On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 11:53:29AM -0400, Ralph Doncaster wrote:
> I'm seeing 2-5% packet loss going through a Cisco 2621 with <10mbps of
> traffic running at ~50% CPU. (packet loss based on ping results)
>
> Pinging another box on the same catalyst 2900 switch gives no packet loss,
> so it see
On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 12:34:53AM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> But it certainly looks like a small DFZ table and portable address
> space are fundamentally incompatible.
At least if you want all the advantages that real BGP multihoming has.
Not surprising. :-)
Best regards,
Daniel
-
On Sat, Jul 09, 2005 at 12:08:08AM +0200, Andre Oppermann wrote:
> On the other hand a large DFZ routing table would simply dampen its
> growth by itself. If it gets to costly to multihome because of the
> hardware requirements only few would be able to so. Ergo we have a
> negative feedback sys
On Sat, Jul 09, 2005 at 12:52:35AM +0200, Andre Oppermann wrote:
> >Multihomed end sites usually get away with receiving only default route
> >or some partial routes from their upstreams. So technically you can
> >BGP multihome with Cisco 1600 or even smaller easily (dunno where BGP
> >support is
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 09:05:29PM -0400, Joe Abley wrote:
> Other failure modes require a full table (e.g. link failure between
> the ISP and its upstream, or some other partial withdrawal of
> connectivity).
That's absolutely correct. I've overseen this failure mode.
Consider me embarassed. :
On Sat, Jul 16, 2005 at 01:57:06AM +, Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote:
> Someone's been listening:
>
> http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=165702734
The only interesting bit in this article is the complete ignorance
regarding Europe.
Regards,
Daniel
--
CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: [
On Thu, Aug 04, 2005 at 02:54:07PM -0400, Joe Abley wrote:
> (slightly queasy, imagining the backscatter and worm probe love you'd
> suddenly attract when you advertised your yet-to-be-used /8 for the
> first time)
I would guesstimate about 8 Terabyte per day, judging from the traffic
I saw tow
On Thu, Aug 04, 2005 at 07:35:24PM +0100, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
> 1. Softbank BB is not on my radar of likely /8 candidates (of course,
> geography may be the reason for that)
Indeed, ASPAC is off most of our radars. :)
Given the size of Softbanks subscriber base, I'm not surprised about the
On Thu, Aug 04, 2005 at 09:26:48PM +0100, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
> > So you ask folks to resort to hacks like NAT or force IPv6-only to
> > their users when there is still a lack-of-content problem there?
> > Can you show me your business plan draft for that? I'm curious. :-)
>
> ok, thats not
On Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 06:25:00PM +0100, Brandon Butterworth wrote:
> But we could trade putting content on V6 for them if they make their
> network do multicast for us.
>
> Deal?
IPv6 multicast with embedded RP? Deal!
Regards,
Daniel
--
CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROT
On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 11:13:42AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The root of all these vulnerabilities is our inability to write
> complex software that is free of bugs.
Inability? I'd rather say it's an economic question. Would you want to
pay for proven bug-free software? Think twice (and l
On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 06:28:22PM +0700, Randy Bush wrote:
> those who see full stats at ixes, v4/6 isps, etc will tell you that
> actual v6 traffic is miniscule.
Not contesting the quantification, but what typical IXP switches can
do stats based on ethertype? Given that most relevant IPv6 playe
On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 05:58:15PM +0300, Joe Abley wrote:
> There are a few exchanges who isolate v6 and v4 traffic on separate
> VLANs. Stats based on VLAN are a little easier to come by.
Yeah, a few. Dying quickly. The most relevant IXPs or the IPv6 world
aren't, they run real dual-AFI in a
On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 02:08:01PM -0400, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
> You can only be a "tier 1" and maintain global reachability if you peer
> with every other tier 1. Level 3 is obviously the real thing, and Cogent
> is "close enough" (at least in their own minds :P) that they won't buy
>
On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 03:44:10PM -0400, Charles Gucker wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 02:08:01PM -0400, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
> > > You can only be a "tier 1" and maintain global reachability if you peer
> > > with every other tier 1. Level 3 is obviously the real thing, and Cogent
>
On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 03:51:34PM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> I think you and I have a different definition of "deny" and "decision".
I agree that my usage of words was highly suboptimal to express what I
wanted to express. See my other answer.
> Cogent was connected to L3. Level 3 TOOK
On Wed, Oct 12, 2005 at 11:13:12AM -1000, Randy Bush wrote:
> also to be noted is that rir statistics on who has what space are
> not in the best of shape, ripe's being particularly obfuscated.
*raising an eyebrow*
Would you care to elaborate on that?
Best regards,
Daniel
--
CLUE-RIPE -- Jab
On Thu, Oct 13, 2005 at 01:41:26AM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> As I know, BT and P2P (some apps), already are using IPv6 ;-)
I know of no official BitTorrent supporting IPv6... unfortunately.
There were patches floating around, but to my understanding
incompatible, and problems with BT s
On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 12:32:29AM +, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
> A few folks that have a deployment going are ahead of the curve, hopefully
> they can keep the parts they have running and upgrade away from the 7507
> that is their current solution :)
The larger EU/US ISPs that have real d
On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 10:57:59AM -0400, Joe Abley wrote:
> The big gap in the multi-homing story for v6 is for end sites, since
> those are specifically excluded by all the RIRs' policies on PI
> addressing right now. Shim6 is intended to be a solution for end sites.
But isn't a solution fo
On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 11:50:33AM -0400, Joe Abley wrote:
> I think it is far too early to judge how many end sites might find
> shim6 an acceptable solution, however -- I'd wait for some
> measurement and modelling before I made declarations about that,
You mean in some 5-10 years? When fin
On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 07:27:37PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> the kicker here is that the applications then need some
> serious smarts to do proper source address selection.
Nope. The ULID is supposed to be static, globally unique. Just not
globally routed. Seperating topology
On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 01:11:18PM -0700, Crist Clark wrote:
> Actually, doing multihoming and getting PI space are orthogonal in
> shim6 last I knew. That is, you could get address space from your N
> providers and have one of the providers, say Provider X, to be the
> ULID for the end points. Sh
On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 06:06:03PM -0400, Todd Vierling wrote:
> That said, even such a distant gateway would be fine for v6 *eyeballs* if
> organizations would voluntarily set up 6to4 outbound relays for their own v6
> networks. It's as simple as setting up a route to 2002::/16 at the border
> w
On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 10:45:33PM -0400, Todd Vierling wrote:
> Maybe to start -- but again, what kind of 6to4 traffic level are we
> expecting yet?
Peak or average? Think twice before answering. :-)
I'm told there are 6to4 relays seeing in excess of 100mbps. Not bursts.
Can you imagine trying
On Sat, Oct 15, 2005 at 03:15:45AM +, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
> > But I think the discussion is mood. IETF decided on their goal, and
> > it's superfluous trying to change that. While watching shim6 we carry
> > on hoping that we'll get IPv6 multihoming going in the conventional,
> > prov
On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 10:21:58PM -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
> For some equipment, it still works out to "forklift your network".
> For example, our current dialup gear doesn't support IPv6 (and AFAIK
> no upgrades are available or planned to add it).
How does that hinder your backbone, leased li
On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 09:52:19PM -0700, Tony Li wrote:
> The alternative is a multihoming scheme that does not require a
> prefix per site. But that doesn't match the stated requirement of
> 'conventional', 'proven', 'working' [sic], 'feature-complete'.
Those weren't the "stated requiremen
On Sun, Oct 23, 2005 at 11:59:15AM +0200, Peter Dambier wrote:
> I means, here in germany we cannot see h.root-servers.net
Nonsense. There is nothing like "geopolitical routing".
> Ok, it is only one of the root servers. But have a look who
> h.root-servers.net is. It is one of the originals not
On Sun, Oct 23, 2005 at 08:00:10PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 23, 2005 at 11:59:15AM +0200, Peter Dambier wrote:
> >> I means, here in germany we cannot see h.root-servers.net
> >
> > Nonsense. There is nothing like "geopolitical routing".
>
> I wouldn't call it "geopolitical ro
On Sun, Oct 23, 2005 at 09:48:58PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> This isn't the first time this has happened to an ISP. 8-(
Indeed.
> Are there any configuration tweaks which can locally confine such an
> event? Something like the hard prefix limit for BGP, perhaps.
JunOS:
set protocols ospf
On Mon, Oct 24, 2005 at 01:25:23PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> >> Are there any configuration tweaks which can locally confine such an
> >> event? Something like the hard prefix limit for BGP, perhaps.
> >
> > JunOS:
> > set protocols ospf prefix-export-limit
> > set protocols isis level pre
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 09:32:05AM -0500, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
> http://www.internetnews.com/infra/article.php/3570211
Well, vendors like Juniper were quick to add extra charges for IPv6
to get more out of this budget. :-) or better :-(
Vendors know that .gov HAS to buy the IPv6 license, th
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 07:50:14AM -0600, Kevin Day wrote:
> 1) IPv6 on the internet overall seems a bit unreliable at the moment.
> Entire /32's disappear and reappear, gone for days at a time.
That's certainly true for people not doing it "in production". But that
ain't a problem as they aren
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 08:34:06PM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> The issue with announcing say a /48 is though that networks which filter
> will filter it out and will only reach you over the aggregate. Of course
> that is their choice, just like yours is to try to announce the /48's in
> IPv6, or
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 02:30:18PM -0600, Albert Meyer wrote:
> I'd like to see a useful #nanog where network operators could chat.
That channel does exist but is not NANOG-related. Some #nanog folks who
do want to finally chat on-topic hang out there. Quote from one of them:
"dude, this is proll
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 04:43:58PM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Really? Where are the limits of BGP? Can you show me any numbers?
> > You'd be the first. I'm not aware of any protocol inherent scaling
> > brickwalls like with other protocols where certain timing constraints
> > place limits
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 02:54:37PM +0100, Pim van Pelt wrote:
> | The RIPE NCC received the IPv6 address range 2A01:::/16 from
> | the IANA in December 2005.
> Yaay, finally decently sized chunks to RIRs. Well done.
You're jumping to conclusions. As Jeroen mentioned, it could be just
someone
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 06:11:17PM -0500, Hannigan, Martin wrote:
> > Correct. And there you have minimum frame spacing requirements (IFG)
> > and (e.g. with 10Base2 networks) minimum distance between stations
> > attached to the bus to allow CSMA/CD work correctly.
>
> Interframe gap has no depe
On Fri, Dec 31, 2004 at 10:46:56AM -0800, Merike Kaeo wrote:
> An IPv6 network is sufficiently different from IPv4 that I encourage
> folks to not simply slap an IPv4 security model onto future IPv6
> networks.
Can you elaborate on "sufficiently different" please? Especially
on details which m
On Fri, Dec 31, 2004 at 02:35:49PM -0800, william(at)elan.net wrote:
> ipv6 tunnels are seen as good thing (rightly so)
Eh? Not really. Perhaps in developing countries regarding IPv6, but
other regions have moved on to native deployment. :-P
And now off to some new year's eve partying... :-)
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 09:51:36PM +1000, Philip Smith wrote:
> Many of the ISPs I've worked with around the world have followed this
> path - and they are quite happy. I really think there is absolutely no
> need to consider full mesh iBGP any more. I wouldn't go as far as saying
> it's histor
On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 03:10:58PM +0100, Fredy Kuenzler wrote:
> > wrt IPv6... why not?
>
>
> another thing the world does not need
>
So why do you peer IPv6 at NYIIX, AMSIX and probably other IXPs as
well?
What strikes me odd is that PAIX-* still uses crufty 6BONE 3ffe space
for their peeri
On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 04:20:31AM -0500, Charles Shen wrote:
> We did a "traceroute" end-to-end routing measurement in 2004 and found about
> 5-10% of measuremnts exhibiting rapidly-variable routing on the time scale
> of a single traceroute (seconds to minutes). In other words, the packets
> bel
On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 10:08:39PM -0500, James wrote:
> AFAIK, multiple routers showing up in a single-hop in traceroute response is
> a sign of packet-by-packet load balancing, not flow based.
Not necessarily, and in most cases probably not a fact. Don't forget
that standard UNIX traceroute use
On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 09:59:39PM -0500, Charles Shen wrote:
> From the responses, the answer to "the rapidly-variable routing on
> the time scale of seconds to minutes" seems to be:
>
> 1. It could be link layer load balancing, with the two interfaces
>belonging to the same router.
> 2. It
On Tue, Feb 01, 2005 at 08:17:03AM +0100, Daniel Roesen wrote:
> I'm not sure for the GSR platform, but as far as I remember, it's not
> supported at all on Engine 2 line cards, and has a performance penalty
> otherwise.
Found some reference on that:
http://www.cisco.co
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 01:27:31AM +, James A. T. Rice wrote:
> What exactly are you attempting to do here? Those announcements will get
> dropped on the floor at least in this AS right away:
>
> route-map peers-in deny 5
> match as-path 109
AS-Sets, not AS-Paths...
Regards,
Daniel
--
On Sat, Apr 02, 2005 at 01:48:51PM +0200, Elmar K. Bins wrote:
> The other: ICMP has been rate-limited. It might not be the way to
> test those locations. An mtr output would be more interesting :)
mtr uses ICMP too.
Regards,
Daniel
--
CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTE
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 05:29:46PM -0400, Patrick W Gilmore wrote:
> Is Cogent filtering the prefixes they get from Verio? Or is Verio
> filtering what they send to Cogent? Does it matter?
Or OT tagging their announcements to Sprint in a way that prevents them
being announced to Cogent in orde
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 06:52:49PM -0400, German Martinez wrote:
> > Or OT tagging their announcements to Sprint in a way that prevents them
> > being announced to Cogent in order to force Cogent into buying transit.
>
> For people interested hereafter our route-server:
>
> telnet://route-serve
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 12:36:22AM +0200, Daniel Roesen wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 05:29:46PM -0400, Patrick W Gilmore wrote:
> > Is Cogent filtering the prefixes they get from Verio? Or is Verio
> > filtering what they send to Cogent? Does it matter?
>
>
Dear NANOGers,
people were missing a global mailing list (not regional RIR/NOG)
dedicated to _operational_ matters of the global IPv6 (production, not
6BONE) Internet. To fill this void I've created such a mailing list:
http://lists.cluenet.de/mailman/listinfo/ipv6-ops/
So if you're taking part
On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 11:36:03PM +0200, Andre Oppermann wrote:
> The only missing thing there [in OpenBGPD] is full filtering
> capabilities which are under development currently.
Oh, and other very basic things like IPv4-multicast, IPv6-unicast and
IPv6-multicast AFI/SAFI support.
Regards,
D
On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 02:07:15PM -0700, Vicky Rode wrote:
> Basically I meant to say not congested as the current Internet is.
It is?
Regards,
Daniel
--
CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 11:08:42AM -0700, Dan Hollis wrote:
> Malicious packets now account for a significant percentage of all ip
> traffic.
As a data point:
An unused, never before used or even just announced /21 currently draws
an average of 112pps und 70kbit/s, translating to about 1GB (1 Gi
On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 02:08:13PM +0200, Alexander Koch wrote:
> With public peering you simply never know how much spare
> capacity your peer has free.
You also never know with private peering: Backbone links.
Regards,
Daniel
--
CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] --
On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 11:28:31AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> http://www.wired.com/news/infostructure/0,1377,68004,00.html?tw=wn_6techhead
>
> Dave Clark is proposing that the NSF should fund a new demonstration
> network that implements a fundamentally new architecture at many levels.
I
On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 11:48:06AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I think Dave Clark is talking about something more fundamental than
> simply IPv6 and also more far reaching. Also, the experience with
> retrofitting most of IPv6's new features into IPv4 shows that it
> is good to have role mod
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 08:46:07PM +, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
> > As far as aggregation - they are a couple reasons to not aggregate, but
> > the vast majority of it is sloth.
>
> like to meet C&W peering policy etc?
http://www1.cw.com/template_05.jsp?ID=peer_03
"aggregation is encouraged,
On Sat, Dec 28, 2002 at 12:33:52AM +0100, Nicolas DEFFAYET wrote:
> Who can provide me an IPv4 multicast tunnel with a mbgp session ?
>
> My multicast router is located at Paris, FR.
Why don't you ask on your own continent? Is there any particular
attractive idea behind sending traffic unnecessa
On Sat, Dec 28, 2002 at 01:46:44AM +0100, Nicolas DEFFAYET wrote:
> > > Who can provide me an IPv4 multicast tunnel with a mbgp session ?
> > >
> > > My multicast router is located at Paris, FR.
> >
> > Why don't you ask on your own continent? Is there any particular
> > attractive idea behind s
On Sat, Dec 28, 2002 at 03:02:35AM +0200, Rafi Sadowsky wrote:
> Seems your network(cluenet.de) finds sending traffic that way attractive
>
> Otherwise why does traffic from Israel(via Italy) to your website
> in Germany go via C&W in the USA ?
You mix up two things. A technical discussion (wh
On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 04:11:32PM -0500, Drew Weaver wrote:
>
> Howdy, Im having a little difficulty with a 7507, when I do sh run
> it just returns a newline and doesn't show me any the running-configuration.
Usually the result of low memory condition. Do a "sh mem free" and look
at the "Large
On Mon, Feb 10, 2003 at 12:05:55PM -0800, Bulger, Tim wrote:
> We're seeing packets with spoofed source addresses destined to
> 195.238.3.33 getting dropped on firewalls at several locations going
> outbound. Googling has turned up nothing relating to that destination
> IP address.
inetnum:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 08:28:23PM +, E.B. Dreger wrote:
> Assuming one's upstreams and peers lack 'deny le 7'.
Can you point out where the rule is written that noone is to
announce a prefix with length le 7? Just we don't see it now
doesn't mean we won't see it sometime in the future...
Re
On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 01:27:22PM -0700, William B. Norton wrote:
> From my conversations with folks in the Peering Coordinator Community,
> round numbers here, one can pick up a used 7500 series router equipment
> now for about $9K ! The configuration was with an OC-3, and FastE for
> peering,
On Mon, Aug 30, 2004 at 07:24:11PM -0400, Joe Provo wrote:
> > Anyone knows who filters these days?
>
> Lots of folks; manually though? Few. Be sure your data is accurate in
> [a trusted limb of] the IRR and it should be a non-issue.
But only then. Only IRRs where the IP address allocation i
[re-sent to NANOG alone... obviously Merit is filtering crossposts
selectively, so neither last weeks report, nor this one got through]
DNS WEATHER REPORT for selected infrastructure zones
Issue 2004-08-31
Zones analyzed and their SOA contacts
DNS WEATHER REPORT for selected infrastructure zones
Issue 2004-09-07
Zones analyzed and their SOA contacts:
- .
- arpa. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- int. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- in-addr.arpa [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- ip6.arpa.
On Tue, Sep 07, 2004 at 09:29:59AM +0800, Joe Shen wrote:
> What does "find" in the report mean? no lookup
> timeout or no out-of-sync?
I guess you mean "fine!". That means that I've found no problems
with the respective zone.
Best regards,
Daniel
On Sun, Sep 12, 2004 at 06:55:12PM +0100, Ken Gilmour wrote:
> Does anyone know of a list like nanog for Europe?
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/wg/eof/
But when it comes to mailing list traffic volume, there is no
companion that I'm aware of. Many issues are discussed on other
specialized RIPE mailing
Hi,
depending on the IP address space from where I'm trying to reach
the two MX for @sprint.net, I'm getting either:
- no TCP connection at all (Connection refused)
- a TCP session, but not even a SMTP greeting banner
- a SMTP session, but as response to RCPT TO a 550 Access denied
For the thir
On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 10:45:01AM -0400, Drew Weaver wrote:
> I just find the whole idea of Cisco amusing, they still sell new
> 7500 series routers for 6 figures with the right configurations, and
> they've been around for 10 years, in what other industry can you take a
> product that is a decad
On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 08:05:50AM +0300, Pekka Savola wrote:
> If you do 'feasible path strict uRPF' as described in BCP84 (I don't
> know if others than Juniper are providing that), you can enable strict
> uRPF toward those customers, still de-pref them, and accept the
> packets with correct sou
On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 06:24:21PM +0300, Pekka Savola wrote:
> Honestly, I fail to see this as a big problem. If they don't want to
> announce the prefix to us, why would they want to source traffic from
> that prefix to us?
I could delve in some exceptionally ugly examples of peering politics
On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 08:35:50PM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> >And what do you do with a BGP customer which sends you traffic from
> >prefixes he doesn't want to announce to you? There are such customers.
>
> The whole point of BCP38 is that this isn't supposed to happen.
Unfortunately
On Mon, Sep 27, 2004 at 02:32:53PM -0400, Jason Giglio wrote:
> This bug is in SuSe, Debian, every version of Red Hat I tested.
Looks like the stub resolver in glibc. Permutation order should be
hostname over AFI, not AFI over hostname, agreed.
So the correct query sequence should be:
- ho
On Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 11:40:54AM -0700, Zhen Wu wrote:
> We are thinking of the motivation of doing this?
Traffic enginneering.
> Why the ISPs configured their network so that the MED values
> oscillate?
Is there actually persistant oscillation, or just "frequent change"
with some peers at so
On Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 08:49:22PM +0200, Daniel Roesen wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 11:40:54AM -0700, Zhen Wu wrote:
> > We are thinking of the motivation of doing this?
>
> Traffic enginneering.
I should have elaborated: to encourage the peer to perform cold-potato
rout
On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 03:21:44PM -0400, Joe Abley wrote:
> Maybe Verisign needs more (reliable) v6 transit.
Something is broken in several colors here. I'm seeing AS_PATHs
like 6830 6175 109 7018 26415 (Sprint, Cisco, AT&T, Verisign) but
a traceroute is going straight from 6830 to AT&T and dyin
On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 09:43:08PM +0200, Daniel Roesen wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 03:21:44PM -0400, Joe Abley wrote:
> > Maybe Verisign needs more (reliable) v6 transit.
>
> Something is broken in several colors here. I'm seeing AS_PATHs
> like 6830 6175 109
On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 01:45:28PM +0200, Niels Bakker wrote:
> Anyone else care to comment? The hop count is suspiciously lower for
> IPv6 than for IPv4, and has twice the latency (coming from Europe too).
> But again, this is traceroute `wisdom'.
One problem with IPv6 traceroute is, that Cisco
On Wed, Nov 03, 2004 at 04:50:10PM -0800, Dan Lockwood wrote:
> Where can a person go to get a "one stop" WHOIS query for AS and prefix
> information instead of trying ARIN, then RIPE, etc?
RADB. http://www.radb.net/
HTH & Regards,
Daniel
--
CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PR
On Thu, Nov 04, 2004 at 02:05:27AM +0100, Arnold Nipper wrote:
> >On Wed, Nov 03, 2004 at 04:50:10PM -0800, Dan Lockwood wrote:
> >>Where can a person go to get a "one stop" WHOIS query for AS and prefix
> >>information instead of trying ARIN, then RIPE, etc?
> >
> >RADB. http://www.radb.net/
>
>
On Mon, Nov 08, 2004 at 01:04:28PM -0800, Randy Bush wrote:
> > I must admint, I'm really not up on the more subtle aspects of v6
> > addressing nor have I read the drafts you posted, but I've never
> > understood why we needed a new set of RFC1918-like IPv6 space.
>
> because there is not enough
On Mon, Nov 08, 2004 at 03:46:05PM -0500, Daniel Senie wrote:
> Reason #3: A separate set of blocks should be set aside for use ONLY in
> documentation.
inet6num: 2001:0DB8::/32
netname: IPV6-DOC-AP
descr:IPv6 prefix for documentation purpose
[...]
remarks: This address ran
On Mon, Nov 08, 2004 at 01:22:07PM -0800, Randy Bush wrote:
> let me see if i understand. you propose a technical cluster
> with which we are already horrifyingly familiar to fix
> an administrative problem? have i got it right?
No, you didn't. I didn't propose anything, and especially not NAT
On Mon, Nov 08, 2004 at 05:56:58PM -0500, Joe Maimon wrote:
> To all of us happily using ip4 does ipv6 offer anything valuable other
> than more space?
Depends on who you are.
> Do net admins who dread troubleshooting real networks with
> unrecognizable and unmemorizable addresses exist?
Actu
On Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 08:44:57AM -0800, Kevin Oberman wrote:
> We have renumbered IPv6 space a couple of times when we were developing
> our addressing plan. (We have a /32.) Renumbering was pretty trivial for
> most systems, but servers requiring a fixed address were usually
> configured with a
On Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 07:28:13PM -0500, Joe Abley wrote:
> >There is currently no PI in IPv6 unless you're an internet exchange or
> >a root server. Whether there will be is anyone's guess, but it's not
> >currently in the pipeline.
>
> ... or you're an organisation who plans to delegate addr
On Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 12:05:26PM -0800, Tony Hain wrote:
> > "fixed" as in "now using stateless autoconfig"? Fun... change NIC and
> > you need to change DNS. Thanks, but no thanks. Not for non-mobile
> > devices which need to be reachable with sessions initiated from remote
> > (basically: serv
On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 05:19:36PM +0100, Simon Leinen wrote:
> > "specified the entire 128 bits"... how do you specify only part of
> > it?
>
> On Solaris, you would use the "token" option (see the extract from
> "man ifconfig" output below). You can simply put "token ::1234:5678"
> into /etc/h
On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 04:23:29PM -0800, Austin Schutz wrote:
> > > ASnumNetsNow NetsAggr NetGain % Gain Description
> > >
> > > AS18566 7516 74599.2% CVAD Covad Communications
>
> > are these numbers what i think, but hope not, they are?
> >
> > e.g. is AS1856
On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 05:06:17PM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
> >OK, but this doesn't have any effect on your "Listen",
> >"NameVirtualHost" and "" statements of your httpd.conf,
> >"ListenAddress" in sshd.conf, "Bind" in proftpd.conf, "*-source" and
> >"listen-on*" in named.conf, [...]
> >
> True.
On Sun, Nov 14, 2004 at 07:43:18PM -0500, Richard Jimmerson wrote:
> Most of the existing IPv6 policy set went into effect August 1, 2002,
> in the ARIN region. The provisional IPv6 policy set in place before
> that did not exclude end-sites from obtaining IPv6 address space from
> ARIN.
And this
On Sun, Nov 14, 2004 at 07:55:56PM -0800, Randy Bush wrote:
> > in august 2002 there were no v6 isp's.
>
> you're kidding, right? let's not be too americocentric.
> i assure you there were.
ACK, just look at the "Allocated" column at:
http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/tla/ripe/
http://www.sixxs.n
On Thu, Nov 25, 2004 at 08:20:01PM +, Ryan O'Connell wrote:
>
> On 25/11/2004 17:47, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> >Why do people keep talking about 200 sites? This is a fallacy.
>
> If you're not assigning IP addresses to other users, (I.e. you're an
> Enterprise rather than an ISP) you need 20
On Sat, Nov 27, 2004 at 10:04:08PM -0500, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> I find it interesting that no operators are screaming that there will be
> too many routes, but that all the IPv6 researchers are bringing forth
> this view.
ACK. All the "oh our IPv4 DFZ table explodes today" is similarily
unfounded
On Sun, Nov 28, 2004 at 01:21:05PM +0100, Henning Brauer wrote:
> * Cliff Albert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-11-28 13:13]:
> > Therefore I also agree with daniel that there is not really a problem
> > with the 1 ASN == 1 IPv6 Prefix.
>
> unless I miss something in that proposal that means that we'l
1 - 100 of 144 matches
Mail list logo
