Re: historic SWIP (or rwhois) data?

APNIC has whowas also https://www.apnic.net/static/whowas-ui/ For RWhois, check with the organization operating rwhoisd? They might have the information beyond RWhois. Yang On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 9:11 AM, Benoit Panizzon wrote: > Well @ RIPE ist is quite simple to

Re: Companies using public IP space owned by others for internal routing

I’m pretty sure Comcast, along with most other MSOs in NA, use squat space for various endpoints because they have run out of public and private IPv4 space. Everyone obviously wants to get to all IPv6 but there are millions of end devices and other gear they speak to which do not support it.

Re: Companies using public IP space owned by others for internal routing

Who are you alluding to who helped fund the development of the internet? Get Outlook for Android From: Scott Morizot Sent: Monday, December 18, 16:09 Subject: Re: Companies using public IP space owned by others for internal routing To: Robert Webb Cc: Mark Andrews,

Re: Companies using public IP space owned by others for internal routing

On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 11:31 PM, Eric Kuhnke wrote: > some fun examples of the size of ipv6: > > https://samsclass.info/ipv6/exhaustion-2016.htm > > https://www.reddit.com/r/theydidthemath/comments/ > 2qxgxw/self_just_how_big_is_ipv6/ Hi Eric, Lies, damn lies and

Re: Companies using public IP space owned by others for internal routing

On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 8:49 PM, Robert Webb wrote: > > From: Mark Andrews [mailto:ma...@isc.org] > > > On 18 Dec 2017, at 1:20 pm, Robert Webb wrote: > > > > > > Where I work I have the opposite issue. They have a lot of public IPv4 > > > space and only

Re: Companies using public IP space owned by others for internal routing

Companies like COMCAST did. They manage the modems over IPv6. They also supported DS-Lite’s development as a transition mechanism so they wouldn’t have to run IPv4 to their customers. They wanted to be able to go IPv6 only. That meant having IPv4 as a service available. -- Mark Andrews >

Re: Companies using public IP space owned by others for internal routing

On 17 December 2017 at 17:48, Tom Carter wrote: > RFC1918 isn't big enough to cover all use cases. Think about a large > internet service providers. If you have ten million customers, 10.0.0.0/8 > would be enough to number modems, but what happens when you need to number >

Re: Free access to measurement network

The RLEC infrastructure doesn't include the ROW. That belongs to the municipality. You are largely correct that you don't have access to RLEC infrastructure. IANAL, so I don't know the precise limitations. Many have been made to port their numbers, but some are still protected. You won't

Re: 40G and 100G optics options

On Mon Dec 18, 2017 at 06:01:39PM +0100, Baldur Norddahl wrote: > What options are available for 40G QSFP+ and 100G QSFP28 for 10+ km links? LR4 and weak ER4 (flexoptix were trying to get a 40km part out, only 25km has emerged so far) then you're into coherent stuff in a separate box (which per

Re: 40G and 100G optics options

This is the "failure" of us (the business) choosing QSFP as the de-factor formfactor for 100G, there is not power in that cage to make 10km+ optics in an easy way. If we would have pushed for CFP4 as the "last" formfactor in 100G land we would be much better off. The options you have to choose

RE: Free access to measurement network

It absolutely is the same issue. Rural electrification and rural telecommunications are the same model, neither one happened without govt subsidies because the economics don't work any other way. Same kind of engineering challenges when you build a large expensive distribution system for a

Re: 40G and 100G optics options

On 12/18/17 09:01, Baldur Norddahl wrote: > Hi > > What options are available for 40G QSFP+ and 100G QSFP28 for 10+ km > links? > > I see a lot of switches offered with QSFP+ and QSFP28. But I do not > seem to find the necessary optics to build the links I want. > > For example, take a look at the

Re: 40G and 100G optics options

Have you checked out Flexoptix? https://www.flexoptix.net/en/transceiver/qsfp_ Tim On 12/18/17 9:01 AM, Baldur Norddahl wrote: > Hi > > What options are available for 40G QSFP+ and 100G QSFP28 for 10+ km links? > > I see a lot of switches offered with QSFP+ and QSFP28. But I do not seem > to

RE: Free access to measurement network

That must be recent change then because last time I looked RLECs are pretty well protected from CLEC competition. That was the original telecom act difference between CLECs and RLECs. Their argument was that it was so hard to be economically viable in low density areas that they deserved to

40G and 100G optics options

Hi What options are available for 40G QSFP+ and 100G QSFP28 for 10+ km links? I see a lot of switches offered with QSFP+ and QSFP28. But I do not seem to find the necessary optics to build the links I want. For example, take a look at the options available at Fiberstore:

Re: Free access to measurement network

There's nothing stopping you from using CLEC status to build in the ROW of an RLEC area. Fixed wireless is the most cost effective way to deploy in rural environments, other than at some point ultra rural, satellite takes over. That's kinda what WISPs have been doing for 20 years. So don't

RE: Free access to measurement network

Not if you are in an RLEC controlled territory you can't. They are protected monopolies by definition. You could do fixed wireless but not real cost effective to deploy in low density rural environments. Especially when there is a lack of cellular infrastructure to piggyback the

RE: Free access to measurement network

They may not be monopolies by definition but they act like one when there is only a single viable option. In Chicago I have access to Comcast Cable (city franchise cable provider in this area), AT Uverse (no fiber to the home so its DSL), or some wireless options (line of sight is tough, and

Re: Free access to measurement network

Anyone can roll their own wireline at the maximum regulatory effort of becoming a CLEC and construction permits. Some jurisdictions will let you in without this, but if you have the former, they must allow you the same access as the ILEC. Otherwise, they can do fixed wireless. -

RE: Free access to measurement network

The problem lies in the contracts that the big providers make the municipalities sign. Basically says that the incumbent cable provider cannot be ousted without breach of contract. The towns all sign because their only other choice is to roll out their own infrastructure which very few see

Re: historic SWIP (or rwhois) data?

Well @ RIPE ist is quite simple to query historical data: https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/db/support/documentation/ripe-database-documentation/types-of-queries/16-12-historical-queries I don't know if other registries offer similar services. Mit freundlichen Grüssen -Benoît Panizzon-

Re: Free access to measurement network

BTW: There are no government-enforced monopolies anywhere in the US, aside from possibly Native American reservations. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP - Original Message - From: "Edwin Pers"

RE: Free access to measurement network

Yes, the fact that both the city I work in and the town I live in have local govt-enforced monopolies reinforces the statement that I've (and all the other people near me) been voting with our collective wallets this entire time -Original Message- From: NANOG

Re: historic SWIP (or rwhois) data?

ARIN's WhoWas service? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP - Original Message - From: "Neal Rauhauser" To: "NANOG list" Sent: Sunday, December 17, 2017 2:41:57 PM

Re: Companies using public IP space owned by others for internal routing

We found a number of such instances when working in our last year's Internet Measurements Conference (IMC) paper [1] "A Multi-perspective Analysis of Carrier-Grade NAT Deployment". Back then, spring-summer 2016, we found a number of large cellular ISPs using routable IP address space for their

historic SWIP (or rwhois) data?

Hello, I'm working on a forensics problem rather than a network operations issue. I've got a /28 that I can see is currently assigned to a certain company via rwhois. What I want to do is see this block's history over the last five years. It was involved in some problematic behavior back in

Re: Companies using public IP space owned by others for internal routing

RFC1918 isn't big enough to cover all use cases. Think about a large internet service providers. If you have ten million customers, 10.0.0.0/8 would be enough to number modems, but what happens when you need to number video set top boxes and voice end points? I don't think anyone goes out and says

Call For Presentations - DNS-OARC Workshop 28, San Juan, Puerto Rico, 8th/9th March 2018

[with apologies to those who see this on multiple lists] Call For Presentations The 28th DNS-OARC Workshop will be hosted by ICANN in San Juan, Puerto Rico, and will take place on March 8th and 9th immediately before ICANN61 (March 10th - 15th) [*] The Workshop's Program Committee is now

Re: Companies using public IP space owned by others for internal routing

In a message written on Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 08:58:37AM -0500, Jason Iannone wrote: > My previous employer used 198.18/15 for CE links on IPVPN services. This one is mostly legit: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5735 -- Leo Bicknell - bickn...@ufp.org PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/

Re: Companies using public IP space owned by others for internal routing

My previous employer used 198.18/15 for CE links on IPVPN services. Walgreens used an American SP's space internally and couldn't talk to any users in that space as a result. On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 11:31 PM, Eric Kuhnke wrote: > some fun examples of the size of ipv6: > >