At 04:00 AM 24/05/2005, Daniel Golding wrote:
I suspect the right thing to do is to ask why soBGP and sBGP have failed?
And yes, they've failed. Just like DNSSec, we aren't seeing even limited
adoption. Why? Too complex, too many moving parts, too much reliance on iffy
third parties and requi
At 05:13 PM 30/07/2005, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
Henk hits the nail on the head. And reclamation is not straightforward:
The RIPE NCC has hit strong resistance to reclamation, most often with
the argument that the ASes are used in inter-domain routing on the
Internet but our BGP data collectors
At 08:15 PM 1/08/2005, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
On Sun, 31 Jul 2005, Geoff Huston wrote:
> So - to NANOG at large - if you want your vendor to include 4-Byte AS
support
> in their BGP code anytime soon, in order to avoid some last minute
panic in a
> couple of years hence, then
At 11:56 PM 13/10/2005, Brandon Ross wrote:
On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm sure that there will be a frantic scramble, but I don't
expect it to last long enough for an IPv4 black market to
form.
There's already a black market in IPv4. I've seen plenty of offers to
"buy"
At 03:46 AM 25/10/2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am greatful to Geoff for his consistant ability to get me interested in
breaking things... so, for the assembled mutlitude, what would the impact
on various peers be if I was to change my orign AS (ok, so i'll have to
change the router code
For LACNIC the database is available under terms of a specific research-use
agreement with LACNIC
I am unsure if the Afrinic data is being made available
regards,
Geoff
At 10:07 AM 29/10/2005, Andreas Ott wrote:
Hello,
I am currently looking for ASN databases from LACNIC and AFRINI
nice try, but the data is not entirely consistent :-(
Geoff
At 02:30 PM 29/10/2005, Rubens Kuhl Jr. wrote:
ftp://ftp.lacnic.net/pub/stats/lacnic/delegated-lacnic-latest has IP
space and ASN allocations. ASN lines look like this:
lacnic|MX|asn|278|1|19890331|allocated
lacnic|AR|asn|676|1|
At 01:16 PM 3/11/2005, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
On Wed, 2 Nov 2005, Fred Baker wrote:
>
> actually, no, I could compare a /48 to a class A.
>
(someone might already have asked this, but...) why /48?
Because the thinking at the time appears to be that to "ease' renumbering
reduce the c
From [bgp.potaroo.net], the number of all ASs seen in all theroute-views routing tables is around 21,000.
Plenty of space to recover, even though some of those might be inprivate use (and might or might not be able to use private ASNs).There just doesn't seem to be the political will to do so (e.g.
At 07:27 AM 5/11/2005, Randy Bush wrote:
> RIRs, and if we assume no change in AS number policies, and no
> change in the trend of ageing out 'old' AS numbers at a rate of
> some 5% per year into the unadvertised pool, then the 2byte field
> will exhaust sometime in October 2010.
no waffling.
At 11:10 AM 5/11/2005, Randy Bush wrote:
>> no waffling. you said october 14th, and we're holding you to it!
>> we would like to know about what time of day, so we can schedule
>> lunch and coffee.
> well, the figures indicate that RIPE will receive 10 requests on that day,
> and will start the
Also, some of the original motivations behind CIDR starts to go out the
window when you have enough IP space that you can hand out huge chunks
ahead of immediate need. Who cares about efficient utilization or "but I
only need a /35 and you gave me a whole /32, I'm wasting so much space"
when th
At 03:09 AM 5/11/2005, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005, Russ White wrote:
>
> - -- BGP is currently moving to a 2^32 space for AS numbers. That's odd,
> if there's only 18,044 origins in the current table, and it won't ever
> grow to much more--how'd we lose 40,000 or so AS nu
At 04:10 PM 12/11/2005, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Nov 11, 2005, at 5:19 PM, Wayne E. Bouchard wrote:
I think, however, that this will be less dramatic than other
things. This is a "relatively" simple software change. The one thing
it *will* do is make sure that all the old hardware out the
Example registered but not 'routed': 7.0.0.0/8
Not a good example.
This particular /8 allocation is described by IANA as "007/8 Apr
95 IANA - Reserved"
in http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space while a whois query
to the ARIN database reveals:
$ whois 7.0.0.0
OrgName:
I don't believe there is a 'rfc1918' in v6 (yet), I agree that it doesn't
seem relevant, damaging perhaps though :)
So you how would interpret the combination of RFC4913 and the statistical
analysis known as "the birthday problem"? I offer the interpretation of
this as use of address space
At 05:41 AM 13/11/2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
routed where? your router? my router? until/unless
you can look at EVERY router and see this mythical DFP
in ALL of them, then i remain convinced you are deluded.
Such applaudable absolutism does you credit in a ma
I think I can state authoritatively (:-)) that the IANA is aware of
(at least some of) the discrepancies and has address registry data
synchronization on its priority list.
Thank you - as you are aware I've documented what I have seen in terms of
discrepencies at
http://draft-huston-ipv4-ia
Normally I'm rather loathe to send urls around - but in this case you may
find this APNIC work directly relevant to what you are asking for:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-51/presentations/pdf/ripe51-address-certificate.pdf
I also did some work a year or so back on the differences bet
At 05:57 AM 18/11/2005, Jeroen Massar wrote:
Geoff Huston wrote:
>
> Normally I'm rather loathe to send urls around - but in this case you
> may find this APNIC work directly relevant to what you are asking for:
>
>
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-51/presentation
At 09:47 AM 13/11/2004, Randy Bush 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 for 751 prefixes that could be
coll
> e.g. is AS18566 the origin AS for 751 prefixes that could be
> collapsed to 6?
>
Sort of - from here it looks like they aren't actually announcing
the supernets.
The covering /162, /15 and /14 aggregates are being globally announced, and
the more specifics are being announced from the
Interestingly enough what Covad appears to be saying is:
If we had a way to announce two things
1 - here are the advertisements for covering aggregates for Covad
AND
2 - do not believe any more specifics for these address blocks, as they are
NOT part of Covad's routing policy for these prefixes
t
pful action to consider.
regards,
Geoff Huston
At 02:09 PM 2/25/2003 -0800, Hsu, Vicky wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Chan, KaLun
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 4:18 PM
To: Chan, KaLun; DL NOC Managers; DL NOC-IP Services
Cc: Eisenhart, William; Minter, Daniel; DL Neteng-core-ip
Subject
At 05:58 PM 28/05/2003 -0700, Herb Leong wrote:
E.B. Dreger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
#HL> Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 17:28:45 -0700
#HL> From: Herb Leong
#
#
#HL>Does anyone have an up to date list of ASN assignments?
#HL> All of the usual places that I normaly check are now out
#HL> of date. Se
sigh - yes - the whois scripts are not perfect - I'm cleaning
up the file now
Geoff
At 01:35 PM 6/06/2003 -0400, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
Lucy;
Whatever it is, there are some bugs :
AS27949 AS27949 Segmentation Fault
AS27950 AS27950 Segmentation Fault
AS27951 AS27951 Segmentation Fault
AS279
I'm posting this on behalf of Rich Draves, the chair of the
IETF Nominations Committee. Please direct any followup
questions to Rich at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thanks,
Geoff Huston
Last week Randy Bush resigned from his position as Opera
One thing that Geoff hasn't been cynical enough to put forward is
the idea that orgs with lots of valuable, monetized address space
may very well end up lobbying the IAB and RIRs to erect new cost
structures around green-fields IPv6 allocations as well, to make
sure that the profit-providing ma
At 07:37 AM 4/03/2006, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
On Mar 3, 2006, at 5:55 AM, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
On 2 mar 2006, at 06.16, Kevin Day wrote:
No, I'm just trying to be practical here... Estimates of IPv4 pool
exhaustion range from Mid 2008 (Tony Hain's ARIN presentation) to
roughly 20
At 07:43 AM 4/03/2006, Brandon Ross wrote:
On Fri, 3 Mar 2006, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
I will bet anyone reading this $ 20 USD right now that what will actually
happen is the development of a spot market in IPv4 address space.
That's a sucker bet.
What's worse is that unless people start c
On a related note, but not directly on the topic of the format of 4
Byte AS numbers, I prepared some notes about the view of 4-Byte AS
numbers from the perspective of the 2-Byte AS realm, in the format of
a presentation.
These notes may be helpful to some of the NANOG audience:
http://www.po
These notes may be helpful to some of the NANOG audience:
http://www.potaroo.net/presentations/2006-10-11-asns.pdf
Thanks! It would be very helpful if you could add slides indicating
which Cisco and Juniper versions support NEW_AS_PATH.
That's a good point Hank, thanks!
It would be very
When my zebra BGP daemin looses its grip on life and dies a horrible
death the rest to the scripts wander into a strange twilight zone and
make up numbers
sorry
(I really need to code more defensively for this type of condition!)
geoff
At 04:56 AM 11/11/2006, Fergie wrote:
Indeed -- it
heh heh
No its all amateur time round here. :-)
Geoff
At 06:17 AM 13/11/2006, Scott Morris wrote:
It sounds like government work! When something doesn't work, they just make
numbers up! (Just be sure to create more plausible numbers next time!
(smirk))
At 01:06 PM 30/11/2006, Deepak Jain wrote:
Does anyone have a current projection of when AS# (16 bit) exhaust will occur?
14 October 2010
http://www.potaroo.net/tools/asns/
regards,
Geoff
# bgpctl show rib 203.10.62.0/24
flags: * = Valid, > = Selected, I = via IBGP, A = Announced
origin: i = IGP, e = EGP, ? = Incomplete
flags destination gateway lpref med aspath origin
*>203.10.62.0/24 147.28.0.1 100 0 0.3130 0.1239
0.4637 0.4637 0.4637 0.
# bgpctl show rib 203.10.62.0/24
flags: * = Valid, > = Selected, I = via IBGP, A = Announced
origin: i = IGP, e = EGP, ? = Incomplete
flags destination gateway lpref med aspath origin
*>203.10.62.0/24 147.28.0.1 100 0 0.3130 0.1239
0.4637 0.4637 0.4637 0.
At 04:59 AM 12/01/2007, Todd Underwood wrote:
all,
we (renesys) saw as23456 adjacent to both 1221 (expected) and 65001
(not), originating two prefixes:
that was me, yes :-)
I apologise for the 65001 leak . In mitigation I can only add that it
did not last very long!
203.10.62.0/24
a
At 04:59 AM 12/01/2007, Todd Underwood wrote:
all,
we (renesys) saw as23456 adjacent to both 1221 (expected) and 65001
(not), originating two prefixes:
203.10.62.0/24
and
203.10.63.0/24
paths looked like:
7474 1221 65001 23456 23456 23456
and many similar
This particular path illustrates
At 09:04 AM 12/01/2007, MAEMURA Akinori wrote:
Hi Randy,
Yes. We can never have the knowledge of *all* BGP speakers
in the world, then keeping a 4-byte ASN announced to let
everyone observe it looks a good strategy to see what would
be happening.
The test you did has already proven that the c
At 09:33 AM 12/01/2007, Anderson, Matthew R [NTK] wrote:
One test case I would like to see is alternating 2- and 4-byte ASNs
in the path. This may be harder. E.g., AS_PATH = 1239 23456 1221
23456 23456 23456. Or how about an AS_PATH including the 4-byte ASN
placeholder (23456) whose origin
Randy Bush wrote:
and pricing in australia had nothing to do with a monopilist telco with
a rapacious plan highly well articulated and sold to the govt by an
arch-capitalist with a silver tongue?
I don't know about that. However, I do know that relatively small
isolated communities in the
Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
Southern Cross cost some US $1B to construct about a decade ago
RFS was Nov 2001. They full paid the debt from a US$1.3B cost of
construction in Oct 2005.
(see
http://www.southerncrosscables.com/public/News/newsdetail.cfm?StoryID=14)
So, they're making some V
Tom Vest wrote:
So if they don't have a billion or so dollars stored away somewhere,
they're
selling below replacement value.
With very few exceptions there's no "they"; the old "they" is gone, the
new "they" didn't take over until fairly recently, didn't bankroll the
original construction
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Thus spake "Tom Vest" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I agree, to a point. My prediction is that when the handful of
mega-ISPs are unable to get the massive quantities of IPv4 addresses
they need (a few dozen account for 90% of all
consumption in the ARIN region)...
I keep readin
Martin Hannigan wrote:
Yes, it is operational.
On 4/15/08, Fred Reimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But isn't this what nanog is for? It appears to be more on-topic than the
email threads. More E than S.
As well as 62.0.0.0/8 there is 88.0.0.0/8 (originated by AS13064, with
upstreams of
46 matches
Mail list logo
