Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs

On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 12:04 AM, George B. wrote: > I think I will get .payme  and make sure coke.payme, pepsi.payme, > comcast.payme, etc. all get registered at the low-low price of > $10/year.  All I would need is 100,000 registrations to provide me > with a million dollar a year income stream

Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs

David Conrad wrote: >Jay, > >On Jun 17, 2011, at 4:40 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote: >> and the root operators may throw >> their hands up in the air if anyone asks them to have anything in >their >> zone except glue -- rightly, I think; it's not a degree of complexity >> that's compatible with the requ

Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs

Jay, On Jun 17, 2011, at 4:40 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote: > and the root operators may throw > their hands up in the air if anyone asks them to have anything in their > zone except glue -- rightly, I think; it's not a degree of complexity > that's compatible with the required stability of the root zon

Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs

>so did anyone have a question or is my epistolary stylistic genius sufficient >as topic of general interest? Hi. How does ICANN seem to be reacting to the flaming arrow that the DOC shot in front of them? Also, the DOC letter refers to a European Commission letter from Tuesday, which I can't fi

Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs

>Well... Which MacDonald's? ICANN has a 350 page draft applicant guidebook on their web site that explains the barococo application and evaluation process here: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtld-program.htm Please do NOT download it or read it, since actual knowledge is so much less fun

Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs

On Jun 17, 2011, at 4:25 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > On Jun 17, 2011, at 7:13 PM, David Conrad wrote: >> Why do you think there is an ASO? > To coordinate numberspace issues between the IANA and the RIRs. I believe the original intent was that the various SOs would provide their input on how policie

Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs

>> [...] I don't mind new TLDs, but company ones are crazy >> and going to lead to a confusing and messy internet. are either "confusing" or "messy" the best rationals for declining either or both of corporate names or trademarks? are these (corporate naming and trademark registration as gene

Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs

On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 2:04 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote: > Aw, Jeezus. > > No.  Just, no. I think I will get .payme and make sure coke.payme, pepsi.payme, comcast.payme, etc. all get registered at the low-low price of $10/year. All I would need is 100,000 registrations to provide me with a million

Re: good geographic for servers reaching the South East Asia market

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 6/17/11 4:22 AM, Michael DeMan wrote: > Hi Janne, > > Any thoughts about Malaysia? The outfit I am working for on this > right now already has manufacturing facilities there and it would be > easier for them to do it in-country. > > I would guess

Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs

On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 11:44:07AM -1000, Paul Graydon wrote: > [...] I don't mind new TLDs, but company ones are crazy > and going to lead to a confusing and messy internet. Maybe we could demote the commercial ones to live under a single TLD to make things simpler/neater... :-)

Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs

- Original Message - > From: "Owen DeLong" > MacDonald's would likely get title to .macdonalds under the new rules, > right? > > Well... Which MacDonald's? > > 1. The fast food chain > 2. O.C. MacDonald's Plumbing Supply > 3. MacDonald and Sons Paving Systems > 4. MacDonald and Madison

Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs

- Original Message - > From: "Owen DeLong" > apple.com is a delegation from .com just as apple is a delegation from > . > > > apple. and www.apple. are *not* -- and the root operators may throw > > their hands up in the air if anyone asks them to have anything in > > their > > zone exce

Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs

On Jun 17, 2011, at 6:07 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote: > - Original Message - >> From: "Joel Jaeggli" > http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/consultation-outreach-en.htm >>> >>> That page doesn't appear to discuss the specific topic I'm talking about, >>> and for the 9th or 10th tim

Re: So... is it time to do IPv6 day monthy yet?

On Jun 17, 2011, at 6:11 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: > > In message , Michael > Dillon writes: >>> The last v6day was an isoc effort, there can be a separate nanog effort or >>> your own. >> >> It does make a lot of sense for NANOG (perhaps jointly with RIPE and >> other NOGs) to organize monthly

Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs

On Jun 17, 2011, at 7:40 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote: > Original Message - >> From: "Owen DeLong" > >> That won't stop them from building zone files that look like this: >> >> >> @ IN SOA ... >> NS ... >> ... >> A ... >> ... >> www A ... >> ... >> >> Sure, they'll advertise www

Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs

>> so did anyone have a question or is my epistolary stylistic genius >> sufficient as topic of general interest? > ... and he talked for 45 minutes, and no one understood a word that he said. i'm happy to leave the reportage and issue analysis to those better informed. you look to be someone b

Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs

- Original Message - > From: brun...@nic-naa.net > howdy all from a cold room 100km north of the equator. > > > ... > > That's an *amazingly* oblique and de minimis reference to the topic > > on point, couched in Eric's usually opaque language ... > > ... > > i'm reading this from the me

Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs

howdy all from a cold room 100km north of the equator. > ... > That's an *amazingly* oblique and de minimis reference to the topic on > point, couched in Eric's usually opaque language ... > ... i'm reading this from the meeting room where the generic names supporting organization council is meet

Re: NANOG Digest, Vol 41, Issue 114

/www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ -- next part -- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 826 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20110617/a91469c7/attachment-0001.pgp --

Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs

Original Message - > From: "Owen DeLong" > That won't stop them from building zone files that look like this: > > > @ IN SOA ... > NS ... > ... > A ... > ... > www A ... > ... > > Sure, they'll advertise www.apple, but, you better believe that > they'll take whatever lands a

Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs

On Jun 17, 2011, at 7:13 PM, David Conrad wrote: > On Jun 17, 2011, at 4:04 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> I really don't think that namespace issues are part of the role for the ASO >> AC. > > Why do you think there is an ASO? > To coordinate numberspace issues between the IANA and the RIRs. >>

Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs

On Jun 17, 2011, at 7:09 PM, David Conrad wrote: > On Jun 17, 2011, at 4:00 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote: >>> On Jun 17, 2011, at 3:13 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote: http://apple/ is going to break a bunch of shit. >>> >>> All fully qualified domain names have a trailing dot so that you know >>> where t

Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs

In a message written on Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 08:25:28PM -0500, Jimmy Hess wrote: > Perhaps we could get an update to the relevant RFCs.. clarifying that > only NS records may be dotless in the root namespace? > > As in -- No hostnames A, MX, or CNAME at the TLD level. I suspect some are alrea

Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs

On Jun 17, 2011, at 4:04 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > I really don't think that namespace issues are part of the role for the ASO > AC. Why do you think there is an ASO? > This is clearly a problem for ICANN's disaster-ridden domain-name side, and > not > for the ASO/NRO side of things. Because th

Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs

On Jun 17, 2011, at 6:38 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote: > - Original Message - >> From: "David Conrad" > >> On Jun 17, 2011, at 2:37 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote: >>> That's an *amazingly* oblique and de minimis reference to the topic >>> on point, couched in Eric's usually opaque language, >> >> E

Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs

On Jun 17, 2011, at 4:00 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote: >> On Jun 17, 2011, at 3:13 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote: >>> http://apple/ is going to break a bunch of shit. >> >> All fully qualified domain names have a trailing dot so that you know >> where the root is. At least as parsed internally by your resolver

Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs

On Jun 17, 2011, at 6:36 PM, David Conrad wrote: > On Jun 17, 2011, at 2:37 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote: >> That's an *amazingly* oblique and de minimis reference to the topic on >> point, couched in Eric's usually opaque language, > > Eric's writing style does take a bit of getting used to, but I us

Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs

- Original Message - > From: "Joel Jaeggli" > On Jun 17, 2011, at 3:13 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote: > > http://apple/ is going to break a bunch of shit. > > All fully qualified domain names have a trailing dot so that you know > where the root is. At least as parsed internally by your resolve

Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs

> "J" == Jeremy writes: J> well, crap. That's all I have to say :( Didn't you mean .crap ? ;-/ -JimC -- James Cloos OpenPGP: 1024D/ED7DAEA6

Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs

On Jun 17, 2011, at 3:13 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote: > - Original Message - >> From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" > >> As for calling ICANN stupid, thinking this will help fracture the >> 'Net, I think you are all confused. I think the NANOG community has >> become (OK, always was) a bit of an echo

Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs

- Original Message - > From: "John Levine" > >The notion of a single-component FQDN would be quite a breakage for > >the basic concept of using both FQDNs and Unqualified names. > > Well, you know, there's a guy whose email address has been n@ai for > many years. People have varying amou

Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs

- Original Message - > From: "David Conrad" > On Jun 17, 2011, at 2:37 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote: > > That's an *amazingly* oblique and de minimis reference to the topic > > on point, couched in Eric's usually opaque language, > > Eric's writing style does take a bit of getting used to, but

Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs

On Jun 17, 2011, at 2:37 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote: > That's an *amazingly* oblique and de minimis reference to the topic on > point, couched in Eric's usually opaque language, Eric's writing style does take a bit of getting used to, but I usually find it enlightening (albeit occasionally in an exis

Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs

>The notion of a single-component FQDN would be quite a breakage for >the basic concept of using both FQDNs and Unqualified names. Well, you know, there's a guy whose email address has been n@ai for many years. People have varying amounts of success sending him mail. R's, John

Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs

On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 5:33 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote: > For me, the engineering problem remains *single-component FQDNs*.  I > can't itemize the code they'll break, but I'm quite certain there's a lot. Perhaps we could get an update to the relevant RFCs.. clarifying that only NS records may be do

Re: So... is it time to do IPv6 day monthy yet?

In message , Michael Dillon writes: > > The last v6day was an isoc effort, there can be a separate nanog effort or > > your own. > > It does make a lot of sense for NANOG (perhaps jointly with RIPE and > other NOGs) to organize monthly IPv6 days with a theme or focus for > each month. If you hav

Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs

- Original Message - > From: "Joel Jaeggli" > >> http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/consultation-outreach-en.htm > > > > That page doesn't appear to discuss the specific topic I'm talking about, > > and for the 9th or 10th time, I *know* they've been talking about expanding > > the

Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs

On Jun 17, 2011, at 5:33 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote: > - Original Message - >> From: "John Levine" > >> I happen to agree that adding vast numbers of new TLDs is a terrible >> idea more for administrative and social than technical reasons, but >> this is the first you've heard about it, you

Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs

>This is the first I've heard of *the possibility of TLD registrars being >end-user internal/exclusive*. People around ICANN have been arguing about the registry/registrar split for years, and whether to have special rules for TLDs where one party would own all the names. Really. If this is the

Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs

- Original Message - > From: "David Conrad" > "Finally, because pancakes are calling, the very complainants of > squatting and defensive registration (the 1Q million-in-revenue every > applicant for an "open", now "standard" registry places in its > bizplan), the Intellectual Property Sta

Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs

- Original Message - > From: "John Levine" > I happen to agree that adding vast numbers of new TLDs is a terrible > idea more for administrative and social than technical reasons, but > this is the first you've heard about it, you really haven't been > paying attention. John, yes, I've b

Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs

On Jun 17, 2011, at 11:54 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote: >> I hope they've considered what will happen if you go to >> http://localhost/ or >> http://pcname/ >> >> Is that the local networks pcname, or the gTld pcname? >> Are we going to have to start using a specially reserved .local gTld? > > No, of *

Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs

On Jun 17, 2011, at 11:59 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote: > FFS, David. I didn't say "new gTLDs". I said, rather specifically, > "commercial gTLDs", IE: gTLDs *proprietary to a specific commercial > enterprise*. http:///www.apple The third message (by Eric Brunner-Williams) in the thread I referenced

Re: IPv6 BGP communities

In a message written on Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 06:08:13AM -0700, Serge Vautour wrote: > I'm looking at re-writing our IPv4 BGP policies for IPv6. Does anyone see a > problem with re-using the same BGP community values? If we use AS:110 for LP > 110 > under IPv4, can I just use AS:110 for LP 110 u

Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs

>Notwithstanding that, globally resolvable valid DNS names *with no dots >in them* are going to break a fair amount of software which assumes that's >an invalid case, and that is in fact a *different* situation, not triggered >by the expansion of the *generic* gTLD space. Just to be sure I unders

Re: IPv6 BGP communities

I think it actually makes complete sense to use the same BGP communities for the same purposes regardless of address family. Owen On Jun 17, 2011, at 6:08 AM, Serge Vautour wrote: > Hello, > > I'm looking at re-writing our IPv4 BGP policies for IPv6. Does anyone see a > problem with re-using t

Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs

- Original Message - > From: "Fred Baker" > Yes. Since ICANN was formed, they have periodically come to the IETF > to ask how many TLDs we thought the system could support. On the basis > of the SLD count (if example.com is a domain name and ".com" is a TLD, > "example" is an SLD) within

Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs

On Jun 17, 2011, at 2:33 PM, David Conrad wrote: > On Jun 17, 2011, at 11:23 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote: http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/06/17/202245/ >>> You just learned about this now? >> In fact I did. I certainly haven't seen it mentioned on NANOG in the last 6 >> months or so; where sh

Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs

- Original Message - > From: "Zaid Ali" > I have seen many NANOG folks at ICANN meetings discussing this and > also active on ALAC so David isn't the only guy. Also do a search on > the list and you will find threads dating back. > > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.org.operators.nanog/567

Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs

- Original Message - > From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" > As for calling ICANN stupid, thinking this will help fracture the > 'Net, I think you are all confused. I think the NANOG community has > become (OK, always was) a bit of an echo chamber. Trust me when I say > we are the minority. Most p

Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs

And no, I had not heard *any noise* that anyone was seriously considering this up until this announcement. Overhere it got mentioned in the local news paper a couple of times. jaap

Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs

On Jun 17, 2011, at 2:54 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote: > - Original Message - >> From: "Joel Barnard" > >> I hope they've considered what will happen if you go to >> http://localhost/ or >> http://pcname/ >> >> Is that the local networks pcname, or the gTld pcname? >> Are we going to have to

Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs

- Original Message - > From: "Benson Schliesser" > On a related topic, the US DoJ recently wrote a letter suggesting that > DNS registry/registrar vertical integration might not be a good idea > (from an anti-trust perspective). > > http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/strickling-to-de

Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs

On Jun 17, 2011, at 2:54 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote: > > On Jun 17, 2011, at 4:21 PM, David Conrad wrote: > >> On Jun 17, 2011, at 11:04 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote: >>> Aw, Jeezus. >>> >>> No. Just, no. >>> >>> http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/06/17/202245/ >> >> You just learned about this n

Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs

Original Message - > From: "Zaid Ali" > Just an example, it has hit main stream media > http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/17/who-runs-the-internet/ The issue we're presently discussing *is not mentioned in that article*. > Or you could have gone to one of the many free iC

Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs

On Jun 17, 2011, at 5:44 PM, Paul Graydon wrote: > On 06/17/2011 11:33 AM, David Conrad wrote: >> On Jun 17, 2011, at 11:23 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote: > http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/06/17/202245/ You just learned about this now? >>> In fact I did. I certainly haven't seen it mentioned o

The Cidr Report

This report has been generated at Fri Jun 17 21:12:10 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

BGP Update Report Interval: 09-Jun-11 -to- 16-Jun-11 (7 days) Observation Point: BGP Peering with AS131072 TOP 20 Unstable Origin AS Rank ASNUpds % Upds/PfxAS-Name 1 - AS15557 251419 12.5% 13.0 -- LDCOMNET NEUF CEGETEL (formerly LDCOM NETWORKS) 2 - AS7184

Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs

- Original Message - > From: "David Conrad" > On Jun 17, 2011, at 11:23 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote: > >>> http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/06/17/202245/ > >> You just learned about this now? > > In fact I did. I certainly haven't seen it mentioned on NANOG in the > > last 6 months or so; whe

Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs

- Original Message - > From: "Joel Barnard" > I hope they've considered what will happen if you go to > http://localhost/ or > http://pcname/ > > Is that the local networks pcname, or the gTld pcname? > Are we going to have to start using a specially reserved .local gTld? No, of *course

Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs

On Jun 17, 2011, at 2:44 PM, Paul Graydon wrote: > On 06/17/2011 11:33 AM, David Conrad wrote: >> On Jun 17, 2011, at 11:23 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote: > http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/06/17/202245/ You just learned about this now? >>> In fact I did. I certainly haven't seen it mentioned

Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs

On Jun 17, 2011, at 4:21 PM, David Conrad wrote: > On Jun 17, 2011, at 11:04 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote: >> Aw, Jeezus. >> >> No. Just, no. >> >> http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/06/17/202245/ > > You just learned about this now? On a related topic, the US DoJ recently wrote a letter suggesting

Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs

If ICANN continues this stupidity, perhaps it will finally be feasible for an alternate DNS root to gain a following? Although that would lead to a fractured DNS system, which really isn't in the best interests of anybody. On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 4:44 PM, Paul Graydon wrote: > On 06/17/2011 11:33

Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs

On 06/17/2011 11:33 AM, David Conrad wrote: On Jun 17, 2011, at 11:23 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote: http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/06/17/202245/ You just learned about this now? In fact I did. I certainly haven't seen it mentioned on NANOG in the last 6 months or so; where should I have seen it?

Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs

On Jun 17, 2011, at 2:23 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote: > - Original Message - >> From: "David Conrad" > >> On Jun 17, 2011, at 11:04 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote: >>> Aw, Jeezus. >>> >>> No. Just, no. >>> >>> http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/06/17/202245/ >> >> You just learned about this now? >

Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs

On Jun 17, 2011, at 11:23 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote: >>> http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/06/17/202245/ >> You just learned about this now? > In fact I did. I certainly haven't seen it mentioned on NANOG in the last 6 > months or so; where should I have seen it? New TLDs have been discussed now fo

RE: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs

I hope they've considered what will happen if you go to http://localhost/ or http://pcname/ Is that the local networks pcname, or the gTld pcname? Are we going to have to start using a specially reserved .local gTld? Joel Barnard Niagara Wireless Internet Co. -Original Message- From:

Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs

On 06/17/2011 14:23, Jay Ashworth wrote: - Original Message - From: "David Conrad" On Jun 17, 2011, at 11:04 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote: Aw, Jeezus. No. Just, no. http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/06/17/202245/ You just learned about this now? In fact I did. I certainly haven't

Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs

- Original Message - > From: "David Conrad" > On Jun 17, 2011, at 11:04 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote: > > Aw, Jeezus. > > > > No. Just, no. > > > > http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/06/17/202245/ > > You just learned about this now? In fact I did. I certainly haven't seen it mentioned on NA

Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs

well, crap. That's all I have to say :( On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 4:16 PM, mikea wrote: > On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 05:04:25PM -0400, Jay Ashworth wrote: > > Aw, Jeezus. > > > > No. Just, no. > > > > http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/06/17/202245/ > > Yeah. Maybe ICANN needs its own special TLD:

Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs

On Jun 17, 2011, at 11:04 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote: > Aw, Jeezus. > > No. Just, no. > > http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/06/17/202245/ You just learned about this now? Regards, -drc

Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs

On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 05:04:25PM -0400, Jay Ashworth wrote: > Aw, Jeezus. > > No. Just, no. > > http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/06/17/202245/ Yeah. Maybe ICANN needs its own special TLD: .idiots? -- Mike Andrews, W5EGO mi...@mikea.ath.cx Tired old sysadmin

Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs

too late... someone sign up for .nanog! On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 5:04 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote: > Aw, Jeezus. > > No.  Just, no. > >  http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/06/17/202245/ > > Cjeers, > -- jra > -- > Jay R. Ashworth                  Baylink                       > j...@baylink.com > Desig

ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs

Aw, Jeezus. No. Just, no. http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/06/17/202245/ Cjeers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.

Re: whoi modify question

On Fri, 17 Jun 2011, Patrick Darden wrote: My mistake. Apologies. It happens, but: On 06/17/2011 01:03 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote: On Jun 17, 2011, at 9:57 AM, Darden, Patrick S. wrote: The short answer is you can't. ARIN only cares about /24s or bigger. If the network were a /24 or larger

Re: RE: So... is it time to do IPv6 day monthy yet?

> The last v6day was an isoc effort, there can be a separate nanog effort or > your own. It does make a lot of sense for NANOG (perhaps jointly with RIPE and other NOGs) to organize monthly IPv6 days with a theme or focus for each month. If you have a focus, then you can recruit a lot of IPv6 test

RE: NANOG 52 Stream Archives?

Eventually they will be posted here: http://nanog.org/presentations/archive/index.php With a few exceptions -- the FCC presentation was not recorded. The breakout sessions aren't typically recorded either. --heather -Original Message- From: Krembs, Jesse [mailto:jkre...@fairpoint.c

Re: whoi modify question

Thank you all ls whois only done from ARIN website? How about my rwhois server? Everytime I apply the ip. ARIN needs us to do the whois server How can I do referral? any info? Thank you again On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 1:09 PM, Patrick Darden wrote: > > My mistake.  Apologies.  Here is the rele

Business Ethernet Services

Anyone using a CPE that is reliable and costs <= $300 ? features needed: SFP for uplink, QnQ, basic layer 2 functionality. If you're using something with the above parameters and you like it, please share. :) Thanks, Elliot

Weekly Routing Table Report

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

Re: whoi modify question

My mistake. Apologies. Here is the relevant section: "ARIN requires organizations to submit information for all IPv4 reassignments of /29 and larger and IPv6 reassignments of /56 or shorter prefix within seven days of the subdelegation. For IPv4 blocks of /30 or longer prefix, ISPs may choo

Re: whoi modify question

On Jun 17, 2011, at 9:57 AM, Darden, Patrick S. wrote: > > The short answer is you can't. ARIN only cares about /24s or bigger. If the > network were a /24 or larger, then your customer would need to get an ASN > (autonomous system number) and then you could register the network to them. ne

Re: whoi modify question

https://www.arin.net/resources/request/reassignments.html On Jun 17, 2011, at 9:34 AM, Deric Kwok wrote: > Hi > > My boss wants me to resign part of ip /25 to customer > > For the whois record to this customer, how can I do it? > > Thank you >

RE: whoi modify question

The short answer is you can't. ARIN only cares about /24s or bigger. If the network were a /24 or larger, then your customer would need to get an ASN (autonomous system number) and then you could register the network to them. More info here: https://www.arin.net --Patrick Darden -Origi

whoi modify question

Hi My boss wants me to resign part of ip /25 to customer For the whois record to this customer, how can I do it? Thank you

IPv6 BGP communities

Hello, I'm looking at re-writing our IPv4 BGP policies for IPv6. Does anyone see a problem with re-using the same BGP community values? If we use AS:110 for LP 110 under IPv4, can I just use AS:110 for LP 110 under IPv6? Technically it works - at least I haven't seen a problem in my initial te

NANOG 52 Stream Archives?

Dear All For those of us that missed the show, is it possible to view the NANOG 52 streams anywhere? Jesse Krembs - Data Network Architecture & Planning FairPoint Communications | 800 Hinesburg Rd, South Burlington, VT 05403 | jkre...@fairpoint.com www.Fai