Internet to Tunisia

[Marshall Eubanks]

I am hearing reports of Internet blockage in / to Tunisia, where a near full-on 
revolt is being coordinated / reported on by
social media such as twitter ( #sidibouzid ), Facebook and Youtube. 

Can anyone confirm that there is blockage ? Are there any in-country resources 
to check this ? There does not appear to be a looking glass in Tunisia. 

Regards
Marshall 

Re: Internet to Tunisia

[Stephane Bortzmeyer]

On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 05:50:09AM -0500,
 Marshall Eubanks  wrote 
 a message of 10 lines which said:

> Can anyone confirm that there is blockage ?

There exists filtering for a long time and it is widely documented. I
am not aware of a global blockage today.

> Are there any in-country resources to check this ? 

The Web site of the Tunisian Internet agency, , it
is hosted in Tunis, as are some of the name servers of .TN like
ns2.ati.tn.

Re: Internet to Tunisia

[Nick Hilliard]

On 11/01/2011 10:50, Marshall Eubanks wrote:

I am hearing reports of Internet blockage in / to Tunisia, where a near full-on 
revolt is being coordinated / reported on by
social media such as twitter ( #sidibouzid ), Facebook and Youtube.

Can anyone confirm that there is blockage ? Are there any in-country resources 
to check this ? There does not appear to be a looking glass in Tunisia.


Are you referring to this:

http://www.thetechherald.com/article.php/201101/6651/Tunisian-government-harvesting-usernames-and-passwords

(short url: http://tinyurl.com/36tu64h)

Nick

Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?

[Jethro R Binks]

On Mon, 10 Jan 2011, Greg Whynott wrote:

> > Just as a pointer - one of the largest and most utilized IX (AMS-IX) 
> > has their platform built on Brocade devices.
> 
> Brocade device's pre Foundry purchase correct?  I can't see anyone that 
> large using Foundry in large deployments..

Probably not as large as AMX-IX, but London Internet Exchange (LINX): both 
as Foundry and Brocade.

Jethro.

.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .
Jethro R Binks, Network Manager,
Information Services Directorate, University Of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK

The University of Strathclyde is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, number SC015263.

Re: AltDB?

[John Curran]

On Jan 11, 2011, at 1:45 AM, Doug Barton wrote:

> On (admittedly) cursory exam I didn't see a form to submit anything, so I 
> gravitated to the rather large login widget under the assumption that it must 
> be important because it's so big. :) 
> ...

Doug - 
 
  It's perfectly understandable, and doesn't distract from your main
  point that the circumstances (ARIN effectively mandating MAIL-FROM 
  for authentication) is patently unacceptable and shouldn't require any
  more effort than pointing such out in email.  I did not perceive the
  situation initially, and hence sent Jeff Wheeler off to said suggestion 
  form.  As noted, we're now looking into how to fix the IRR authentication
  situation and will report back asap.

/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN

Re: arin and ops fora (was Re: AltDB?)

[Jack Bates]

On 1/11/2011 12:57 AM, David Conrad wrote:

Or not.  It may be that network operators (not just the ones that show up at 
ARIN meetings and are on PPML) are happy with the existing communication 
channels and that additional structures to encourage participation and input in 
the ARIN region regarding services ARIN provides to the public are unnecessary.



Public easily reachable people. Public information on operations and 
what they do on their website with tons of pointers (even if it's not 
laid out the best). Public participation mailing lists. Presence of key 
people on other lists such as nanog.


What more is an org supposed to do to communicate with people? Even the 
CEO lurks on nanog and responds when necessary. What community were you 
wanting them to interface with? I could be wrong, but I suspect any 
genius ideas which the CEO hears via the various communication mediums 
may quickly find it's way to be implemented. Sure, it may get restricted 
to some degree depending on how people in PPML feel about it. I'm sure 
the membership has some say on how their money is spent. Neither of 
these things limit the ability to suggest an idea.



Jack

Re: Satellite IP

[mikea]

On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 04:33:30PM -0500, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> - Original Message -
> > From: "Valdis Kletnieks" 
> 
> > > Why the hostility, Valdis?
> > 
> > As I said several times - it's not hard to be 98% or 99% sure you can make
> > all your commitments. However, since predicting the future is an inexact
> > science,
> > it's really hard to provide a *100% guarantee* that you'll have enough
> > contended capacity to make all the performance targets even if every
> > single occasional customer shows up at once. As Jay pointed out in his
> > follow-up note, his backup strategy is "scramble around and hope another
> > provider can
> > come through in time", which is OK if you *know* that's your strategy
> > and are OK on it. However, blindly going along with "my usual provider
> > guaranteed 100% availability" is a bad idea.
> 
> I don't think Kelly is on his first rodeo, and I know I'm not.
> 
> "scramble around" is a bit pejorative as descriptions for my booking 
> strategy go, but everyone has a cranky day every so often, not least me.
> 
> :-)
> 
> And note that I *also* pointed out that carrier statmuxing on the 
> transport is a valid strategy for capacity elasticity, in that particular
> environment.
> 
> > Remember, we're coming out of a solar minimum. ;)
> 
> Are we in fact coming out of it yet?  I heard it was getting deeper,
> and that we were looking at a Dalton, if not another Maunder.

I'll have to find the paper I read yesterday that said we should expect to
wait a long time before we see sunspot counts back where they should be.
... Try this:



-- 
Mike Andrews, W5EGO
mi...@mikea.ath.cx
Tired old sysadmin 

Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?

[Ron Broersma]

> Brocade device's pre Foundry purchase correct?  I can't see anyone that large 
> using Foundry in large deployments..

Foundry/Brocade is used heavily in portions of DoD's research and engineering 
community.  It is usually preferred where you need high 10Gig port density, 
IPv6, and/or sflow.  But Juniper and Cisco are used heavily as well, depending 
on local requirements and culture.
--Ron



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

RE: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?

[Brandon Kim]

For anyone that is following this thread/subject from yesterday, is it me or 
does it seem as if Cisco really isn't
the choice for most SP's?

Someone has mentioned that it all really depends on your needs and what it is 
you want to provide.

IMO, every vendor has something they are good at. I wouldn't use Cisco for 
everything, nor Juniper etc etc...

The concern I sense is that from Cisco's POV, it's their way or the highway. 
Not only do you pay a premium for smartnet,
but if there's an issue, they are quick to point the finger. That is not 
service/support that I desire

Is this what everyone is sensing as well? I'm starting to look at Brocade now 
just to do some fair comparisons.




> Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 13:56:31 +
> From: jethro.bi...@strath.ac.uk
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?
> 
> On Mon, 10 Jan 2011, Greg Whynott wrote:
> 
> > > Just as a pointer - one of the largest and most utilized IX (AMS-IX) 
> > > has their platform built on Brocade devices.
> > 
> > Brocade device's pre Foundry purchase correct?  I can't see anyone that 
> > large using Foundry in large deployments..
> 
> Probably not as large as AMX-IX, but London Internet Exchange (LINX): both 
> as Foundry and Brocade.
> 
> Jethro.
> 
> ..  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .
> Jethro R Binks, Network Manager,
> Information Services Directorate, University Of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK
> 
> The University of Strathclyde is a charitable body, registered in
> Scotland, number SC015263.
> 
  

Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?

[Jack Bates]

On 1/11/2011 8:23 AM, Brandon Kim wrote:


For anyone that is following this thread/subject from yesterday, is it me or 
does it seem as if Cisco really isn't
the choice for most SP's?



Just going on Cisco, Juniper, and Brocade.

Cisco (especially ASR) makes the best DSL services aggregation feature 
set, Juniper a close second. Brocade doesn't have subscriber management 
functionality. The ASR is the cheapest subscriber management router I've 
been able to find (outside of 7200) and supports redundant processors.


Brocade has the cheapest 10GE/100GE interfaces, does well in many 
middleman situations. It has limitations on 802.11ad which can be 
redesigned using p2p vpls if you need granular control at the SP edge. 
At last check, multi-topology for isis was still on roadmap but not 
implemented. This may have changed. Not sure.


Juniper makes for excellent core routing, BGP and business customer 
edge. The functionality a Juniper does support is very robust. With the 
new MX line's trio chipset, they are continuing to push more 
edge/subscriber management features to the edge, all hardware supported.


An additional point is always added to Cisco for supporting the used 
market. This drastically lowers purchase cost at a slightly higher 
support cost. Even an ASR, which is hard to find used, can keep it's 
cost low by adding used SPA interfaces.


This generally means I look at Cisco for the subscriber management 
aggregation router, Juniper for the core, and Brocade for mpls switching 
in metro scenarios where the cost of Juniper at each of the metro pops 
makes for a very scary bill.




The concern I sense is that from Cisco's POV, it's their way or the highway. 
Not only do you pay a premium for smartnet,
but if there's an issue, they are quick to point the finger. That is not 
service/support that I desire



Premium for smartnet is offset by the fact that you can get smartnet on 
used gear at a fraction of the cost. Even if your used portion is only 
the linecards (which new often cost more than the chassis/switching 
fabric/dual routing engines), it's a huge cost savings for large 
deployments in broadband aggregation w/ subscriber management.


To be honest, I use smartnet to upgrade the OS. I quit calling TAC after 
they failed to understand, much less help me with my eigrp over frame 
relay with automatic ISDN backup on route failure and re-establishment 
of eigrp over the ISDN. :)



Is this what everyone is sensing as well? I'm starting to look at Brocade now 
just to do some fair comparisons.


Nothing wrong with brocade unless you want high end 802.1ad, 
multi-topology (may be fixed, or will soon) isis, subscriber management. 
There is no fair comparisons, though. Each box has it's strengths and 
weaknesses.



Jack (currently using C/J, Brocade is spec'd if management will ever 
sign off on replacing those darn C5500s which are 10 years overdue to 
upgrade)

Re: Internet to Tunisia

[Marshall Eubanks]

On Jan 11, 2011, at 6:03 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote:

> On 11/01/2011 10:50, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
>> I am hearing reports of Internet blockage in / to Tunisia, where a near 
>> full-on revolt is being coordinated / reported on by
>> social media such as twitter ( #sidibouzid ), Facebook and Youtube.
>> 
>> Can anyone confirm that there is blockage ? Are there any in-country 
>> resources to check this ? There does not appear to be a looking glass in 
>> Tunisia.
> 
> Are you referring to this:
> 
> http://www.thetechherald.com/article.php/201101/6651/Tunisian-government-harvesting-usernames-and-passwords
> 
> (short url: http://tinyurl.com/36tu64h)

No, I have received personal communications. 

On twitter right now there are frequent claims that all https is blocked 
(presumably a port blocking). 

Regards
Marshall



> 
> Nick
> 

RE: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?

[Justin M. Streiner]

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011, Brandon Kim wrote:

Someone has mentioned that it all really depends on your needs and what 
it is you want to provide.


Agree 100%.  Some vendors are better at delivering X than others.

IMO, every vendor has something they are good at. I wouldn't use Cisco 
for everything, nor Juniper etc etc...


A lot of it comes down to striking an appropriate balance between the 
points I made in my last message.  Using a different vendor for every 
service you offer would probably not scale too well in terms of 
manageability, but getting into bed with one vendor can have consequences 
as well.  It's ultimately up to you to decide how you want to proceed 
since you're the one spending the money :)


The concern I sense is that from Cisco's POV, it's their way or the 
highway. Not only do you pay a premium for smartnet, but if there's an 
issue, they are quick to point the finger. That is not service/support 
that I desire


Some of that perceived arrogance came from being the big kid on the 
block.  The way Cisco acted in the past when they were pretty much the 
only game in town reminds me a lot of the way Microsoft and Oracle 
conduct(ed) their business as well, even today **.


I haven't seen much of that from Cisco in a while, but if I have a 
problem with a TAC case or a TAC engineer, I'll get my account team 
involved.  Over the years, a number of legitimate competitors to Cisco 
have gained market share, and competition often has the effect of 
adjusting attitudes and leveling the playing field a bit.


jms

** - had an account rep from Cisco in the dot-com days, whose idea of 
customer interaction was calling to confirm that the purchase order just 
came off the fax machine :)

Re: Internet to Tunisia

[Simon Waters]

On Tuesday 11 January 2011 14:58:51 Marshall Eubanks wrote:
>
> On twitter right now there are frequent claims that all https is blocked
> (presumably a port blocking).

A quick search pulls up.
http://www.cpj.org/internet/2011/01/tunisia-invades-censors-facebook-other-accounts.php

Since Gmail defaults to HTTPS, and many other sites left to their own devices, 
it is necessary for an attacker to try and force clients to use HTTP or start 
conversation using HTTP (so that no one notices when the important bit isn't 
encrypted, or to enable javascript from a third part to be injected).

NoScript for Firefox has a force HTTPS for a domain feature.
http://noscript.net/faq#qa6_3

But what clients really need is a way for servers to say "always use 
encryption".
http://noscript.net/faq#STS

Of course when it gets to the level of countries, it is quite plausible your 
browser may already trust a certificate authority under their jurisdiction so 
all bets are off.

I think I'm saying HTTPS doesn't quite hack it in browsers yet, but it will 
be "secure enough" real soon now.

RE: AltDB?

[Koch, Andrew]

On Jan 11, 2011 at 8:14AM, John Curran wrote:

>   It's perfectly understandable, and doesn't distract from your main
>   point that the circumstances (ARIN effectively mandating MAIL-FROM
>   for authentication) is patently unacceptable and shouldn't require any
>   more effort than pointing such out in email.  I did not perceive the
>   situation initially, and hence sent Jeff Wheeler off to said suggestion
>   form.  As noted, we're now looking into how to fix the IRR authentication
>   situation and will report back asap.

As you are checking out authentication, can you also check out the notify 
fields as well.  I was informed in July 2010 that neither mnt-nfy nor notify 
fields were operational.  I submitted suggestion 2011.2 requesting these be 
activated.

Regards,

Andrew Koch
TDS Telecom - IP Network Operations
andrew.k...@tdstelecom.com

Re: AltDB?

[John Curran]

On Jan 11, 2011, at 10:18 AM, Koch, Andrew wrote:

> As you are checking out authentication, can you also check out the notify 
> fields as well.  I was informed in July 2010 that neither mnt-nfy nor notify 
> fields were operational.  I submitted suggestion 2011.2 requesting these be 
> activated.

Will do - Thanks for the note.
/John

John Curran 
President and CEO
ARIN

Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?

[Seth Mattinen]

On 1/11/11 6:49 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
> 
> To be honest, I use smartnet to upgrade the OS. I quit calling TAC after
> they failed to understand, much less help me with my eigrp over frame
> relay with automatic ISDN backup on route failure and re-establishment
> of eigrp over the ISDN. :)
> 

The cisco-nsp mailing list is often much more helpful than TAC.

~Seth

Re: NIST IPv6 document

[Valdis . Kletnieks]

On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 22:22:32 CST, Jack Bates said:

> Really? Which machine was using the privacy extension address on the 
> /64? I don't see how it's made it any easier to track. In some ways, on 
> provider edges that don't support DHCPv6 IA_TA and relay on slaac, it's 
> one extra nightmare.

The same exact way you currently track down an IP address that some machine has
started using without bothering to ask your DHCP server for an allocation, of 
course.

Remember - the privacy extension was so that somebody far away on the Internet
couldn't easily correlate "all these hits on websites were from the same box".
It gives a user approximately *zero* protection against their own ISP dumping
the ARP tables off every switch 5 minutes and keeping the data handy in case
they have to track a specific MAC or IP address down.

And if you know how to do that sort of thing for rogue/unexpected stuff on 
IPv4, doing it
for IPv6 is trivial.





pgpUJ7vc1S2Yf.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: NIST IPv6 document

[Jack Bates]

On 1/11/2011 10:57 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:

The same exact way you currently track down an IP address that some machine has
started using without bothering to ask your DHCP server for an allocation, of 
course.



But it's no easier. Especially when you hit the customer equipment. NAT 
may be gone there, but knowing which computer it is will likely be 
impossible (as it won't be standard policy for the customer to grab arp 
tables).



Remember - the privacy extension was so that somebody far away on the Internet
couldn't easily correlate "all these hits on websites were from the same box".
It gives a user approximately *zero* protection against their own ISP dumping
the ARP tables off every switch 5 minutes and keeping the data handy in case
they have to track a specific MAC or IP address down.



I dislike this method, though. It works, but I much prefer to correlate 
with radius accounting logs backended on a DHCP server. Sadly, even in 
v4, implementations are not always available. Of course, I don't run NAT 
at the provider edge, but customer's often do, and while I will be able 
to track the customer, knowing which machine will be just as impossible 
as it is with NAT.



Jack

Re: IPv6 - real vs theoretical problems

[Michael Loftis]

On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 3:44 PM, Owen DeLong  wrote:

> There are multiple purposes to /48s to residential end users.
>
> DHCP-PD allows a lot of future innovations not yet available.
>
>        Imagine a house where the border router receives a /48
>        from the ISP and delegates /64s or /60s or whatever to
>        other routers within the house.
>
>        Each home entertainment cluster may be one group of
>        networks with its own router.
>
>        The appliance network(s) may have their own router(s).
>
>        RFID tags on groceries may lead to a time when your
>        home automation server can gather up data from your
>        refrigerator, pantries, etc. and present the inventory
>        on your mobile phone while you're at the grocery store.
>        No more need to maintain a shopping list, just query
>        the inventory from the store.
>
> These are just the things that could easily be done with the
> technology we already know about. Imagine what we might
> think of once we get more used to having prefix abundance.


Having more address space won't help most of these uses, and as for
why, take a look at the proposed situation with for example home media
serving/sharing systems by TiVo, Apple, etc. They all require that the
units be within the same broadcast domain or that there be a
configured bridge of some sort if they even allow that topology.  They
(actually rightfully) assume that the network topology is flat, single
broadcast domain, and mroe and more use Multicast DNS (which I've seen
called a bunch of different things)  More to the point, your average
home user can not technically fathom anything more complicated than
"plug it in" -- and many begin to fail to set something up properly
when its extended to something as complicated as "plug it in, push a
button" or "plug it in, type some numbers into the device"

Your average home user has no reason at all for anything more than a
PtP to his/her gateway, and a single prefix routed to that gateway.
There are most certainly a few (which includes I'm sure 99% of the
NANOGers!) subscribers who can and will use more space than that, and
ISPs most definitely should make /48s readily and easily available for
those customers, but giving each and every customer a /48 (or really,
even a pair of /64s, one for the PtP, one delegated) is almost
certainly overkill.  The devices won't use the extra space unless
there's some automagic way of them communicating the desire to
eachother, and appropriately configuring themselves, and it would have
to be very widely accepted.  But there's no technical gain.  A typical
household would probably have less than about 50, maybe 100 devices,
even if we start networking appliances like toasters, hair dryers and
every single radio, tv, and light switch.

Just my 2 cents worth.

Re: arin and ops fora (was Re: AltDB?)

[Owen DeLong]

On Jan 11, 2011, at 6:15 AM, Jack Bates wrote:

> On 1/11/2011 12:57 AM, David Conrad wrote:
>> Or not.  It may be that network operators (not just the ones that show up at 
>> ARIN meetings and are on PPML) are happy with the existing communication 
>> channels and that additional structures to encourage participation and input 
>> in the ARIN region regarding services ARIN provides to the public are 
>> unnecessary.
>> 
> 
> Public easily reachable people. Public information on operations and what 
> they do on their website with tons of pointers (even if it's not laid out the 
> best). Public participation mailing lists. Presence of key people on other 
> lists such as nanog.
> 
> What more is an org supposed to do to communicate with people? Even the CEO 
> lurks on nanog and responds when necessary. What community were you wanting 
> them to interface with? I could be wrong, but I suspect any genius ideas 
> which the CEO hears via the various communication mediums may quickly find 
> it's way to be implemented. Sure, it may get restricted to some degree 
> depending on how people in PPML feel about it. I'm sure the membership has 
> some say on how their money is spent. Neither of these things limit the 
> ability to suggest an idea.
> 
> 
> Jack

Just to be clear... Participation in PPML is open to ANYONE, not just ARIN 
members. There are a lot of non-members on PPML
and their voices count just as much as members on that list.

Owen

RE: IPv6 - real vs theoretical problems

[George Bonser]

> From: Michael Loftis 
> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 10:46 AM
> To: nanog
> Subject: Re: IPv6 - real vs theoretical problems


> Your average home user has no reason at all for anything more than a
> PtP to his/her gateway, and a single prefix routed to that gateway.
> There are most certainly a few (which includes I'm sure 99% of the
> NANOGers!) subscribers who can and will use more space than that, and
> ISPs most definitely should make /48s readily and easily available for
> those customers, but giving each and every customer a /48 (or really,
> even a pair of /64s, one for the PtP, one delegated) is almost
> certainly overkill.  The devices won't use the extra space unless
> there's some automagic way of them communicating the desire to
> eachother, and appropriately configuring themselves, and it would have
> to be very widely accepted.  But there's no technical gain.  A typical
> household would probably have less than about 50, maybe 100 devices,
> even if we start networking appliances like toasters, hair dryers and
> every single radio, tv, and light switch.
> 
> Just my 2 cents worth.

And what is to say that some devices won't have several different IPs?
Maybe a different subnet is associated with each individual in the
household when getting their voicemail or making DVR recordings or
whatever.And I might want the stuff in my garage on a different
subnet that the stuff in my living room because it has different access
policy. To say " Your average home user has no reason at all ..." seems
like saying the average user will have no reason at all to need more
than 640K of RAM.  Many of us are looking at things from today's
perspective.  Maybe each room of my house will have its own subnet with
a low power access point and I can find which room something is in by
the IP address it has.  I have no idea, but do believe there is no
reason to be restrictive in network assignments with v6.

Re: IPv6 - real vs theoretical problems

[Jack Bates]

On 1/11/2011 1:05 PM, George Bonser wrote:

Many of us are looking at things from today's
perspective.  Maybe each room of my house will have its own subnet with
a low power access point and I can find which room something is in by
the IP address it has.


Today, there are several vendors who believe the wireless part of their 
cpe should be a different subnet than the ethernet. There are multiple 
cases of stacked routers in homes, which requires multiple DHCPv6-PD 
delegations, and the current philosophy is very wasteful (as DHCPv6 
itself doesn't support variable sized requests, chained requesting, and 
other options which would make it efficient for a requesting router 3 
routers away from the initial DHCPv6 server).



Jack

Agenda for Miami

[Schiller, Heather A]

 Hopefully posted soonish?  Less than 3 weeks to the meeting, the early
registration window has passed and there is still no agenda.  

 Thanks,
--h

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Heather Schiller
Network Security - Verizon Business
1.800.900.0241secur...@verizonbusiness.com

Re: IPv6 - real vs theoretical problems

[Owen DeLong]

On Jan 11, 2011, at 10:45 AM, Michael Loftis wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 3:44 PM, Owen DeLong  wrote:
> 
>> There are multiple purposes to /48s to residential end users.
>> 
>> DHCP-PD allows a lot of future innovations not yet available.
>> 
>>Imagine a house where the border router receives a /48
>>from the ISP and delegates /64s or /60s or whatever to
>>other routers within the house.
>> 
>>Each home entertainment cluster may be one group of
>>networks with its own router.
>> 
>>The appliance network(s) may have their own router(s).
>> 
>>RFID tags on groceries may lead to a time when your
>>home automation server can gather up data from your
>>refrigerator, pantries, etc. and present the inventory
>>on your mobile phone while you're at the grocery store.
>>No more need to maintain a shopping list, just query
>>the inventory from the store.
>> 
>> These are just the things that could easily be done with the
>> technology we already know about. Imagine what we might
>> think of once we get more used to having prefix abundance.
> 
> 
> Having more address space won't help most of these uses, and as for
> why, take a look at the proposed situation with for example home media

Yes, it will...

> serving/sharing systems by TiVo, Apple, etc. They all require that the
> units be within the same broadcast domain or that there be a
> configured bridge of some sort if they even allow that topology.  They

That is the current state of the art which is the direct result of the lack
of address space and the lack of the features I am describing making
this absolutely necessarily.

> (actually rightfully) assume that the network topology is flat, single
> broadcast domain, and mroe and more use Multicast DNS (which I've seen

Yes, that assumption is valid today. Future technology can change that
assumption in useful and meaningful ways.

> called a bunch of different things)  More to the point, your average
> home user can not technically fathom anything more complicated than
> "plug it in" -- and many begin to fail to set something up properly
> when its extended to something as complicated as "plug it in, push a
> button" or "plug it in, type some numbers into the device"

DHCP-PD will allow for hierarchical topology that is not more complicated
than "plug it in". No button push, no typing something in. Literally plug
it in.
> 
> Your average home user has no reason at all for anything more than a
> PtP to his/her gateway, and a single prefix routed to that gateway.

Correct. I'm just saying that prefix should be a /48 so that the gateway
can work with the other gateways inside the house to designate the
best topology within the house. Note, this is all automated. It doesn't
require the end-user to actually do anything other than plug it in.

> There are most certainly a few (which includes I'm sure 99% of the
> NANOGers!) subscribers who can and will use more space than that, and
> ISPs most definitely should make /48s readily and easily available for
> those customers, but giving each and every customer a /48 (or really,
> even a pair of /64s, one for the PtP, one delegated) is almost
> certainly overkill.  The devices won't use the extra space unless

That is today only thinking. Toss out your IPv4 scarcity-based assumptions
about what is possible. IPv6 does have new features and new capabilities
that we are just beginning to consider.

> there's some automagic way of them communicating the desire to
> eachother, and appropriately configuring themselves, and it would have
> to be very widely accepted.  But there's no technical gain.  A typical

It's called DHCPv6-PD and it already exists. That's the point!!

> household would probably have less than about 50, maybe 100 devices,
> even if we start networking appliances like toasters, hair dryers and
> every single radio, tv, and light switch.
> 
It's not about the number of devices. That's IPv4-think. It's about the number
of segments. I see a world where each home-entertainment cluster would
be a separate segment (today, few things use IP, but, future HE solutions
will include Monitors, Amps, Blu-Ray players, and other Media gateways
that ALL have ethernet ports for control and software update). The
kitchen appliances would probably have their own segment. A refrigerator
or pantry may have a front-end router that separates the household
backbone from the network interfacing all the RFIDs contained within
the device. I'm sure there are other examples where automated
segmentation of the network can, does, and will make sense.

We're just starting to explore this. The point is to have address delegation
policies which don't interfere with this development.

> Just my 2 cents worth.

I'll see your $0.02 and raise you $0.48 ;-)

Owen

Re: Agenda for Miami

[Kevin Oberman]

> Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 19:22:47 +
> From: "Schiller, Heather A" 
> 
>  Hopefully posted soonish?  Less than 3 weeks to the meeting, the early
> registration window has passed and there is still no agenda.  

Heather,

Yes, the holidays and the collision with Internet2 Joint Techs has
slowed down the process. The PC is meeting on Thursday to pretty much
finalize the agenda and I hope it will be available this week.
-- 
R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer
NANOG Program Committee