RE: Comcast IPv6 Trials

> -Original Message- > From: Kevin Oberman [mailto:ober...@es.net] > Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 9:56 PM > To: George Bonser > Cc: William McCall; nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: Comcast IPv6 Trials > SWAG is wrong. Comcast is a major cable TV, telephone (VoIP), and > Internet prov

Re: Comcast IPv6 Trials

> Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 20:59:16 -0800 > From: "George Bonser" > > > -Original Message- > > From: William McCall > > Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 7:51 PM > > Subject: Re: Comcast IPv6 Trials > > > > Saw this today too. This is a good step forward for adoption. Without > > going to

Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links

On Jan 27, 2010, at 3:19 PM, Igor Gashinsky wrote: you face 2 major issues with not using /127 for PtP-type circuits: 1) ping-ponging of packets on Sonet/SDH links Let's say you put 2001:db8::0/64 and 2001:db8::1/64 on a PtP interface, and somebody comes along and ping floods

Re: Comcast IPv6 Trials

On 1/27/2010 15:19, John Jason Brzozowski wrote: > On 1/27/10 5:00 PM, "Bill Fehring" wrote: > >> On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 12:52, John Jason Brzozowski >> wrote: >>> There was an adjustment that was required on our end. It is in place. >> Great, got it working, thanks! ...partially Safari/OSX's

Re: Comcast IPv6 Trials

- Original Message - From: "John Jason Brzozowski" To: "Steven Bellovin" Cc: Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 5:12 PM Subject: Re: Comcast IPv6 Trials Thanks. Initially it would be ideal (even preferred) to target trial subscribers with greater IPv6 awareness. The technical team

RE: Comcast IPv6 Trials

> -Original Message- > From: William McCall > Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 7:51 PM > Subject: Re: Comcast IPv6 Trials > > Saw this today too. This is a good step forward for adoption. Without > going too far, what was the driving factor/selling point to moving > towards this trial?

Re: Comcast IPv6 Trials

Saw this today too. This is a good step forward for adoption. Without going too far, what was the driving factor/selling point to moving towards this trial? -- William McCall On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 1:23 PM, John Jason Brzozowski wrote: > Folks, > > I am emailing you today to share some news th

Re: Comcast IPv6 Trials

On 1/27/10 5:00 PM, "Bill Fehring" wrote: > On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 12:52, John Jason Brzozowski > wrote: >> There was an adjustment that was required on our end.  It is in place. > Great, got it working, thanks! ...partially Safari/OSX's fault, but > mostly mine for not realizing what was goin

Re: Comcast IPv6 Trials

Thanks. Initially it would be ideal (even preferred) to target trial subscribers with greater IPv6 awareness. The technical team will absolutely remain engaged as part of the support process. HTH, John On 1/27/10 5:50 PM, "Steven Bellovin" wrote: > Wonderful! > > In all seriousness, will a

Re: Countries with the most botnets

The CBL has stats too - http://cbl.abuseat.org/totalflow.html - total spamtrap flow http://cbl.abuseat.org/country.html - by country (india leads the pack yay?) http://cbl.abuseat.org/domain.html - by ISP On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 4:37 AM, Steven Bellovin wrote: > A colleague needs to know, along

Re: Countries with the most botnets

Team Cymru seems to put out a lot of information in their newsletters about where bots are, e.g. this article about the locations of botnet controllers: On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 6:07 PM, Steven Bellovin wrote: > A

Re: Comcast IPv6 Trials

On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 2:50 PM, Steven Bellovin wrote: > Wonderful! > > In all seriousness, will any attempt be made to select trial applicants > based on (apparent) clue level and/or to receive feedback through channels > other than the usual Tier 1 support? > >From http://www.comcast6.net/faq.

RE: Countries with the most botnets

The Conficker data would be one empirical source you can look at. You have a break down by ASN and Country: http://www.shadowserver.org/wiki/pmwiki.php/Stats/Conficker > -Original Message- > From: Steven Bellovin [mailto:s...@cs.columbia.edu] > Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 3:08 PM >

Countries with the most botnets

A colleague needs to know, along with citable sources if possible. Ideally - number of zombified PCs, percentage of zombified PCs, name of nation, source. Threat reports from symantec and macafee suggest the US leads, with China a very close second. Yes, we realize that answers will be imperfect

Re: Comcast IPv6 Trials

Wonderful! In all seriousness, will any attempt be made to select trial applicants based on (apparent) clue level and/or to receive feedback through channels other than the usual Tier 1 support?

Next Generation Leaders (NGL) programme

All - This program is a nice opportunity for newer entrants to the Internet community. If you know someone who might benefit, please pass this along. Thanks - - Lucy -- Forwarded message -- Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 12:48:31 -0500 From: Connie Kendig To: ly...@isoc.org Subject: R

Re: Comcast IPv6 Trials

On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 11:23 AM, John Jason Brzozowski wrote: > Folks, > > I am emailing you today to share some news that we hope you will find > interesting. > > Today we are announcing our 2010 IPv6 trial plans.  For more information > please visit the following web site: > > http://www.comcas

Re: Comcast IPv6 Trials

On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 12:52, John Jason Brzozowski wrote: > There was an adjustment that was required on our end.  It is in place. Great, got it working, thanks! ...partially Safari/OSX's fault, but mostly mine for not realizing what was going on quickly enough. > Do you have any form of IPv6

Re: 1/8 and 27/8 allocated to APNIC

leo, This is done, you should see it propogating. regards, darren On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 08:58:30AM -0800, Leo Vegoda wrote: > On 22 Jan 2010, at 7:16, William Allen Simpson wrote: > > [...] > > >> http://blog.icann.org/2009/09/selecting-which-8-to-allocate-to-an-rir/ > >> > > Bec

RE: DDoS mitigation recommendations

Hi, On Tue, 2010-01-26 at 09:56 -0800, Gerald Wluka wrote: > > I am new to this mailing list - this should be a response to an already > started thread that I cannot see: > Welcome to NANOG! > > > IntelliguardIT has a new class of network appliance that installs inline > (layer 2 appliance)

Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links

:: > If a worst-case situation arises, and you have to peer with a device that :: > doesn't properly support /127's, you can always fall back to using /126's :: > or even /64's on those few links (this is why we reserved a /64 for every :: > link from the begining).. :: :: If this is the case,

Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links

On 28/01/2010, at 1:51 AM, Randy Bush wrote: the general intent of a class B allocation is that it is large enough for nearly everybody, with nearly everybody including all but the largest of organisations. >>> That would, indeed, work if we weren't short of class B networks >>> to

Re: Comcast IPv6 Trials

There was an adjustment that was required on our end. It is in place. Do you have any form of IPv6 connectivity? If yes, this is why you are seeing the same portal. This will clear up shortly. John On 1/27/10 3:47 PM, "Bill Fehring" wrote: > On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 11:23, John Jason Brzozo

Re: Comcast IPv6 Trials

On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 11:23, John Jason Brzozowski wrote: > Folks, > > I am emailing you today to share some news that we hope you will find > interesting. > > Today we are announcing our 2010 IPv6 trial plans.  For more information > please visit the following web site: > > http://www.comcast6.

Comcast IPv6 Trials

Folks, I am emailing you today to share some news that we hope you will find interesting. Today we are announcing our 2010 IPv6 trial plans. For more information please visit the following web site: http://www.comcast6.net We have also made available a partial, dual-stack version of our portal

Re: DDoS mitigation recommendations

On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 09:56:14 PST, Gerald Wluka said: > To date the company has over-invested in technology and under-invested in > sales and marketing. That is changing now: the company is moving to The Bay > Area. Hate to say this, but that change is hardly a selling point to this crowd. ;) pg

Re: L-Root Maintenance 2010-01-27 1800 UTC - 2000 UTC

Hello World, L-Root has completed it's maintenance and now serving DURZ. You can observe L-Root DSC Stats by visiting http://stats.l.root-servers.org Please contact L-Root NOC via email n...@dns.icann.org or T: +1.310.301.5817 if you have any questions Please contact roots...@icann.org if you h

RE: Using /126 for IPv6 router links

> -Original Message- > From: Grzegorz Janoszka [mailto:grzeg...@janoszka.pl] > Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 12:10 > To: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links > > On 27-1-2010 2:16, Steve Bertrand wrote: > > ip address x.x.x.x 255.255.255.252 > > ipv6 addr

Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links

On 1/27/2010 5:09 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: On Jan 27, 2010, at 2:38 AM, Randy Bush wrote: The general intent of the /48 allocation is that it is large enough for nearly everybody, with nearly everybody including all but the largest of organisations. the general intent of a class B allocation i

Re: Foundry CLI manual?

If you have older foundry gear (IronCore, JetCore, MG8) do a google search for "Using Packet Over SONET Modules". Jonas On Sat, 2010-01-23 at 16:51, David Hubbard wrote: > Anyone have the Foundry/Brocade CLI reference PDF > they could send me? Brocade feels you should have a > support contract t

Re: L-Root Maintenance 2010-01-27 1800 UTC - 2000 UTC

Hello, L-Root maintenance is starting in 30 mins ( 2010-01-27 1800 UTC ) Regards Joe Abley / Mehmet Akcin / Dave Knight ICANN DNS Ops / L-ROOT >> Hi >> >> As part of staged, incremental deployment of DNSSEC in the root >> zone L-Root will begin serving a Deliberately Unvalidatable >> Root Zone

Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links

On 27-1-2010 2:16, Steve Bertrand wrote: ip address x.x.x.x 255.255.255.252 ipv6 address 2607:F118:x:x::/64 eui-64 ipv6 nd suppress-ra ipv6 ospf 1 area 0.0.0.0 I've found that this setup, in conjunction with iBGP peering between loopback /128's works well. When OSPFv3 goes down and you

Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links

On 1/26/2010 23:32, Mark Smith wrote: > > A minor data point to this, Linux looks to be implementing the > subnet-router anycast address when IPv6 forwarding is enabled, as it's > specifying Solicited-Node multicast address membership for the > all zeros node address in it's MLD announcements when

Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links

On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 00:26:34 +1100 Mark Andrews wrote: > > In message , Randy Bush writes: > > >>> the general intent of a class B allocation is that it is large enough > > >>> for nearly everybody, with nearly everybody including all but the > > >>> largest of organisations. > > >> That would,

Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links

In message , Randy Bush writes: > >>> the general intent of a class B allocation is that it is large enough > >>> for nearly everybody, with nearly everybody including all but the > >>> largest of organisations. > >> That would, indeed, work if we weren't short of class B networks > >> to assign.

Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links

>>> the general intent of a class B allocation is that it is large enough >>> for nearly everybody, with nearly everybody including all but the >>> largest of organisations. >> That would, indeed, work if we weren't short of class B networks >> to assign. > Would you clarify? Seriously? we used to

Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links

On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 23:08:36 +1030 Mark Smith wrote: > On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 03:09:11 -0800 > Owen DeLong wrote: > > > > > On Jan 27, 2010, at 2:38 AM, Randy Bush wrote: > > > > >> The general intent of the /48 allocation is that it is large enough for > > >> nearly everybody, with nearly every

Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links

On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 03:09:11 -0800 Owen DeLong wrote: > > On Jan 27, 2010, at 2:38 AM, Randy Bush wrote: > > >> The general intent of the /48 allocation is that it is large enough for > >> nearly everybody, with nearly everybody including all but the largest > >> of organisations. > > > > the

Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links

Igor Gashinsky wrote: > On Wed, 27 Jan 2010, Pekka Savola wrote: > > :: On Tue, 26 Jan 2010, Igor Gashinsky wrote: > :: > Matt meant "reserve/assign a /64 for each PtP link, but only configure > the > :: > first */127* of the link", as that's the only way to fully mitigate the > :: > scanning-typ

Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links

On Jan 27, 2010, at 2:38 AM, Randy Bush wrote: >> The general intent of the /48 allocation is that it is large enough for >> nearly everybody, with nearly everybody including all but the largest >> of organisations. > > the general intent of a class B allocation is that it is large enough > for

Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links

> The general intent of the /48 allocation is that it is large enough for > nearly everybody, with nearly everybody including all but the largest > of organisations. the general intent of a class B allocation is that it is large enough for nearly everybody, with nearly everybody including all but

RE: Using /126 for IPv6 router links

On Wed, 27 Jan 2010, Pekka Savola wrote: :: On Tue, 26 Jan 2010, Igor Gashinsky wrote: :: > Matt meant "reserve/assign a /64 for each PtP link, but only configure the :: > first */127* of the link", as that's the only way to fully mitigate the :: > scanning-type attacks (with a /126, there is stil

Re: Ethernet Services cards types & queue values

Burak, The idea is that you use the high queue cards as UNI ports terminating customers, where you would have many service instances and complex QOS policies such hierarchical shaping and multiple classes per customer. On the core links you would usually need less queues as you would have a gener