On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 10:27 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> My Desktop is not able to make any IPv4 socket connections anymore. I
>> get "Protocol not supported". So there are IPv6-only users, already
>> bitten by no . So that's -1 from me.
>
> i choose to only run decnet ii, and the world should
> My Desktop is not able to make any IPv4 socket connections anymore. I
> get "Protocol not supported". So there are IPv6-only users, already
> bitten by no . So that's -1 from me.
i choose to only run decnet ii, and the world should fix my connectivity
problem.
randy
>
> My Desktop is not able to make any IPv4 socket connections anymore. I
> get
> "Protocol not supported". So there are IPv6-only users, already bitten
> by
> no . So that's -1 from me.
>
Sounds like a job for NAT64/DNS64
On May 14, 2011, at 2:12 AM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>> In other words, Igor can't turn on records generally until there are
>> 182,001 IPv6-only users that are broken from his lack of records.
>>
>
> There will be no IPv6-only
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> In other words, Igor can't turn on records generally until there are
> 182,001 IPv6-only users that are broken from his lack of records.
>
There will be no IPv6-only users. There will only be users with better IPv6
connectivity tha
On May 13, 2011, at 6:02 PM, Warren Kumari wrote:
> Years This was done both to deal with multiple encapsulations and for the
> folk that block all ICMP for "security reasons."
I did it as recently as last month, for the same reasons.
Hi there all,
Years ago it used to be a somewhat common practice to clear the DF bit on
packets, either on all packets, or just on those that that you were going to
shove through a tunnel (I think the netscreen command was something like "set
vpn foo df-bit clear", cisco had something funky wit
> You might be interested in this cool new technology called multicast.
in this context you may be probably talking about anycast.
there are few details but without digging in too much, there are at
least two name servers for which the packets are flowing through the
same exact route and end poin
>;; ANSWER SECTION:
>xxx.300 IN NS a0.xxx.afilias-nst.info.
>xxx.300 IN NS c0.xxx.afilias-nst.info.
>xxx.300 IN NS a2.xxx.afilias-nst.info.
>xxx.300 IN NS b0.xxx.
On May 13, 2011, at 3:33 PM, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
> Owen DeLong wrote:
>> On May 13, 2011, at 2:32 PM, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
>
>>> -I FORWARD -j DROP
>>> -I FORWARD -s 2001:db8::/64 -j ACCEPT
>>> -I FORWARD -m state --state RELATED,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT
>>>
>> I thought iptables processed ru
Owen DeLong wrote:
On May 13, 2011, at 2:32 PM, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
-I FORWARD -j DROP
-I FORWARD -s 2001:db8::/64 -j ACCEPT
-I FORWARD -m state --state RELATED,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT
I thought iptables processed rules in order until it found a match. In such a
case, wouldn't
you want th
>Does no one remember EGP?
To add to what Jessica already said about EGP, I can add that there were
basically 3 metric values:
0 - directly connected
1-254 - not directly connected
255 unavailable
So there was no concept of hop counts or quality of the route other than
directly connected. I d
This report has been generated at Fri May 13 21:12:09 2011 AEST.
The report analyses the BGP Routing Table of AS2.0 router
and generates a report on aggregation potential within the table.
Check http://www.cidr-report.org for a current version of this report.
Recent Table History
Date
BGP Update Report
Interval: 05-May-11 -to- 12-May-11 (7 days)
Observation Point: BGP Peering with AS131072
TOP 20 Unstable Origin AS
Rank ASNUpds % Upds/PfxAS-Name
1 - AS19743 33082 2.1%4726.0 --
2 - AS982924797 1.6% 26.1 -- BSNL-NIB Nat
My guess would be that someone didn't get the memo about the use agreement
ending since they apparently still were listed in whois.
Just a thought. Might have been a legitimate mistake from a position of
ignorance,
not knowing that they weren't still the registered resource holder.
Owen
On May
On May 13, 2011, at 2:32 PM, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
> Jeroen van Aart wrote:
>> -I FORWARD -i eth0 -s 2001:db8::/64 -j ACCEPT
>> -I FORWARD -i eth1 -d 2001:db8::/64 -j ACCEPT
>
> Just in case if anyone'd be using it as an example. It's a good idea to make
> your rules more restrictive.
>
> Som
the loan was for a short term project, at least as was explained to me.
continuing to use it three years later ... not so good. esp since I
have other use earmarked for it. please remove the swip and stop using the
address space.
/bill
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 02:00:45PM -0400, Vytautas Val
>Does no one remember EGP?
Yes, I remember EGP every well. When we built the NSFNET T1 backbone in 1987,
EGP was the only available routing protocol for exterior routing. We deployed
it and used EGP to exchange routing information with the connected regional
networks. Initially, it worked fi
Jeroen van Aart wrote:
-I FORWARD -i eth0 -s 2001:db8::/64 -j ACCEPT
-I FORWARD -i eth1 -d 2001:db8::/64 -j ACCEPT
Just in case if anyone'd be using it as an example. It's a good idea to
make your rules more restrictive.
Something like:
-I FORWARD -j DROP
-I FORWARD -s 2001:db8::/64 -j ACCEP
their use agreement ended in 2008. telling the nanog world they are going to
reuse it
three years later is not exactly what most would consider prior notice to the
registered
holder that they would like to do a research project wiht resources that are
not registered
to them.
/bill
On Thu, M
The Smarties in this part of the world don't come in boxes. :-)
CJ
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 10:10 PM, wrote:
> And if you had a great question or response, would you get a box of
> Smarties?
>
> Robert
>
>
> -- Sent from my Palm Pre
>
> --
> On May 12, 2011 10:54
Jeroen van Aart wrote:
Thanks all for the helpful suggestions.
Obviously I need to do a better job using documentation IPv6
consistently, so ignore any inconsistencies in that regard.
--
http://goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/
http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/faq/plural-of-virus.html
> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 10:52 PM, Karl Auer wrote:
>> Hullo all.
>>
>> I'm working on a talk, and would be interested to know what people think
>> is good about tunnels as an IPv6 transition technology, and what people
>> think is bad about tunnels.
>>
>> It would probably be best to let me k
Joe Loiacono wrote:
Jeroen Massar wrote on 05/12/2011 09:19:21 AM:
On 2011-May-12 15:14, Joe Loiacono wrote:
Anyone know roughly the current default-free routing table size for
IPv6?
http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/status/
Awesome web-site. The world of IPv6 routing on one page.
That is
Thanks all for the helpful suggestions.
It looks like I solved the problem by adjusting my forward chain. I have
a the local network on eth0 and the external network on eth1 and my
forward chain looked like:
-I FORWARD -i eth0 -o eth1 -s 2001:db8::/64 -j ACCEPT
-I FORWARD -i eth1 -o eth0 -d 2
This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet
Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan.
The posting is sent to APOPS, NANOG, AfNOG, AusNOG, SANOG, PacNOG, LacNOG,
CaribNOG and the RIPE Routing Working Group.
Daily listings are sent to bgp-st...@lists.apnic.net
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 10:52 PM, Karl Auer wrote:
> Hullo all.
>
> I'm working on a talk, and would be interested to know what people think
> is good about tunnels as an IPv6 transition technology, and what people
> think is bad about tunnels.
>
> It would probably be best to let me know off-list
Fundamentally tunneling allows you to introduce the new technology while you
work through budgeting / amortization-of-legacy / resistance-to-change issues.
The Internet as we know it was built as a tunnel overlay to the voice system,
and the underlying operators of that time said the overlay cou
TLD is delegated and alive.
pete@tango:~$ dig -t ns xxx
; <<>> DiG 9.7.0-P1 <<>> -t ns xxx
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 47132
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 6, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 0
;; QUESTION SECTION:
;xxx.
On 13 mei 2011, at 18:42, Matthew Petach wrote:
>> The current RIR practice to reserve a /44 when a /44 is given out is a very
>> bad one. It assures unfilterability, because now you have random sizes from
>> /44 to /48 in the parts of the address space used for PI. And if say, 64k
>> /48s are
Oops. Jun 8th 2011.
I had D-Day on the brain.
j
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 12:58 PM, Matthew Petach wrote:
> On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 9:52 AM, Joly MacFie wrote:
> > The Internet Society is organizing IPv6 Day for June 6 2011.
> > http://isoc.org/wp/worldipv6day/
>
> Uh...unless there's been a sud
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 9:52 AM, Joly MacFie wrote:
> The Internet Society is organizing IPv6 Day for June 6 2011.
> http://isoc.org/wp/worldipv6day/
Uh...unless there's been a sudden change of plans,
I believe the date is still set for June *8th*, 2011. ^_^;;
Matt
The Internet Society is organizing IPv6 Day for June 6 2011.
http://isoc.org/wp/worldipv6day/
There isn't currently a NYC event scheduled. If anyone's interested in
making a presentation or just getting together for a discussion ISOC-NY
would be happy to host at NYU.
Feel free to respond off list
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 12:56 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum
wrote:
> On 13 mei 2011, at 2:39, Jimmy Hess wrote:
>
>> if the user starts obtaining
>> multiple non-aggregable /48s from different sources, or obtains an
>> additional PI allocation later, but
>> keeps using the original /48.
>
> Simple: m
Here is what I am seeing from both of my Level 3 links, hope it helps:
show ip bgp 63.210.162.0
BGP routing table entry for 63.210.162.0/24, version 139413425
Paths: (2 available, best #1, table Default-IP-Routing-Table)
Not advertised to any peer
3356 16582
4.53.6.25 from 4.53.6.25 (4.68
On 5/13/11 2:55 AM, Joe Renwick wrote:
Thanks again to all who replied... looks like other Level3 customer are
seeing the /24. Looks like the issue is specific to San Diego. Any routing
information from other SD Level3 customer would be appreciated.
Through Level3 (AS3356) Seattle->SJ->LA-
On 5/13/11 8:14 AM, Deepak Jain wrote:
>
> Go figure, an actual thread about networking equipment on NANOG. :)
>
> So reading Cisco's announcement, I go look at HP's higher end
> switching/routing line and I see some pretty beefy looking gear.
> A12500 and others. Does anyone have any experience
Go figure, an actual thread about networking equipment on NANOG. :)
So reading Cisco's announcement, I go look at HP's higher end switching/routing
line and I see some pretty beefy looking gear. A12500 and others. Does anyone
have any experience with this thing -- is it white labeled from someo
> From: Tony Li
> Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 16:47:54 -0700
>
> On May 12, 2011, at 2:37 PM, Kevin Oberman wrote:
>
> > Does no one remember EGP? ASNs are MUCH older than BGP. And we were
> > using BGPv3 prior to the existence of V4. We used BGPv4 back in the days
> > when Tony Li would chastise us
>> would be interested to know what people think
>> is good about tunnels as an IPv6 transition technology, and what people
>> think is bad about tunnels.
> The good thing about tunnels is people can build them where there's no
> proper network
>
> The bad thing about tunnels is people build them
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 05:03:11AM -0400,
Joly MacFie wrote
a message of 19 lines which said:
> I recall checking at the time that http://icmregistry.xxx worked
>
> Now it doesn't. Anyone know what's going on?
The TLD ".xxx" works. Names like sex.xxx or icmregistry.xxx have
apparently been d
> The good thing about tunnels is people can build them where there's no
> proper network
and the result is a network that is broken differently
About a month ago it was announced that the xxx sTLD had "gone live" i.e.
been added to the IANA root zone
http://www.domainnamenews.com/registries/xxx-live-root-servers/9191
I recall checking at the time that http://icmregistry.xxx worked
Now it doesn't. Anyone know what's going on?
j
--
---
Thanks again to all who replied... looks like other Level3 customer are
seeing the /24. Looks like the issue is specific to San Diego. Any routing
information from other SD Level3 customer would be appreciated.
Cheers,
Joe
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 1:39 AM, Joe Renwick wrote:
> Can anyone peer
On Fri, 2011-05-13 at 01:39 -0700, Joe Renwick wrote:
> Can anyone peering with Level3 directly tell me if they are seeing
> 63.210.162.0/24 coming from the Level3 peer?
>
> Thanks for the help.
>
> Cheers,
Hi Joe,
#show bgp ipv4 unicast 63.210.162.0/24
BGP routing table entry for 63.210.162.0/
Le vendredi 13 mai 2011 à 01:39 -0700, Joe Renwick a écrit :
> Can anyone peering with Level3 directly tell me if they are seeing
> 63.210.162.0/24 coming from the Level3 peer?
Yes, I do.
mh
>
> Thanks for the help.
>
> Cheers,
>
Can anyone peering with Level3 directly tell me if they are seeing
63.210.162.0/24 coming from the Level3 peer?
Thanks for the help.
Cheers,
--
Joe Renwick
IP Network Consultant, CCIE #16465
GO NETFORWARD!
Direct: 619-800-2055, Emergency Support: 800-719-0504
Is your network moving you forward?
On 13 mei 2011, at 7:52, Karl Auer wrote:
> I'm working on a talk, and would be interested to know what people think
> is good about tunnels as an IPv6 transition technology, and what people
> think is bad about tunnels.
Without tunnels we'd have no IPv6 today. Even today many people, especially
On 13 mei 2011, at 2:39, Jimmy Hess wrote:
> if the user starts obtaining
> multiple non-aggregable /48s from different sources, or obtains an
> additional PI allocation later, but
> keeps using the original /48.
Simple: make a rule that you don't get more than one PI block, and if you want
a
> would be interested to know what people think
> is good about tunnels as an IPv6 transition technology, and what people
> think is bad about tunnels.
The good thing about tunnels is people can build them where there's no
proper network
The bad thing about tunnels is people build them instead of
50 matches
Mail list logo
