Re: ZOMG: IPv6 a plot to stymie FBI !!!11!ONE!

On Jun 15, 2012, at 8:05 PM, Steven Noble wrote: > > Part of the issue is how hard it is to update ARIN, they gladly take your > money but it's like pulling teeth to get anything updated and sometimes you > run out of teeth. Steve - Suggestions for improvement are welcome; either formally

Re: ZOMG: IPv6 a plot to stymie FBI !!!11!ONE!

Sent from my iPhone On Jun 15, 2012, at 3:53 PM, goe...@anime.net wrote: > On Fri, 15 Jun 2012, Scott Weeks wrote: > > if arin would clamp down and revoke allocations that had provably > wrong/fraudulent whois data, we would probably get 50% IPv4 space back. Part of the issue is how hard it

Re: ZOMG: IPv6 a plot to stymie FBI !!!11!ONE!

Dave Edelman On Jun 15, 2012, at 16:43, Owen DeLong wrote: > > On Jun 15, 2012, at 12:23 PM, Scott Weeks wrote: > >> >> >>> On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 11:59:26 -0400, Jay Ashworth said: http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57453738-83/fbi-dea-warn-ipv6-could-shield-criminals-from-police/ >> >>

Re: ZOMG: IPv6 a plot to stymie FBI !!!11!ONE!

On Fri, 15 Jun 2012, Scott Weeks wrote: --- goe...@anime.net wrote: or you can fix the problem that has been festering for 10+ years. --- Yeah, that. Why make it seem that v6 is the problem when it isn't. if arin would clamp down and revoke allocations that had

Re: ZOMG: IPv6 a plot to stymie FBI !!!11!ONE!

On Jun 15, 2012, at 2:55 PM, Scott Weeks wrote: > http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57453738-83/fbi-dea-warn-ipv6-could-shield-criminals-from-police/ >> >> The article sure does have a lot of threatening and smack-down tones toward >> service providers (us): >> >> >> >> "We're looking a

The Cidr Report

This report has been generated at Fri Jun 15 21:12:58 2012 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: 07-Jun-12 -to- 14-Jun-12 (7 days) Observation Point: BGP Peering with AS131072 TOP 20 Unstable Origin AS Rank ASNUpds % Upds/PfxAS-Name 1 - AS8452 101223 8.0% 125.1 -- TE-AS TE-AS 2 - AS840232599 2.6% 35.5 -- C

Re: ZOMG: IPv6 a plot to stymie FBI !!!11!ONE!

--- goe...@anime.net wrote: or you can fix the problem that has been festering for 10+ years. --- Yeah, that. Why make it seem that v6 is the problem when it isn't. scott

Re: ZOMG: IPv6 a plot to stymie FBI !!!11!ONE!

>>> http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57453738-83/fbi-dea-warn-ipv6-could-shield-criminals-from-police/ > > The article sure does have a lot of threatening and smack-down tones toward > service providers (us): > > > > "We're looking at a problem that's about to occur,""It occurs as service >

Re: ZOMG: IPv6 a plot to stymie FBI !!!11!ONE!

On Fri, 15 Jun 2012, Scott Weeks wrote: "This is not a question of willful rejection,""ISPs are happy to do this. They're just lazy...It doesn't have a direct impact on them and their ability to get new address space because they don't need new address space." Yep, we're definitely the lazy on

Re: ZOMG: IPv6 a plot to stymie FBI !!!11!ONE!

On Jun 15, 2012, at 12:23 PM, Scott Weeks wrote: > > >> On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 11:59:26 -0400, Jay Ashworth said: >>> http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57453738-83/fbi-dea-warn-ipv6-could-shield-criminals-from-police/ > > The article sure does have a lot of threatening and smack-down tones toward

Re: ZOMG: IPv6 a plot to stymie FBI !!!11!ONE!

On 6/15/2012 4:30 PM, Rob McEwen wrote: > Certainly, 65,536 /64 blocks in a /24 > allocation another typo. I meant: Certainly, 65,536 /64 blocks in a /48 allocation -- Rob McEwen http://dnsbl.invaluement.com/ r...@invaluement.com +1 (478) 475-9032

Re: ZOMG: IPv6 a plot to stymie FBI !!!11!ONE!

On 6/15/2012 4:30 PM, Rob McEwen wrote: > And/or limit (what would be considered) valid IPv6 mail servers to > those assigned a particular IP on particularly large-sized block... then > sending IP not within those specs. oops. typo. That last part should have been: "then block sending IPs not wit

Re: ZOMG: IPv6 a plot to stymie FBI !!!11!ONE!

On 6/15/2012 11:59 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote: > http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57453738-83/fbi-dea-warn-ipv6-could-shield-criminals-from-police/ I don't know how much of this has been covered on NANOG, and I personally have a healthy innate distrust of government power grabs and intrusive governmen

Re: IPv6 Lo. for 6PE/6VPE

Yes... That shouldn't happen. Whoever is responsible for the routers at 154.54.{57.102,30.129,5.253} should fix their configurations. Owen On Jun 15, 2012, at 6:07 AM, Robert McKay wrote: > You mean like this? ;) > > 1. ??? > 2. ldn-ipv6-b1.ipv6.telia.net

Re: ZOMG: IPv6 a plot to stymie FBI !!!11!ONE!

> On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 11:59:26 -0400, Jay Ashworth said: > > http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57453738-83/fbi-dea-warn-ipv6-could-shield-criminals-from-police/ The article sure does have a lot of threatening and smack-down tones toward service providers (us): "We're looking at a problem that

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, TRNOG, CaribNOG and the RIPE Routing Working Group. Daily listings are sent to bgp-st...@lists.ap

Re: ZOMG: IPv6 a plot to stymie FBI !!!11!ONE!

- Original Message - > From: "valdis kletnieks" > On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 11:59:26 -0400, Jay Ashworth said: > > http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57453738-83/fbi-dea-warn-ipv6-could-shield-criminals-from-police/ > > So everybody who's ever not bothered SWIP'ing an IPv4 allocation is > helpin

Re: Simple Peering Agreement

http://gogonetlive.com/pdf/gogonet_live2/chris_grundemann.pdf --- On Fri, 6/15/12, Bill Woodcock wrote: From: Bill Woodcock Subject: Re: Simple Peering Agreement To: "NANOG (nanog@nanog.org)" Date: Friday, June 15, 2012, 7:57 PM -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On Jun 15, 2

Re: Simple Peering Agreement

http://www.as9009.net/policy/ --- On Fri, 6/15/12, Justin Wilson wrote: From: Justin Wilson Subject: Re: Simple Peering Agreement To: "NANOG (nanog@nanog.org)" Date: Friday, June 15, 2012, 8:10 PM     I need paperwork to justify several things the bean counters want to see on paper.  It's h

Re: Simple Peering Agreement

On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 14:10:14 -0400, Justin Wilson said: > I need paperwork to justify several things the bean counters want to see > on paper. It's hard to present why you need 5 additional 10Gig ports when > you have nothing on paper of why those ports are being used. If you can't already

Re: Simple Peering Agreement

I need paperwork to justify several things the bean counters want to see on paper. It's hard to present why you need 5 additional 10Gig ports when you have nothing on paper of why those ports are being used. Justin -Original Message- From: Bill Woodcock Date: Friday, Ju

Re: Simple Peering Agreement

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On Jun 15, 2012, at 10:36 AM, Isabel Dias wrote: > are you any good in Maths? > http://www.stanford.edu/~milgrom/publishedarticles/Advances%20in%20Routing%20Technologies%20and%20Internet%20Peering%20Agr.%202001.pdf If you're good in maths, you'll r

Re: Simple Peering Agreement

Also: s/doc/PDF/g Sent from my iPhone On Jun 15, 2012, at 10:37, Nick Hilliard wrote: > On 15/06/2012 18:24, Justin Wilson wrote: >> Does anyone have a simple (1-2 page) peering agreement in plain English they >> would care to share offlist? > > http://www.google.com/search?q=peering%20agreeme

Re: ZOMG: IPv6 a plot to stymie FBI !!!11!ONE!

On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 11:34 AM, John Levine wrote: >>So everybody who's ever not bothered SWIP'ing an IPv4 allocation is helping >>the terrorists? > > Yes, of course.  Mindless, irrational reactions to overblown threats are > everyone's job. I want some of that stupid for breakfast too. What

Re: Simple Peering Agreement

On 15/06/2012 18:24, Justin Wilson wrote: > Does anyone have a simple (1-2 page) peering agreement in plain English they > would care to share offlist? http://www.google.com/search?q=peering%20agreement%20%2Bfiletype%3Adoc Nick

Re: Simple Peering Agreement

are you any good in Maths?     http://www.stanford.edu/~milgrom/publishedarticles/Advances%20in%20Routing%20Technologies%20and%20Internet%20Peering%20Agr.%202001.pdf       maybe a PhD will find a point in using this part of their self-development   how far can you go and what is your position in th

Simple Peering Agreement

Does anyone have a simple (1-2 page) peering agreement in plain English they would care to share offlist? Thanks, Justin -- Justin Wilson Aol & Yahoo IM: j2sw http://www.mtin.net/blog ­ xISP News http://www.twitter.com/j2sw ­ Follow me on Twitter

Re: ZOMG: IPv6 a plot to stymie FBI !!!11!ONE!

>So everybody who's ever not bothered SWIP'ing an IPv4 allocation is helping >the terrorists? Yes, of course. Mindless, irrational reactions to overblown threats are everyone's job. R's, John PS: Why do you hate America?

Re: ZOMG: IPv6 a plot to stymie FBI !!!11!ONE!

On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 11:59:26 -0400, Jay Ashworth said: > http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57453738-83/fbi-dea-warn-ipv6-could-shield-criminals-from-police/ So everybody who's ever not bothered SWIP'ing an IPv4 allocation is helping the terrorists? pgpuDNGlAjKnS.pgp Description: PGP signature

ZOMG: IPv6 a plot to stymie FBI !!!11!ONE!

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57453738-83/fbi-dea-warn-ipv6-could-shield-criminals-from-police/ Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associat

Re: Article: IPv6 host scanning attacks

On 06/13/2012 05:22 PM, STARNES, CURTIS wrote: > Going from an IPv4 32 bit address space to a IPv6 128 bit address > space like you mentioned in the article would be a tedious effort to > scan. (tedious != infeasible) && (tedious < 5 years) -- that's the point the article is trying to mak

Re: Article: IPv6 host scanning attacks

On 06/13/2012 08:24 PM, Karl Auer wrote: > On Wed, 2012-06-13 at 15:22 -0500, STARNES, CURTIS wrote: >> I have a slight problem with stating that "Vast IPv6 address space >> actually enables IPv6 attacks". > > So do I. As noted, so do I. :-) > Compared to IPv4, scanning IPv6 is much, much harde

IETF I-D: Current issues with DNS Configuration Options for SLAAC

Folks, We have published a new IETF I-D entitled "Current issues with DNS Configuration Options for SLAAC", about existing problems with the DNS configuration options used with SLAAC. The I-D is available at: . Abstract: --

Re: IPv6 Lo. for 6PE/6VPE

On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 10:52:17 -, "Nagendra Kumar (naikumar)" said: > Per my understanding, it is not required to have ipv6 address in loopback > intf on all P routers inorder to have 6PE work. If I remember it correctly, P > router will use :::: while originating ICMPv6 error message. How

Re: IPv6 Lo. for 6PE/6VPE

You mean like this? ;) 1. ??? 2. ldn-ipv6-b1.ipv6.telia.net 0.0% 31.0 1.2 1.0 1.4 0.2 3. cogent-ic-125507-ldn-b5.c.telia.net 0.0% 2 40.6 40.4 40.2 40.6 0.3 4. :::154.54.57.102

Re: IPv6 Lo. for 6PE/6VPE

On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 04:35:51AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote: > If it does, that's bad... You should never see IPv4 mapped addresses > on the wire. ... and some networks filter packets with source address in the mapped range, so traceroute will be broken for 6PE intermediate P hops. Best regards,

Re: IPv6 Lo. for 6PE/6VPE

If it does, that's bad... You should never see IPv4 mapped addresses on the wire. They should only be an internal representation of an IPv4 packet within the host. Owen On Jun 15, 2012, at 3:52 AM, Nagendra Kumar (naikumar) wrote: > Hi, > > Per my understanding, it is not required to have ipv

Re: IPv6 Lo. for 6PE/6VPE

Thanks all, That's sound more logic to me, so we assign IPv6 for lo0 on every hop, so it can understand ICMP control packet. But who would use these packets? If I'm at my 6PE then i ping using Lo0 IPv4 address because we are not enabling IPV6 Routing/Dual stack so it can carry IPv6 addresses acr

RE: IPv6 Lo. for 6PE/6VPE

Right the :::: sounds familiar I guess there was also an option that the P router would just label switch the packet towards the exit PE and the PE would than originate the ICMP back to source Or you can turn off TTL propagation across the core -so the ICMP could only time out at the PEs adam

RE: IPv6 Lo. for 6PE/6VPE

Hi, Per my understanding, it is not required to have ipv6 address in loopback intf on all P routers inorder to have 6PE work. If I remember it correctly, P router will use :::: while originating ICMPv6 error message. -Nagendra -Original Message- From: Daniel Roesen [mailto:d...@clu

Re: IPv6 Lo. for 6PE/6VPE

@Daniel +1 On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 6:32 AM, Daniel Roesen wrote: > On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 11:56:05AM +0200, mohamed Osama Saad Abo sree > wrote: > > I was just wondering , while I'm planning my network to support 6PE/6VPE > > why should i assign an IPv6 for Loopbacks? > > > > Maybe it's needed

Re: IPv6 Lo. for 6PE/6VPE

On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 11:56:05AM +0200, mohamed Osama Saad Abo sree wrote: > I was just wondering , while I'm planning my network to support 6PE/6VPE > why should i assign an IPv6 for Loopbacks? > > Maybe it's needed for Point-Point links or external interfaces between my > peers, but anyone her

IPv6 Lo. for 6PE/6VPE

Hello, I was just wondering , while I'm planning my network to support 6PE/6VPE why should i assign an IPv6 for Loopbacks? Maybe it's needed for Point-Point links or external interfaces between my peers, but anyone here know why i should assign IPv6 for all my Routers inside my ISP if we will run

Re: Peeringdb down?

web site is down but traceroute is ok. Packets Pings Host Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev 1. 140.109.1.10.0%101.2 3.4 1.2