Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space

On (2012-07-19 10:25 +1000), Mark Andrews wrote: > The point of the algorithm was to have something which would do a > reasonable job in a CPE router without a hardware source of randomness. In that context it very much makes sense. > It is a "SAMPLE" routinue. It is not "YOU MUST DO IT THIS

Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space

On (2012-07-19 15:16 +1000), Karl Auer wrote: > True. But you cannot tell, from a sample of one number, whether that > number was chosen randomly. You can only test it statistically within a > series. A particular number may be random in one sequence, non-random in > another. RFC2777 deals with t

Re: Another LTE network turns up as IPv4-only squat space + NAT

Subject: RE: Another LTE network turns up as IPv4-only squat space + NAT Date: Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 10:36:31PM -0400 Quoting Chuck Church (chuckchu...@gmail.com): > I disagree. I see it as an extra layer of security. If DOD had a network > with address space 'X', obviously it's not advertised t

Re: Another LTE network turns up as IPv4-only squat space + NAT

On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 10:36:31PM -0400, Chuck Church wrote: > I disagree. I see it as an extra layer of security. If DOD had a network > with address space 'X', obviously it's not advertised to the outside. It > never interacts with public network. Having it duplicated on the outside --

Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space

In message , Jimmy Hess writes: > On 7/18/12, Karl Auer wrote: > > I don't understand the professed need for provable randomness. Without a > > number *space* to provide context, randomness is inherently > > non-provable. The whole point of the randomness of those 40 bits of ULA > > infix is tha

Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space

If i may summarize this thread as a method to conclude it. 1. Some people like GUA the most. 2. Smart network operators understand the facts and make decisions based on facts (ULA exist, and it meets a need in some scenarios. NAT and lack of addresses are not reasons to use ULA). 3. Most FUD aro

Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space

On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 07:40:31 -0700, Cameron Byrne said: > 3. Most FUD around ULA comes from an over-reaction to ipv4 NAT sins, > misunderstandings about how security policy works in the real world , and > deficiencies in mathmatical education. I'll add on that said security policies are *themselv

Re: MPLS L2VPN monitoring

We also use UNI NIDs that trap interface status, log interface and COS queue statistics, and respond to y.1731 traffic. On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 7:56 AM, Siegel, David wrote: > We deploy NIDs to the customer premise. You just can't get enough alarm data > be looking only at your router/switch on

Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space

On 18-Jul-12 13:07, Saku Ytti wrote: > On (2012-07-18 11:39 -0500), Stephen Sprunk wrote: >> Those were not considered requirements for the algorithm in RFC 4193 since >> there is no scenario /where RFC 4193 addresses are a valid solution in the >> first place/ for which testability or provabilit

Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space

On 18-Jul-12 22:57, Karl Auer wrote: > I don't understand the professed need for provable randomness. I think his concern is that if an SP generates a ULA prefix for a customer, and that prefix happens to collide with someone else's ULA prefix, the SP may wish to prove that it was a true collision

Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space

On 19-Jul-12 07:47, Mark Andrews wrote: > In message > , Jimmy > Hess writes: >> When numbers are selected by choosing a random value; certain ratios of bits >> set to "1" are more likely to occur than other ratios of bits set to "1". >> >> A random generator that is operating correctly, is much

Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space

On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 21:07:35 +0300, Saku Ytti said: > If collision occurs, if dispute occurs, provability that one party did not > use BCP method can be useful to solve dispute and decide who renumbers. Looking at actual numbers out of RFC4193: The following table shows the probability of a c

Telus Wholesale NOC NUmber

Anyone got a number to Telus Wholesale? Got an issue with an PPPoE over L2TP setup. Dennis Burgess, Mikrotik Certified Trainer Author of "Learn RouterOS- Second Edition " Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik & WISP Support Services Of

Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space

On (2012-07-19 14:29 -0400), valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: > OK? So even if you merge and re-merge, and go on a massive buying spree and > accumulate a network where you have to interoperate 1,000 ULAs, you're *still* > looking at a literally million-to-one shot. And if you only have a mess of

Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space

On 7/19/12, Mark Andrews wrote: > Actually you can't. > fdaa:: has 20/20 0/1 bits but is entirely non random. > fdf0:f0f0:f0f0 has 20/20 0/1 bits but is entirely non random. [snip] > The ratio of the number of bits doesn't tell you anything about whether > the number was random

Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space

On Thu, 2012-07-19 at 19:30 -0500, Jimmy Hess wrote: > > The ratio of the number of bits doesn't tell you anything about > > whether the number was random or not. > > Sure it does. A ratio of 1s to 0s of a sufficient deviation, is a > sufficient but not a necessarily condition, for establishing

Victory for Open WiFi

From the Electronic Frontier Foundation. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/07/judge-copyright-troll-cant-bully-internet-subscriber-bogus-legal-theory

Hearing Syria internet cut

Can anyone confirm?

RE: Hearing Syria internet cut

I'm likely seeing some fallout from the earlier brief outage. > -Original Message- > From: George Bonser [mailto:gbon...@seven.com] > Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 10:01 PM > To: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Hearing Syria internet cut > > Can anyone confirm? > >

Re: Hearing Syria internet cut

.-- My secret spy satellite informs me that at 12-07-19 10:00 PM George Bonser wrote: > Can anyone confirm? Yes confirmed, about 90% of the Syrian prefixes disappeared from the BGP tables between 13:32 and 14:13 (UTC) earlier today (2012-07-19). Cheers, Andree