On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 10:23 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
> but, unlike the other regions, the arin.irr is not confuddled with the
> arin.whois. i.e. it is kind of irrelevant to the authority on resource
> ownership, arin's real responsibility.
I certainly agree with this, and I am admittedly ignorant
On 1/8/2011 3:22 PM, Frank Bulk wrote:
Relay nodes are always protecting themselves by rate-limiting, aren't they?
Yes.
And isn't most media traffic relayed?
No, not at all. Almost all media traffic goes directly end-to-end by
using really good NAT traversal.
I'm not seeing how the NAT64 sc
On 1/8/2011 3:16 AM, Leen Besselink wrote:
Hello Mr. Kaufman,
In the upcoming years, we will have no IPv6 in some places and badly
performing IPv4 (CGN, etc.) with working IPv6 in others.
Right. So we're discussing just how "badly performing" the IPv4 can be
and still be acceptable as "access
On 1/8/2011 5:20 PM, Jima wrote:
On 1/7/2011 12:39 AM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
If one end is behind a NAT64 and there is no mechanism for discovering
the NAT64's IPv6 interface prefix and mapping algorithm (and at present
there is not), there is no way to send IPv6 IP packets from the
IPv6-only h
On Jan 8, 2011, at 7:08 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> Taking your prior language at face value, which you elided, it appears
>> that you have no intent of any future participation in ARIN processes.
>
> i am doing so right here and now. you just don't like my choice of
> forum and probably my messag
>>
>>
>
> If you define a new protocol version as one that means devices with
> older protocol generations of firmware/software may not interoperate
> reliably with devices with new protocol generations of
> firmware/software, then IPv4 as we know it today is probably at least
> "IPv7" - address
On Jan 8, 2011, at 1:15 PM, David Conrad wrote:
> Lee,
>
> On Jan 8, 2011, at 4:40 AM, Lee Howard wrote:
>> I think that's a bit of what we've been trying to do with the Best Current
>> Operational Practices BoFs. We need a place where operators can discuss and
>> document BCOPs.
>
> While I
> I at least think that whatever future and time-table is planned for
> RPKI, this should not stand in the way of ARIN offering an effective
> authentication mechanism for the ARIN IRR.
> ...
> I really do wonder what ARIN's plan is if a bad guy decides to forge
> emails and delete or modify some o
> Taking your prior language at face value, which you elided, it appears
> that you have no intent of any future participation in ARIN processes.
i am doing so right here and now. you just don't like my choice of
forum and probably my message. tough patooties.
randy
On Jan 9, 2011, at 12:11 AM, Sam Stickland wrote:
> Why do you say there is zero state at the server, but the not at the client?
Because every incoming connection to the server is unsolicited - therefore,
there's no pre-existing state to evaluate.
-
On 1/7/2011 12:39 AM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
If one end is behind a NAT64 and there is no mechanism for discovering
the NAT64's IPv6 interface prefix and mapping algorithm (and at present
there is not), there is no way to send IPv6 IP packets from the
IPv6-only host to IPv4 literal addresses (tha
On Fri, 07 Jan 2011 07:11:42 -0500
"Robert E. Seastrom" wrote:
>
> "Kevin Oberman" writes:
>
> >> The next ship will be departing in a hundred years or so, advance
> >> registration for the IPv7 design committee are available over there.
> >
> > Sorry, but IPv7 has come and gone. It was assig
On Fri, 7 Jan 2011 14:53:02 -0800
Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On Jan 7, 2011, at 1:28 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 7 Jan 2011 09:38:32 +
> > "Dobbins, Roland" wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On Jan 7, 2011, at 4:14 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
> >>
> >>> Doesn't this risk already exist in IPv4?
> >>
> Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2011 06:25:33 +0900
> From: Randy Bush
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: AltDB?
>
> > Let me see if I've got this right -- you think ARIN should change their
> > policies, but _you_ are not willing to put in any personal effort to make
> > it happen, right?
>
> i not put in
On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 2:47 PM, Christopher Morrow
wrote:
> I don't think rr.arin.net and RPKI have anything to do with each
> other. I think the direction the RPKI should/is taking is to have the
I at least think that whatever future and time-table is planned for
RPKI, this should not stand in t
Maybe HE would volunteer to host some Skype servers at their various POPS
for this purpose.
Skype has to start somewhere. While the v6-only population is still very
small, why not dual-stack the clients now with a heavily weighted preference
towards v4, track and understand the volume and capabil
Relay nodes are always protecting themselves by rate-limiting, aren't they?
And isn't most media traffic relayed? I'm not seeing how the NAT64 scenario
would *dramatically* increase Skype's global relay traffic. NAT64 would
currently be a very small percentage of all Skype traffic.
We can alwa
On Jan 8, 2011, at 7:39 AM, Robert Bonomi wrote:
> Let me see if I've got this right -- you think ARIN should change their
> policies,
Not policies. Operations. Or rather, how ARIN communicates and obtains buy-in
from the operational community regarding operations that affect that community.
> b
> I suspect part of the issue is that ARIN is a monopoly provider of a
> variety public services that folks unrelated (directly) to ARIN must
> make use of. In other areas of public service provision, there are
> things like public utilities commissions that (in theory) ensure the
> monopoly servic
> Let me see if I've got this right -- you think ARIN should change their
> policies, but _you_ are not willing to put in any personal effort to make
> it happen, right?
i not put in personal effort? you're kidding or really new here, right?
one underlying problem with the RIRs, ICANN, ... is t
[ and 06:00 here so i am probably also making critical errors ]
> I don't think rr.arin.net and RPKI have anything to do with each
> other. I think the direction the RPKI should/is taking is to have the
> RIR sign a ROA to the ORG that they allocate the address space to...
s/ROA/resource certifi
Lee,
On Jan 8, 2011, at 4:40 AM, Lee Howard wrote:
> I think that's a bit of what we've been trying to do with the Best Current
> Operational Practices BoFs. We need a place where operators can discuss and
> document BCOPs.
While I think BCOPs (and BCOP BoFs) are a great idea, I guess the ques
On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 2:58 PM, Abhijit Phanse wrote:
> Could you please remove all @unitedlayer.com addresses from this
> distribution.
>
> Thanks in advance.
I think you mean to ask this of nanog-admin ... though honestly
@unitedlayer.com folks CAN request that themselves (with the
associated m
On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 1:10 PM, Jon Lewis wrote:
> Getting back to the original topic...sort of:
thanks!
> [1] Don't care is probably too strong. At this point in time, I don't think
> it makes sense to get hung up on it and refuse to do any authentication if
> we're not doing RPKI, but not imp
Tarig Yassin Ahmed
On Jan 7, 2011, at 10:45 PM, Anthony Pardini wrote:
You can allow asymmetric traffic on the Fortinet, but you lose some
functionality. Firewalls aren't routers and pretty much all of them
behave in the similar manner.
Hi
I think u can solve this issue only by addin
Getting back to the original topic...sort of:
Looking at the data from altdb, it's not as widely used as I'd have
guessed. There are 461 mntner objects. Of these, 268 use MAIL-FROM
authentication. 192 use CRYPT-PW. At least those are the split if you
look at just the first auth: for each m
> Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2011 18:08:12 +0900
> From: Randy Bush
> Subject: Re: AltDB?
>
>
> aha! there we go. the old ietf attitude. you come to the mountain.
>
> well, i'll tell you what i told the ietf. the high and mighty mountain
> can bite my ass.
Let me see if I've got this right -- you th
> Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2011 18:17:55 +0900
> From: Randy Bush
>
> let me be a bit more clear on this
thanks.
> o you affect the operational community, you talk with (not to) the
> operational community where the operational community talks
i think arin does this today. certainly that is th
On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 2:00 AM, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
>
>
> If it's inappropriately placed in front of servers, where's there's no
> state to inspect and were the stateful nature of the device in and of itself
> forms a DoS vector, it has negative security value; i.e., it makes things
> far worse
> From: David Conrad
> Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2011 23:11:32 -1000
>
> On Jan 7, 2011, at 10:24 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
> > the price of changing what ARIN does is, at a minimum: participation.
>
> Another view is that ARIN's whole and sole reason for being is to
> provide services to the network operato
My email: astr...@gmail.com
> -Original Message-
> From: David Conrad [mailto:d...@virtualized.org]
>
> The definition of what comes under the "public policy mailing list"
umbrella has always been
> a bit confusing to me. Too bad something like the APNIC SIGs and RIPE
Working Groups
> don't really exist in the ARI
> example, considering that arin is managing a public resource for the
> community, why are bot meetings not streamed a la cspan?
Having watched Congress on CSPAN, and heard reports about open
ICANN Board meetings, it looks to me like making deliberative
meetings public means nothing substantive
[ vix, apologies for giving you both barrels. you unintentionally
pushed a hot button or two ]
> Randy, what is the model you have in mind for running a routing
> registry infrastructure that is sustainable and trustworthy enough for
> uses such as RPKI, i.e. who could/should be running it?
t
Randy Bush writes:
> one difference in north america from the other 'regions' is that there
> is a strong and very separate operator community and forum. this does
> not really exist in the other regions. ripe ate the eof years ago.
> apops is dormant aside from [...]
Right.
> observe that the
On 01/07/2011 03:57 AM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
> On 1/6/2011 6:34 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>> On 1/6/11 5:48 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> Doesn't all of this become moot if Skype just develops a dual-stack
>>> capable client
>>> and servers?
>> Really, only some fraction of the supernodes and the logi
>> the price of changing what ARIN does is, at a minimum: participation.
> aha! there we go. the old ietf attitude. you come to the mountain.
> well, i'll tell you what i told the ietf. the high and mighty mountain
> can bite my ass.
let me be a bit more clear on this
o you affect the opera
Paul,
On Jan 7, 2011, at 10:24 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
> the price of changing what ARIN does is, at a minimum: participation.
Another view is that ARIN's whole and sole reason for being is to provide
services to the network operators in the ARIN region. As such, it would be
ill-advised for ARIN
> the price of changing what ARIN does is, at a minimum: participation.
aha! there we go. the old ietf attitude. you come to the mountain.
well, i'll tell you what i told the ietf. the high and mighty mountain
can bite my ass.
randy
> From: David Conrad
> Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2011 21:01:52 -1000
>
> > do you have a specific proposal? i've noted in the past that arin tries
> > hard to stick to its knitting, which is allocation and allocation policy.
>
> Yes. This is a positive (IMHO), however it seems that occasionally,
> ARIN's
>> one difference in north america from the other 'regions' is that there
>> is a strong and very separate operator community and forum.
> Right. However, it seems to me that this strong separation has led to
> exactly the problem you raised. The issue, as far as I can tell, is
> that there are f
>> first, it would really help if the arin bot and management were much
>> more open about these issues and decisions. at the detailed level. we
>> are all not fools out here, present company excepted :). for a radical
>> example, considering that arin is managing a public resource for the
>> co
Randy,
On Jan 7, 2011, at 9:31 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
> one difference in north america from the other 'regions' is that there
> is a strong and very separate operator community and forum.
Right. However, it seems to me that this strong separation has led to exactly
the problem you raised. The i
> Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2011 15:47:51 +0900
> From: Randy Bush
> ...
> more recent rumors, and john's posting here, seem to indicate that
> ...
even to the extent that i know what's really happened or happening, i'd
be loathe to comment on rumours. i have high confidence in arin's board
and staff, a
45 matches
Mail list logo
