On 10/02/2011 06:15, Ricky Beam wrote:
On Wed, 09 Feb 2011 16:42:14 -0500, Nathan Eisenberg nat...@atlasnetworks.us
wrote:
What do you mean, lit up? You mean they're not in the routing tables that
you
get from your carriers? I'd argue that's no indication of whether they're in
use or not.
George Bonser gbon...@seven.com writes:
In other words, the broadband provider provides a single global IP to
the always up CPE. That CPE does DHCP to user stations and hands out
1918 addresses and NATs them to the single global IP.
Ah there is the misunderstanding. Same her in good old
2011/2/10 Jack Bates jba...@brightok.net
On 2/9/2011 8:21 PM, Fred Richards wrote:
Mine is.
Well?
http://www.cidr-report.org/cgi-bin/as-report?as=8025view=2.0v=6
Love that tool!
Jack
Love that one :
http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/dfp/all/
--
Pierre-Yves Maunier
Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org writes:
DS-Lite over 6rd using RFC 1918 / multi-use ISP assigned block
(I'd love to be able to say class E here) provides a single NAT
translation for IPv4 and public IPv6.
Okay, it's 10:15 in the morning and I really want a drink know. ;-)
Jens
--
In article
7000830.352.1297276636748.javamail.fra...@franck-martins-macbook-pro.loc
al, Franck Martin fra...@genius.com writes
You missed the IPv6 hour at Nanog42:
http://www.civil-tongue.net/grandx/wiki/nanog42
https://wiki.tools.isoc.org/IETF71_IPv4_Outage
May be another one is needed?
Jack Bates jba...@brightok.net writes:
Hi,
a little late, but just catching up the list.
Has anyone seen issues with IOS where certain MACs fail?
54:52:00 (kvm) fails out an old 10mbit port on a 7206 running 12.2
SRE. I've never seen anything like this. DHCP worked, ARP worked, and
arp
Looking for feedback/recommendations on higher density Switch’s in the
10GBASE-T arena.
Preferably TOR switches if possible.
Minimum 16 ports usable for Rack Server connectivity + Uplinks to Collapsed
Twin Distro/Core setup.
Found the Arista 7X00 family to have the density I am looking for but
Jens Link li...@quux.de writes:
Okay, it's 10:15 in the morning and I really want a drink know. ;-)
s/know/now/
I think I'll need more coffee.
Jens
--
-
| Foelderichstr. 40 | 13595 Berlin, Germany|
On Feb 10, 2011, at 1:10 AM, Frank Bulk wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean -- once the ISP identifies CPE that works on
their network, couldn't early adopters who are interested in the technology
be pointed to a short list?
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Cutler James R
On 10 feb 2011, at 0:26, David Freedman wrote:
Unless every packet you emit is ≤ the minimum MTU (1280), then, you need
to be able to receive TOOBIG messages.
Can you think of a packet type I will emit from my publically numbered
backbone interface which may solicit a TOOBIG that I'll have
On 10 feb 2011, at 1:52, Jeff McAdams wrote:
I've always worked in small to middle sized shops, and I have always found
that I've been able to yell and scream about IPv6 (and other features) loud
enough, and long enough that I get heard by someone in a decision making
position for product
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 10 feb 2011, at 0:26, David Freedman wrote:
Unless every packet you emit is ≤ the minimum MTU (1280), then, you need
to be able to receive TOOBIG messages.
Can you think of a packet type I will emit from my publically numbered
backbone interface which may
On Feb 10, 2011, at 1:26 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
The problem is conversations like this:
ATT Customer Service: ATT uVerse, how can I help you?
Customer: Yes, I have uVerse service and I'd like to get IPv6.
ATT Customer Service: I pea vee what? Is this a prank call?
Owen
The ATT
On Thu, 2011-02-10 at 09:33 +, Roberts, Brent wrote:
Looking for feedback/recommendations on higher density Switch’s in the
10GBASE-T arena.
Preferably TOR switches if possible.
Minimum 16 ports usable for Rack Server connectivity + Uplinks to
Collapsed Twin Distro/Core setup.
Found the
On Feb 10, 2011, at 12:15 AM, Ricky Beam wrote:
On Wed, 09 Feb 2011 16:42:14 -0500, Nathan Eisenberg
nat...@atlasnetworks.us wrote:
What do you mean, lit up? You mean they're not in the routing tables that
you get from your carriers? I'd argue that's no indication of whether
they're in
On 2/10/2011 1:49 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Yeah, this is a sure path to having all of them say exactly that in
unison. Do you want to be right? Or would you prefer to be effective?
I think he wants to know which bogons will continue to be safe to use. :P
Jack
On Feb 9, 2011, at 6:01 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
On 2/9/2011 5:56 PM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
Or 6rd and go native on their permanent prefix as the forklift upgrade
schedule allows. Oh well, it's better than nothing or Crummier Grade NAT.
ds-lite tends to be friendlier LSN from various
On 2/9/11 10:32 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Feb 9, 2011, at 3:08 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
I disagree... I think that offering alternate name space views to the existing
{b,m}illions of v4 addressed spindles requires IPv6 reachability as well since
those will also be adding IPv6
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 09:33:50AM +, Roberts, Brent wrote:
Looking for feedback/recommendations on higher density Switch’s in the
10GBASE-T arena.
Preferably TOR switches if possible.
Minimum 16 ports usable for Rack Server connectivity + Uplinks to Collapsed
Twin Distro/Core setup.
Juniper EX4500 has 40 fixed SFP/SFP+ ports plus 2 uplink modules that
can contain 4 SFP/SFP+ ports each for a total of 48 10GBASE-X ports.
Need to buy SFP+ modules or use direct-attach SFP+ cables though.
And is now shipping with a model that can stack and/or join a EX4200 VC stack.
It's
HI Geroge,
Thanks for the input. Appreciate some more info wrt TCAM usuage if possible.
Another thought, I agree ip schema is individual preference, but I want to
know the best practise (vague term best practice). Personally even I am in
favor of /64 p-t-p.
Regards,
Vikas
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 01:13:49 -0600
From: Jimmy Hess mysi...@gmail.com
With them not requiring a /8 in the first place (after CIDR); one
begins to wonder how much of their /8 allocations they actually
touched in any meaningful way.
i expect that after final depletion there will be some
On Feb 10, 2011, at 10:28 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
T-mobile USA has a nationwide ipv6 beta. You can google it. Regarding iphone,
its more an iPhone issue than anything else
Nope its ATT. My iPhone works fine on IPv6. I connect wifi at home and can go
anywhere but on on ATT wireless.
Tom
On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 12:15:52 GMT, David Freedman said:
these people are doing this by design, I think thats the point I'm
trying to get across, if you will never need to process TOOBIG in your
design, there is no need to accept it.
And how many networks break PMTUD because their design says
On 2/10/11 7:42 AM, TR Shaw wrote:
On Feb 10, 2011, at 10:28 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
T-mobile USA has a nationwide ipv6 beta. You can google it.
Regarding iphone, its more an iPhone issue than anything else
Nope its ATT. My iPhone works fine on IPv6. I connect wifi at home
and can go
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 01:13:49AM -0600, Jimmy Hess wrote:
Perhaps the RIRs should personally and directly ask each /8 legacy
holder to provide
account of their utilization (which portions of the allocation is
used, how many hosts),
and ASK for each unused /22 [or shorter] to be
On 2/10/2011 8:36 AM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
DS-lite is still CGN.
It is still LSN, but it is not NAT444, and the failure rate reduces
because of that. Also, DS-Lite guarantees that you have IPv6
connectivity. NAT444 makes no such assertion.
Jack
On Monday, February 07, 2011 04:33:23 am Owen DeLong wrote:
1.Scanning even an entire /64 at 1,000 pps will take
18,446,744,073,709,551 seconds
which is 213,503,982,334 days or 584,542,000 years.
I would posit that since most networks cannot absorb a 1,000 pps attack
even
On Feb 10, 2011, at 9:53 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
On 2/10/2011 8:36 AM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
DS-lite is still CGN.
It is still LSN, but it is not NAT444, and the failure rate reduces because
of that. Also, DS-Lite guarantees that you have IPv6 connectivity. NAT444
makes no such
On 2/10/2011 10:05 AM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
DS-lite *uses* IPv6 connectivity, it doesn't provide it. That's like
saying 6rd or 6to4 guarantees you have IPv4 connectivity.
Who in their right mind would feed IPv6 to a CPE, deploy a CPE that
supports DS-Lite, and NOT give out prefixes?
On 2/9/2011 9:15 PM, Ricky Beam wrote:
On Wed, 09 Feb 2011 16:42:14 -0500, Nathan Eisenberg
nat...@atlasnetworks.us wrote:
What do you mean, lit up? You mean they're not in the routing tables
that you get from your carriers? I'd argue that's no indication of
whether they're in use or not.
Not quite sure what the issue is, but I suspect Comcast announcements
are not quite right?
Trying to get from Verizon Business to a Comcast address in NH (on
75.15.64.0/18), and it's going through San Jose.
Anyone else having similar issues or suggestions? Opened a ticket with
Comcast, but they
Sorry, my typo. The Net is 75.150.64.0/18
-Original Message-
From: Wallace Keith
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2011 12:20 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Comcast BGP issue?
Not quite sure what the issue is, but I suspect Comcast announcements
are not quite right?
Trying to get from
I'm noticing an increase in getting query rate exceeded at whois
services that might be connected to a symptom described by ARIN at
NANOG 48/ARIN XXV and ARIN XXVI where machines ask for the whois
record of their own IP address.
Are there any clues of what is causing this ?
Rubens
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 10:05:54AM -0500, Chuck Anderson wrote:
Juniper EX4500 has 40 fixed SFP/SFP+ ports plus 2 uplink modules that
can contain 4 SFP/SFP+ ports each for a total of 48 10GBASE-X ports.
Be aware, that IGMP snooping breaks some(!) IPv6 multicast (e.g.
DHCPv6). Affects whole
Why does ARIN require detailed usage of IPv4 space when requesting IPv6
space? Seems completely irrelevant to me.
--
Adam Webb
EN ES Team
desk: 816.737.9717
cell: 916.949.1345
---
The biggest secret of innovation is that anyone can do it.
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 08:33:43PM +0100, Daniel Roesen wrote:
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 10:05:54AM -0500, Chuck Anderson wrote:
Juniper EX4500 has 40 fixed SFP/SFP+ ports plus 2 uplink modules that
can contain 4 SFP/SFP+ ports each for a total of 48 10GBASE-X ports.
Be aware, that IGMP
We requested our initial allocation without any such questions. Is this
your initial or additional?
Nick Olsen
Network Operations
(855) FLSPEED x106
From: adw...@dstsystems.com
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2011 2:38 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: ARIN
On Wed, Feb 09, 2011 at 03:43:35PM -0500, Jared Mauch wrote:
Jack (hates all routers equally, doesn't matter who makes it)
Welcome to the life of being a network operator. :)
That's called carrier grade these days by all those vendors! :-)
SCNR,
Daniel
--
CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber:
Initial. Documenting IPv4 usage is in the request template.
--
Adam Webb
From:
Nick Olsen n...@flhsi.com
To:
nanog@nanog.org
Date:
02/10/2011 01:45 PM
Subject:
re: ARIN and IPv6 Requests
We requested our initial allocation without any such questions. Is this
your initial or additional?
On Thu, 2011-02-10 at 20:33 +0100, Daniel Roesen wrote:
Be aware, that IGMP snooping breaks some(!) IPv6 multicast (e.g.
DHCPv6). Affects whole EX-series and current plan is to fix it sometime
end of year (Q4 release). If you use IPv4 multicast and need IGMP
snooping to prevent flooding and
Can someone with the box.net engineering group email me off list.
I have a peering issue with you guys at any2 in socal.
Thanks,
Drew
On Feb 10, 2011, at 7:00 AM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
On 2/9/11 10:32 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Feb 9, 2011, at 3:08 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
I disagree... I think that offering alternate name space views to the
existing {b,m}illions of v4 addressed spindles requires IPv6
On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 17:27:26 -0200
Rubens Kuhl rube...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm noticing an increase in getting query rate exceeded at whois
services that might be connected to a symptom described by ARIN at
NANOG 48/ARIN XXV and ARIN XXVI where machines ask for the whois
record of their own IP
It also looks like there isn't a policy for orgs with multiple
multihomed sites to get a /48 per site. Is there an exception policy
somewhere?
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 12:50 PM, adw...@dstsystems.com wrote:
Initial. Documenting IPv4 usage is in the request template.
--
Adam Webb
From:
Don't remember about the v4 part, but 3 years ago they issued me a /48,
specifically for my first site and indicated that a block was reserved for
additional sites. I can probably dig that up.
Sent from my iPad
On Feb 10, 2011, at 12:18 PM, Jason Iannone jason.iann...@gmail.com wrote:
It
Hi,
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 06:52:07AM +1100, Karl Auer wrote:
Not disagreeing, I've never met this device, just curious about the
problem and wondering if it is a generic class of problem.
Is this device supposed to be IPv6-capable?
We're using EX switches currently only in L2-only roles,
I'm noticing an increase in getting query rate exceeded at whois
services that might be connected to a symptom described by ARIN at
NANOG 48/ARIN XXV and ARIN XXVI where machines ask for the whois
record of their own IP address.
Are there any clues of what is causing this ?
Some spam bots
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 2:38 PM, adw...@dstsystems.com wrote:
Why does ARIN require detailed usage of IPv4 space when requesting IPv6
space? Seems completely irrelevant to me.
Hi Adam,
I think it's a basic who are you and why are you speaking to us?
question. If ARIN already knows you from
On Feb 10, 2011, at 7:53 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
On Monday, February 07, 2011 04:33:23 am Owen DeLong wrote:
1. Scanning even an entire /64 at 1,000 pps will take
18,446,744,073,709,551 seconds
which is 213,503,982,334 days or 584,542,000 years.
I would posit that since most
On Feb 10, 2011, at 8:05 AM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
On Feb 10, 2011, at 9:53 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
On 2/10/2011 8:36 AM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
DS-lite is still CGN.
It is still LSN, but it is not NAT444, and the failure rate reduces because
of that. Also, DS-Lite guarantees that
From: William Herrin [mailto:b...@herrin.us]
* Carrier NAT...
I spend most of my days fighting with carriers to actually carry bits from
point A to point B like they're paid to do.
I'm sick and tired of them blaming CPE for circuit bounces and outages that are
magically fixed without us
On Feb 10, 2011, at 2:58 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
In terms of CGN44 versus NAT444, I'd like to see evidence of something that
breaks in NAT444 but not CGN44. People seem to have a gut expectation that
this is the case, and I'm open to the possibility. But testing aimed at
demonstrating
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 6:11 PM, Fred Richards fr...@geexology.org wrote:
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 6:47 PM, George Bonser gbon...@seven.com wrote:
I have yet to see a broadband provider that configures a network so that
individual nodes in the home network get global IPs.
One huge reason to
Hello NANOGers -
What considerations should be made with respect to implementing egress
filtering based on source IPv6 addresses? Things like allowing traffic
sourced from fe80::/10 in said filters for on-link communication (for the
interface that the filter is applied to). Is there anything
On 2/10/2011 3:19 PM, George Herbert wrote:
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 6:11 PM, Fred Richardsfr...@geexology.org wrote:
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 6:47 PM, George Bonsergbon...@seven.com wrote:
I have yet to see a broadband provider that configures a network so that
individual nodes in the home
On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 01:35:42 -0500, Matthew Moyle-Croft
m...@internode.com.au wrote:
Because it is a waste of time and money.
That's an assertion I've heard, but has anyone quantified it? ...
Not that I've ever seen. All the bitching I've seen here and elsewhere
boils down to it being
In message acd7c570039e58b67bbf64e467f4b12b@192.168.152.50, Ryan Rawdon writes
:
Hello NANOGers -
What considerations should be made with respect to implementing egress
filtering based on source IPv6 addresses? Things like allowing traffic
sourced from fe80::/10 in said filters for
On 10 feb 2011, at 22:34, Ryan Rawdon wrote:
What considerations should be made with respect to implementing egress
filtering based on source IPv6 addresses? Things like allowing traffic
sourced from fe80::/10 in said filters for on-link communication (for the
interface that the filter is
On Thu, 10 Feb 2011, Ryan Rawdon wrote:
What considerations should be made with respect to implementing egress
filtering based on source IPv6 addresses? Things like allowing traffic
sourced from fe80::/10 in said filters for on-link communication (for the
interface that the filter is applied
Some policies allow you to use your IPv4 usage as justification of your need
for IPv6. If you are applying under one of those policies, you need to fill in
that information. If you are applying under a different qualification criteria,
I believe you can leave that section blank.
Owen
On Feb 10,
From the NRPM:
6.11. IPv6 Multiple Discrete Networks
Organizations with multiple discrete IPv6 networks desiring to request new or
additional address space under a single Organization ID must meet the following
criteria:
The organization shall be a single entity and not a consortium of
But how is it relevant? Ever? It's like a bank asking you to justify your
need for a loan by asking you how many apples you can pick in an hour.
--
Adam Webb
From:
Owen DeLong o...@delong.com
To:
adw...@dstsystems.com
Cc:
nanog@nanog.org
Date:
02/10/2011 04:10 PM
Subject:
Re: ARIN and IPv6
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 10:55 PM, Jack Bates jba...@brightok.net wrote:
On 2/10/2011 12:42 AM, Scott Weeks wrote:
Prefixes Originated (v6): 4
Why 4?
Click on the v6 prefixes tab and look at them. There's a US, Taiwan and
Europe /32's, and then one additional /48 out of the US /32.
Jack
Hello Adam:
You may want to post this on the ARIN PPML list since the policy folks are all
there. They will be able to point your directly to the portion of the NPRM
that applies. In addition, this would be the appropriate list to submit policy
changes if you don't like the way things are
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 5:23 PM, adw...@dstsystems.com wrote:
But how is it relevant? Ever? It's like a bank asking you to justify your
need for a loan by asking you how many apples you can pick in an hour.
You're asking for a loan to plant an orchard. Oranges this time, but
you've only ever
On Feb 10, 2011, at 11:46 AM, Ricky Beam wrote:
Had they started the process a deacde ago instead of complaining that it's
too much work, not worth it, etc., etc., then some of it might have been
reclaimed by now.
How about 15 years ago: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1917
Regards,
-drc
Hello All:
The NANOG website and NANOG mailing list will be unavailable during the times
listed below. There is an issue with the present location within the
University of Michigan environment that requires a physical move of the NANOG
servers to a discrete location. We apologize for the
In message 4d53fd00.40...@ispalliance.net, Scott Helms writes:
On 2/9/2011 7:22 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
And some of their customers have been asking for IPv6 all along.
I started asking my ISP at home in 2003. I suspect if all the ISPs
here were honest they would say that they have
I'd argue that all TLD registries should be reachable over IPv6 by
now and all TLD should be reachable over IPv6 by now. It's not
that hard nor is it any more expensive. It just requires will to
turn it on.
Requiring that new TLDs and the registry infrastucture be reachable
over IPv6 from day
On Thu, 10 Feb 2011, Ryan Rawdon wrote:
Hello NANOGers -
What considerations should be made with respect to implementing egress
filtering based on source IPv6 addresses? Things like allowing traffic
sourced from fe80::/10 in said filters for on-link communication (for the
interface that the
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 11:07:26AM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
Double NAT prevents most of the work arounds working.
And quite important for residential ISPs of some size: have fun teaching
your call centers diagnosing double-NAT failure modes.
NAT444 is a hell I don't want to visit really.
On Wed, Feb 09, 2011 at 06:01:46PM -0600, Jack Bates wrote:
ds-lite tends to be friendlier LSN from various tests,
Any pointers to study reports etc. heartly welcome.
Best regards,
Daniel
--
CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: d...@cluenet.de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
Here's the template we just completed last week, and we received our /32
minimum allocation within a couple of days. No justification for initial
allocation, only subsequent v6 allocations.
https://www.arin.net/resources/templates/v6-isp.txt
Jens Link wrote:
I never thought it was that bad. In some 3G/wireless networks in Germany
the providers use NAT and transparent HTTP-proxy. But this is only
wireless. I'm not aware of any DSL or Cable provider NATing their
customers.
I guess in the early days of DSL and Cable internet this
On Wed, Feb 09, 2011 at 04:42:01PM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
Actually Comcast is willing to give out more than a /64 to a home,
they're waiting for the CPE to catch up.
Catch up to what? Are there dualstack CPE routers out there only able to
handle /64 prefix delegation?
I expect that they
On Fri, 4 Feb 2011, david raistrick wrote:
Amazon AWS - No. But I'm asking again, that's a few months old.
To follow up on this:
We are investigating IP v6 but, unfortunately, have no plans that are
available for sharing at present
--
david raistrick
On Feb 10, 2011, at 3:13 AM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
Perhaps the RIRs should personally and directly ask each /8 legacy
holder to provide
account of their utilization (which portions of the allocation is
used, how many hosts),
and ASK for each unused /22 [or shorter] to be returned.
Daniel Roesen d...@cluenet.de writes:
And quite important for residential ISPs of some size: have fun teaching
your call centers diagnosing double-NAT failure modes.
NAT444 is a hell I don't want to visit really.
No it's great! It's secure! It's easy to implement! It's the only way to
do it
On 2/10/2011 6:07 PM, John Curran wrote:
As I did not explain in advance to each to the parties that their responses
would be public, it would not be proper to publicly post the information.
Discussions with individual resource holders is treated as confidential
information.
Since you have
On 2/10/2011 8:10 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
As a side effect, it also kills any need of any proposals in various
institutions to reserve virgin space for utilization of LSN and such.
It might not be too far fetched that they might even endorse us reusing
their addressing with permission for
On Feb 10, 2011, at 10:10 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
Since you have gone through the process before. It would be nice (especially
concerning the DoD networks) if you could ask if they plan to keep them (not
monetize) and if you could make such a statement publicly.
I mention this, as DoD is
On 2/10/2011 8:15 PM, John Curran wrote:
I'm not certain that you could rely on any organizations statements made today
to provide any assurance that circumstances would not change in the future and
result in the address space being returned to ARIN or transferred per current
policy.
An
On Feb 10, 2011, at 10:31 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
On 2/10/2011 8:15 PM, John Curran wrote:
I'm not certain that you could rely on any organizations statements made
today
to provide any assurance that circumstances would not change in the future
and
result in the address space being returned
On 2/10/2011 8:44 PM, John Curran wrote:
If you'd like to reserve a large block for purposes of LSN
without any concern of future address conflict, it would be
best to actually reserve it via community-developed policy.
When there are X /8 networks reserved by the USG, it seems extremely
On Feb 10, 2011, at 9:44 PM, John Curran wrote:
On Feb 10, 2011, at 10:31 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
On 2/10/2011 8:15 PM, John Curran wrote:
I'm not certain that you could rely on any organizations statements made
today
to provide any assurance that circumstances would not change in the
If you work for a backbone, content, access, or service provider, and you
know that your company has a publicly accessible System/Service/Network Status
Page available on the web, we'd love it if you'd add it to the Outages
Dashboard, at
http://wiki.outages.org/index.php/Dashboard
If you have
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 12:01 PM, Andrew Matthews exstat...@gmail.comwrote:
Can someone with the box.net engineering group email me off list.
I have a peering issue with you guys at any2 in socal.
One would think, if you are interconnecting with another network you should
have some contact
On Feb 10, 2011, at 9:54 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
On 2/10/2011 8:44 PM, John Curran wrote:
If you'd like to reserve a large block for purposes of LSN
without any concern of future address conflict, it would be
best to actually reserve it via community-developed policy.
When there are X
On Feb 10, 2011, at 10:54 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
When there are X /8 networks reserved by the USG, it seems extremely wasteful
to reserve from what little space we have a large block dedicated to LSN when
the USG can give assurances that
1) We won't route this, so use it
2) We won't be
On 2/10/2011 9:11 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:
I was explaining to my wife today how it felt like the nanog list went to 3x
the typical mail volume recently with all the IPv6 stuff this month. Why the
pro-IPv6 crowd was happy, the anti-IPv6 crowd is groaning (including those that
truly despise the
On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 11:43:50 -0500, Matthew Kaufman matt...@matthew.at
wrote:
There is no one universal global routing table. They probably appear
in someone's routing table, somewhere... just not yours.
Using public address space for private networking is a gross misuse of the
resource.
On 2/10/2011 9:46 PM, Ricky Beam wrote:
On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 11:43:50 -0500, Matthew Kaufman
matt...@matthew.at wrote:
There is no one universal global routing table. They probably
appear in someone's routing table, somewhere... just not yours.
Using public address space for private networking
A Cruzio employee kindly provided me with the following information
regarding their peering and connectivity. I pasted it below (with
permission) because I thought it might be of use to others:
Cruzio maintains a backbone of wireless points of presence (POP) on
various mountain tops
On 02/09/2011 03:47 PM, George Bonser wrote:
I have yet to see a broadband provider that configures a network so that
individual nodes in the home network get global IPs.
The big providers probably categorise a static IP in their
enterprise/business offerings. But both my provider here
As for this not fixing the problem, IPv4 is going to be a problem
for
MANY years to come. IPv6 deployment is glacially slow. IPv4 being
out
of space is getting news attention now, but will fade from the
spotlight
shortly
I don't know about that. Yes, v4 will be around for a long time but
From nanog-bounces+bonomi=mail.r-bonomi@nanog.org Thu Feb 10 20:35:01
2011
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 20:31:32 -0600
From: Jack Bates jba...@brightok.net
To: John Curran jcur...@arin.net
Subject: Re: Leasing of space via non-connectivity providers
Cc: NANOG na...@merit.edu
On 2/10/2011
On Feb 10, 2011, at 5:46 PM, Ricky Beam wrote:
On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 11:43:50 -0500, Matthew Kaufman matt...@matthew.at
wrote:
There is no one universal global routing table. They probably appear in
someone's routing table, somewhere... just not yours.
Using public address space for private
In message 78697910-f7a6-4d53-ad93-377fce660...@arin.net, John Curran writes:
On Feb 10, 2011, at 10:31 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
On 2/10/2011 8:15 PM, John Curran wrote:
I'm not certain that you could rely on any organizations statements made=
today
to provide any assurance that
On 2/10/11 7:53 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
On Monday, February 07, 2011 04:33:23 am Owen DeLong wrote:
1. Scanning even an entire /64 at 1,000 pps will take
18,446,744,073,709,551 seconds
which is 213,503,982,334 days or 584,542,000 years.
I would posit that since most networks
1 - 100 of 103 matches
Mail list logo
