, Austin Schutz wrote:
ASnumNetsNow NetsAggr NetGain % Gain Description
AS18566 7516 74599.2% CVAD Covad Communications
are these numbers what i think, but hope not, they are?
e.g. is AS18566 the origin AS
On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 05:06:17PM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
OK, but this doesn't have any effect on your Listen,
NameVirtualHost and VirtualHost statements of your httpd.conf,
ListenAddress in sshd.conf, Bind in proftpd.conf, *-source and
listen-on* in named.conf, [...]
True. However, in
On Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 08:44:57AM -0800, Kevin Oberman wrote:
We have renumbered IPv6 space a couple of times when we were developing
our addressing plan. (We have a /32.) Renumbering was pretty trivial for
most systems, but servers requiring a fixed address were usually
configured with an
On Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 07:28:13PM -0500, Joe Abley wrote:
There is currently no PI in IPv6 unless you're an internet exchange or
a root server. Whether there will be is anyone's guess, but it's not
currently in the pipeline.
... or you're an organisation who plans to delegate addresses
On Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 12:05:26PM -0800, Tony Hain wrote:
fixed as in now using stateless autoconfig? Fun... change NIC and
you need to change DNS. Thanks, but no thanks. Not for non-mobile
devices which need to be reachable with sessions initiated from remote
(basically: servers).
On Mon, Nov 08, 2004 at 01:04:28PM -0800, Randy Bush wrote:
I must admint, I'm really not up on the more subtle aspects of v6
addressing nor have I read the drafts you posted, but I've never
understood why we needed a new set of RFC1918-like IPv6 space.
because there is not enough v6
On Mon, Nov 08, 2004 at 03:46:05PM -0500, Daniel Senie wrote:
Reason #3: A separate set of blocks should be set aside for use ONLY in
documentation.
inet6num: 2001:0DB8::/32
netname: IPV6-DOC-AP
descr:IPv6 prefix for documentation purpose
[...]
remarks: This address
On Mon, Nov 08, 2004 at 05:56:58PM -0500, Joe Maimon wrote:
To all of us happily using ip4 does ipv6 offer anything valuable other
than more space?
Depends on who you are.
Do net admins who dread troubleshooting real networks with
unrecognizable and unmemorizable addresses exist?
On Wed, Nov 03, 2004 at 04:50:10PM -0800, Dan Lockwood wrote:
Where can a person go to get a one stop WHOIS query for AS and prefix
information instead of trying ARIN, then RIPE, etc?
RADB. http://www.radb.net/
HTH Regards,
Daniel
--
CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL
On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 01:45:28PM +0200, Niels Bakker wrote:
Anyone else care to comment? The hop count is suspiciously lower for
IPv6 than for IPv4, and has twice the latency (coming from Europe too).
But again, this is traceroute `wisdom'.
One problem with IPv6 traceroute is, that Cisco
On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 03:21:44PM -0400, Joe Abley wrote:
Maybe Verisign needs more (reliable) v6 transit.
Something is broken in several colors here. I'm seeing AS_PATHs
like 6830 6175 109 7018 26415 (Sprint, Cisco, ATT, Verisign) but
a traceroute is going straight from 6830 to ATT and dying
On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 08:05:50AM +0300, Pekka Savola wrote:
If you do 'feasible path strict uRPF' as described in BCP84 (I don't
know if others than Juniper are providing that), you can enable strict
uRPF toward those customers, still de-pref them, and accept the
packets with correct source
On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 06:24:21PM +0300, Pekka Savola wrote:
Honestly, I fail to see this as a big problem. If they don't want to
announce the prefix to us, why would they want to source traffic from
that prefix to us?
I could delve in some exceptionally ugly examples of peering politics
On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 08:35:50PM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
And what do you do with a BGP customer which sends you traffic from
prefixes he doesn't want to announce to you? There are such customers.
The whole point of BCP38 is that this isn't supposed to happen.
Unfortunately we
On Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 11:40:54AM -0700, Zhen Wu wrote:
We are thinking of the motivation of doing this?
Traffic enginneering.
Why the ISPs configured their network so that the MED values
oscillate?
Is there actually persistant oscillation, or just frequent change
with some peers at some
On Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 08:49:22PM +0200, Daniel Roesen wrote:
On Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 11:40:54AM -0700, Zhen Wu wrote:
We are thinking of the motivation of doing this?
Traffic enginneering.
I should have elaborated: to encourage the peer to perform cold-potato
routing towards you.
Best
On Mon, Sep 27, 2004 at 02:32:53PM -0400, Jason Giglio wrote:
This bug is in SuSe, Debian, every version of Red Hat I tested.
Looks like the stub resolver in glibc. Permutation order should be
hostname over AFI, not AFI over hostname, agreed.
So the correct query sequence should be:
-
1 - 100 of 134 matches
Mail list logo
