Re: ESR muses on, among other things, the early IETF

Jay Ashworth wrote: Those who know Fred and knew Jon personally might want to throw an oar in the water on this blog posting from last month... http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4591 And that's not mentioning, of course, the people who want to throw the oar *at* ESR: I know he's a polarizing individua

ESR muses on, among other things, the early IETF

Those who know Fred and knew Jon personally might want to throw an oar in the water on this blog posting from last month... http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4591 And that's not mentioning, of course, the people who want to throw the oar *at* ESR: I know he's a polarizing individual. :-) Cheers, --

Re: IPv4 address length technical design

On 10/5/2012 9:11 PM, Michael Thomas wrote: > On 10/05/2012 05:25 PM, Barry Shein wrote: >> 5. Bits is bits. >> >> I don't know how to say that more clearly. >> >> An ipv6 address is a string of 128 bits with some segmentation >> implications (net part, host part.) >> >> A host name is a string o

Re: IPv4 address length technical design

On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 8:25 PM, Barry Shein wrote: > 5. Bits is bits. > I don't know how to say that more clearly. Hi Barry, Bits is bits and atoms is atoms so lets swap all the iron for helium and see how that works out for us. You can say "bits as bits" as clearly as you like but however you

Re: IPv4 address length technical design

On 10/05/2012 05:25 PM, Barry Shein wrote: 5. Bits is bits. I don't know how to say that more clearly. An ipv6 address is a string of 128 bits with some segmentation implications (net part, host part.) A host name is a string of bits of varying length. But it's still just ones and zeros, an in

Re: max-prefix and platform tcam limits: they are things

In case you missed it On Oct 5, 2012, at 7:05 PM, jim deleskie wrote: > I know that I should know better then comment on networks others then > my own, ( and I know to never comment on my own publicly :) ) > > > But here goes, 210x the size of normal really? 210% I'd have a hard > time believ

Re: IPv4 address length technical design

On Oct 5, 2012, at 4:34 PM, Barry Shein wrote: > Well, XNS (Xerox Networking System from PARC) used basically MAC > addresses. Less a demonstration of success than that it has been > tried. But it's where ethernet MAC addresses come from, they're just > XNS addresses and maybe this has changed bu

Re: max-prefix and platform tcam limits: they are things

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 10/5/2012 8:17 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: > On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 21:05:07 -0300, jim deleskie said: > >> But here goes, 210x the size of normal really? 210% I'd have a >> hard time believing. Did anyone else anywhere see a route leak >> e

Re: max-prefix and platform tcam limits: they are things

On 10/5/12 5:05 PM, jim deleskie wrote: I know that I should know better then comment on networks others then my own, ( and I know to never comment on my own publicly :) ) But here goes, 210x the size of normal really? 210% I'd have a hard time believing. Did anyone else anywhere see a route l

RE: IPv4 address length technical design

> While this is an interesting thought experiment, what problem are > you trying to solve with this proposal? (asked privately but it seems worthwhile answering publicly, bcc'd, you can id yourself if you like.) Look, as I said in the original message I was asked to speak to a group of young "

Re: max-prefix and platform tcam limits: they are things

On Fri, 5 Oct 2012, jim deleskie wrote: I know that I should know better then comment on networks others then my own, ( and I know to never comment on my own publicly :) ) But here goes, 210x the size of normal really? 210% I'd have a hard time believing. Did anyone else anywhere see a route

Re: max-prefix and platform tcam limits: they are things

Yes that math would work, but if your device can't handle 1x Internet routing and your running without some serious max-prefix/filters it says even more about your IP eng team then I'd be willing to comment on. -jim On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 9:17 PM, wrote: > On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 21:05:07 -0300, ji

Re: max-prefix and platform tcam limits: they are things

On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 21:05:07 -0300, jim deleskie said: > But here goes, 210x the size of normal really? 210% I'd have a hard > time believing. Did anyone else anywhere see a route leak equal to > larger then the entire Internet that day, anywhere else that could of > caused this? If the device w

Re: max-prefix and platform tcam limits: they are things

I know that I should know better then comment on networks others then my own, ( and I know to never comment on my own publicly :) ) But here goes, 210x the size of normal really? 210% I'd have a hard time believing. Did anyone else anywhere see a route leak equal to larger then the entire Intern

Re: IPv4 address length technical design

Well, XNS (Xerox Networking System from PARC) used basically MAC addresses. Less a demonstration of success than that it has been tried. But it's where ethernet MAC addresses come from, they're just XNS addresses and maybe this has changed but Xerox used to manage the master 802 OUI list and are a

BGP Update Report

BGP Update Report Interval: 27-Sep-12 -to- 04-Oct-12 (7 days) Observation Point: BGP Peering with AS131072 TOP 20 Unstable Origin AS Rank ASNUpds % Upds/PfxAS-Name 1 - AS163758514 3.0% 657.5 -- DNIC-AS-01637 - Headquarters, USAISC 2 - AS8402

The Cidr Report

This report has been generated at Fri Oct 5 21:13:06 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

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: IPv4 address length technical design

- Original Message - > From: "Barry Shein" > Don't change anything! That would...change things! Your man; he is made of straw. :-) > Obviously my idea to use the host name directly as a src/dest address > rather than convert it to an integer is not a small, incremental > change. It's m

Re: IPv4 address length technical design

Don't change anything! That would...change things! Obviously my idea to use the host name directly as a src/dest address rather than convert it to an integer is not a small, incremental change. It's more in the realm of a speculative proposal. But I'm not sure that arguing that our string of bit

Re: IPv4 address length technical design

In article <72a2f9af18ec024c962a748ea6cf75b90ed2b...@w8ussfj204.ams.gblxint.com> you write: >Wouldn't that implicate the routing system to have, in essence, one routing >entry for every host on the network? > >That would be the moral equivalent to just dropping down to a global ethernet >fabric

Re: 100.100.0.0/24

>> by all accounts this has been advertised since 8/24. > space allocated: 2012-03-13 > that's 5 months and 11 days too long. no one noticed the other leaks

Re: 100.100.0.0/24

Our issue is the templates were updated except for all but one type of device. If you see issues with 2914 folks can ping me off-list. - jared On Oct 5, 2012, at 11:24 AM, Ben Bartsch wrote: > use this: > > http://www.team-cymru.org/Services/Bogons/bgp.html > > > On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 10:18

Re: 100.100.0.0/24

On 10/5/12 8:18 AM, Jared Mauch wrote: On Oct 5, 2012, at 11:07 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote: On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 8:29 AM, joel jaeggli wrote: by all accounts this has been advertised since 8/24. space allocated: 2012-03-13 that's 5 months and 11 days too long. I suspect not everyone ha

Re: 100.100.0.0/24

use this: http://www.team-cymru.org/Services/Bogons/bgp.html On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 10:18 AM, Jared Mauch wrote: > > On Oct 5, 2012, at 11:07 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 8:29 AM, joel jaeggli wrote: > > > >> by all accounts this has been advertised since 8/24. >

RE: IPv4 address length technical design

Wouldn't that implicate the routing system to have, in essence, one routing entry for every host on the network? That would be the moral equivalent to just dropping down to a global ethernet fabric to replace IP and using mac addresses for routing. I'll give you one guess as to how well that w

Re: 100.100.0.0/24

On Oct 5, 2012, at 11:07 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote: > On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 8:29 AM, joel jaeggli wrote: > >> by all accounts this has been advertised since 8/24. > > space allocated: 2012-03-13 > that's 5 months and 11 days too long. I suspect not everyone has updated their 'bogon' filte

Re: 100.100.0.0/24

On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 8:29 AM, joel jaeggli wrote: > by all accounts this has been advertised since 8/24. space allocated: 2012-03-13 that's 5 months and 11 days too long.

RE: IPv4 address length technical design

I had toyed with the idea that maybe we needed an identity based routing system. Addressing doesn't change because it's the physical map of the network. Instead what you need is a set of identity "banking" servers, either arranged by organization or contract, that hold a public key and that your

Re: Dropping IPv6 Fragments

On 10/04/2012 04:36 PM, Dobbins, Roland wrote: > > On Oct 4, 2012, at 9:26 PM, Sander Steffann wrote: > >> The closer you get to the edge the more common it might become... > > iACLs should be implemented at the network edge to drop all IPv4 and IPv6 > traffic - including non-initial fragments

Re: IPv4 address length technical design

On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 7:36 PM, Barry Shein wrote: > In Singapore in June 2011 I gave a talk at HackerSpaceSG about just > doing away with IP addresses entirely, and DNS. > About the only obvious objection, other than vague handwaves about > compute efficiency, is it would potentially make packets

Re: 100.100.0.0/24

On 10/5/12 5:08 AM, Randy Bush wrote: http://bgp.he.net/net/100.100.0.0/24#_bogon A surprising number of large transit ASes appear to be more than willing to accept this prefix from AS4847. a private address space leak? and propagated. i am deeply shocked. wtf did people think would happen?

Re: Dropping IPv6 Fragments

On Thu, 4 Oct 2012, Tom Taylor wrote: Who drops IPv6 fragments in their network, under what circumstances? People who run 7600 with SUP720 and who hasn't turned on a certain command. #platform ipv6 acl fragment hardwar

Re: 100.100.0.0/24

> http://bgp.he.net/net/100.100.0.0/24#_bogon > > A surprising number of large transit ASes appear to be more than willing > to accept this prefix from AS4847. a private address space leak? and propagated. i am deeply shocked. wtf did people think would happen? randy