On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 12:23:46AM +0200,
Hauke Lampe wrote
a message of 53 lines which said:
> Even after a cache reload, the SOA record appears still bogus:
Yes, even after a cold reboot, the data did not validate. But, this
time, the problem was purely DNSSEC and was noticed only by people
It seems Team Cymru needs to update its whois db to use 4-byte ASNs
and remove AS_TRANS (23456)
--Ricardo
On Oct 12, 2009, at 11:41 PM, Paul Ferguson wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I'm a bit confused (nothing really new here) with this BGP
announcement,
but followin
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 00:46:00 EDT, Kevin Loch said:
> Adrian Chadd wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 13, 2009, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> >
> >> You get some substantial wins for the non-TE case by being able to fix
> >> the legacy cruft. For instance, AS1312 advertises 4 prefixes:
> >> 63.164.28.0/22,
Kevin Loch wrote:
> Adrian Chadd wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 13, 2009, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
>>
>>> You get some substantial wins for the non-TE case by being able to fix
>>> the legacy cruft. For instance, AS1312 advertises 4 prefixes:
>>> 63.164.28.0/22, 128.173.0.0/16, 192.70.187.0/24, 198.8
Adrian Chadd wrote:
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
You get some substantial wins for the non-TE case by being able to fix
the legacy cruft. For instance, AS1312 advertises 4 prefixes:
63.164.28.0/22, 128.173.0.0/16, 192.70.187.0/24, 198.82.0.0/16
but on the IPv6 side we'v
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> You get some substantial wins for the non-TE case by being able to fix
> the legacy cruft. For instance, AS1312 advertises 4 prefixes:
> 63.164.28.0/22, 128.173.0.0/16, 192.70.187.0/24, 198.82.0.0/16
> but on the IPv6 side we've just got 2001
On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 17:40:36 PDT, David Conrad said:
> On Oct 12, 2009, at 5:09 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > With IPv6, it probably won't be the ideal 1:1 ratio, but, it will come
> much closer.
>
> I wasn't aware people would be doing traffic engineering differently in
> IPv6 than in IPv4.
You get
On 13/10/2009, at 2:02 PM, Scott Morris wrote:
I happen to train people at CCIE level. I also happen to do
consulting,
implementation, and design work. In my training environment, there
are
all sorts of re-thinking of what/how things are being taught even
within
the confines of comparis
I'm going to have to pull the "mixed-hat" on this one. If you are
comparing this to a true "academia" environment, I'd agree with you.
Too much theory, not enough reality in things. However, I've yet to see
the part about where the person is being trained from.
I happen to train people at CCIE
On 13/10/2009, at 12:54 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
On Oct 12, 2009, at 7:34 PM, Justin Shore
wrote:
I'm actually taking an IPv6 class right now and the topic of
customer assignments came up today (day 1). The instructor was
suggesting dynamically allocating /127s to residential customers.
Seth Mattinen wrote:
> Leo Bicknell wrote:
>> Worse, the problem is being made worse at an alarming rate. MPLS
>> VPN's are quicky replacing frame relay, ATM, and leased line circuits
>> adding MPLS lables and VPN/VRF routes to edge routers. Various
>> RIR's are pushing "PI for all" in IPv6 bas
On Oct 12, 2009, at 7:34 PM, Justin Shore
wrote:
I'm actually taking an IPv6 class right now and the topic of
customer assignments came up today (day 1). The instructor was
suggesting dynamically allocating /127s to residential customers. I
relayed the gist of this thread to him (/48, /5
In a message written on Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 07:13:04PM -0700, Seth Mattinen
wrote:
> Leo Bicknell wrote:
> > Worse, the problem is being made worse at an alarming rate. MPLS
> > VPN's are quicky replacing frame relay, ATM, and leased line circuits
> > adding MPLS lables and VPN/VRF routes to edg
Dan White wrote:
How are other providers approaching dial-up? I would presume we are in the
same boat as a lot of other folks - we have aging dial-up equipment that
does not support IPv6 (3com Total Control). Our customer base has dropped
quite a bit, and we have even kicked around the idea dropp
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 10:13 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
> Leo Bicknell wrote:
>>
>> Worse, the problem is being made worse at an alarming rate. MPLS
>> VPN's are quicky replacing frame relay, ATM, and leased line circuits
>> adding MPLS lables and VPN/VRF routes to edge routers. Various
>> RIR's
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009, Seth Mattinen wrote:
> It's not the RIR's fault. IPv6 wasn't designed with any kind of workable
> site multihoming. The only goal seems to have been to limit /32's to an
> "ISP" but screw you if you aren't one. There was no alternative and it's
> been how long now? PI, multih
Leo Bicknell wrote:
>
> Worse, the problem is being made worse at an alarming rate. MPLS
> VPN's are quicky replacing frame relay, ATM, and leased line circuits
> adding MPLS lables and VPN/VRF routes to edge routers. Various
> RIR's are pushing "PI for all" in IPv6 based on addressing availbili
I get asked often enough about what's in 701's IPv6 routes so I just
dumped it to a plain text file for anyone interested:
http://www.rollernet.us/wordpress/as701-ipv6/
~Seth
In a message written on Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 05:09:41PM -0700, Owen DeLong
wrote:
> With IPv6, it probably won't be the ideal 1:1 ratio, but, it will come
> much closer. Even if the average drops to 1/2, you're
> talking about a 70,000 route table today, and, likely growth in the
> 250-300,00
David Conrad wrote:
On Oct 12, 2009, at 3:40 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
Verizon's policy has been related to me that they will not accept
or propogate any IPv6 route advertisements with prefix lengths
longer than /32. Full stop. So that even includes those of us
that have /48 PI space from ARIN t
Owen DeLong wrote:
From where I sit, it looks like:
a.root-servers.net has IPv6 address 2001:503:ba3e::2:30
BGP routing table entry for 2001:503:ba3e::/48
f.root-servers.net has IPv6 address 2001:500:2f::f
BGP routing table entry for 2001:500:2f::/48
h.root-servers.net has IPv6 address 2001:5
Owen DeLong wrote:
> From where I sit, it looks like:
>
> a.root-servers.net has IPv6 address 2001:503:ba3e::2:30
> BGP routing table entry for 2001:503:ba3e::/48
>
> f.root-servers.net has IPv6 address 2001:500:2f::f
> BGP routing table entry for 2001:500:2f::/48
>
> h.root-servers.net has IPv6
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 8:40 PM, David Conrad wrote:
> On Oct 12, 2009, at 5:09 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> and, likely growth in the 250-300,000 route range over the next 5-10 years.
>> CAM will probably scale faster than that.
>
> I've heard differing opinions on this (e.g., router ASICs being bot
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 8:16 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> From where I sit, it looks like:
..snip..
> So... Likely, Verizon customers can reach k and m root servers via IPv6
> and not the others.
or.. vzb (is now dead, it's all vz) has holes in filters to permit
prefixes of certain lengths or certain
Owen,
On Oct 12, 2009, at 5:09 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> With IPv6, it probably won't be the ideal 1:1 ratio, but, it will come much
> closer.
I wasn't aware people would be doing traffic engineering differently in IPv6
than in IPv4.
> Even if the average drops to 1/2, you're talking about a
From where I sit, it looks like:
a.root-servers.net has IPv6 address 2001:503:ba3e::2:30
BGP routing table entry for 2001:503:ba3e::/48
f.root-servers.net has IPv6 address 2001:500:2f::f
BGP routing table entry for 2001:500:2f::/48
h.root-servers.net has IPv6 address 2001:500:1::803f:235
BGP ro
On Oct 12, 2009, at 4:37 PM, David Conrad wrote:
Mark,
On Oct 12, 2009, at 3:40 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
Verizon's policy has been related to me that they will not accept or
propogate any IPv6 route advertisements with prefix lengths longer
than
/32. Full stop. So that even includes those
On 13/10/2009, at 8:26, Jeff McAdams wrote:
Verizon's policy has been related to me that they will not accept or
propogate any IPv6 route advertisements with prefix lengths longer
than /32. Full stop. So that even includes those of us that have /
48 PI space from ARIN that are direct cust
Mark,
On Oct 12, 2009, at 3:40 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>> Verizon's policy has been related to me that they will not accept or
>> propogate any IPv6 route advertisements with prefix lengths longer than
>> /32. Full stop. So that even includes those of us that have /48 PI
>> space from ARIN th
Mark Andrews wrote:
> In message <4ad382e4.9010...@iglou.com>, Jeff McAdams writes:
>> Seth Mattinen wrote:
>>
>>> If you are interested, I don't want to spam the list with my Verizon
>>> horror story, but you can read it here:
>>> http://www.rollernet.us/wordpress/category/ipv6/
>> At the risk of
In message <1255388942.12984.1.ca...@acer-laptop>, Bret Clark writes:
> On Tue, 2009-10-13 at 09:40 +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> > > Verizon's policy has been related to me that they will not accept
> > or
> > > propogate any IPv6 route advertisements with prefix lengths longer
> > than
> > >
On Tue, 2009-10-13 at 09:40 +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
> > Verizon's policy has been related to me that they will not accept
> or
> > propogate any IPv6 route advertisements with prefix lengths longer
> than
> > /32. Full stop. So that even includes those of us that have /48
> PI
> > space fr
[Apologies for duplicates]
Asia Pacific Regional Internet Conference on Operational Technologies
(APRICOT)
23 February - 5 March 2010, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
http://www.apricot2010.net
CALL FOR PAPERS
===
The APRICOT 2010 Programme Committee is now seeking contributions for
Presenta
In message <4ad382e4.9010...@iglou.com>, Jeff McAdams writes:
> Seth Mattinen wrote:
>
> > If you are interested, I don't want to spam the list with my Verizon
> > horror story, but you can read it here:
> > http://www.rollernet.us/wordpress/category/ipv6/
>
> At the risk of sounding like I'm pi
Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> All .se cctld-servers are now updated, so if you're still seeing
> problems, please reload your resolvers.
Even after a cache reload, the SOA record appears still bogus:
| se has SOA record catcher-in-the-rye.nic.se. registry-default.nic.se.
2009101211 1800 1800 24192
Marco Hogewoning wrote:
>
> As this thread has drifted off topic any way, would it for instance be a
> good idea to simply not accept mail from hosts that clearly use
> autoconfig ie reject all smtp from EUI-64 addresses. Of course not a
> wise idea for your own outbound relays which should handle
Randy Bush wrote:
>>> sure would be nice if there was a diagnosis before the lynching
>> If this happened in v4, would customers care 'why' it happened?
>> Obviously not.
>> Why should v6 be any different? It either is or is not production
>> ready. I'm interested in HE's view on that.
>
>
Funny enough, we've been looking at moving from 174 to HE for a large
amount of traffic, and this discussion is making the decision *a lot*
easier.
On 10/12/09, Dave Temkin wrote:
> Marco Hogewoning wrote:
>>> Cogent: You are absolutely insane. You are doing nothing but
>>> alienating your cust
>> sure would be nice if there was a diagnosis before the lynching
> If this happened in v4, would customers care 'why' it happened?
> Obviously not.
> Why should v6 be any different? It either is or is not production
> ready. I'm interested in HE's view on that.
many of us are interested i
Matt
*note, however, that I also opted to stay in college in 1991, rather than
join Cisco because I felt they did not have a workable business model;
in 1995, I rejected Mosaic Communications, because the idea of trying
to compete with a freely downloadable browser seemed like business
suicide;
Marco Hogewoning wrote:
Cogent: You are absolutely insane. You are doing nothing but
alienating your customers and doing a disservice to IPv6 and the
internet as a whole.
You are publishing records for www.cogentco.com, which means
that I CANNOT reach it to even look at your looking gl
Cogent: You are absolutely insane. You are doing nothing but
alienating your customers and doing a disservice to IPv6 and the
internet as a whole.
You are publishing records for www.cogentco.com, which means
that I CANNOT reach it to even look at your looking glass. I send
my pref
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Randy Epstein wrote:
> No need for me to repeat what Mike has posted. I agree 100% with him on
> all
> fronts. Mike and his team have gone out of their way to promote and
> support
> IPv6 from the very beginning and I think everyone knows this. In the past,
> I
Randy Epstein wrote:
No need for me to repeat what Mike has posted. I agree 100% with him on all
fronts. Mike and his team have gone out of their way to promote and support
IPv6 from the very beginning and I think everyone knows this. In the past,
I had some differences with Mike over legacy p
No need for me to repeat what Mike has posted. I agree 100% with him on all
fronts. Mike and his team have gone out of their way to promote and support
IPv6 from the very beginning and I think everyone knows this. In the past,
I had some differences with Mike over legacy policies that Hurricane
On Mon, 12 Oct 2009, James Raftery wrote:
On 12 Oct 2009, at 21:42, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
It fails for me through an Unbound resolver but works with a BIND
one. Certainly a DNSSEC glitch but I did not find which one yet. Or if
the fault is on my side or not.
I don't think so:
All .se
On 12 Oct 2009, at 21:42, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
It fails for me through an Unbound resolver but works with a BIND
one. Certainly a DNSSEC glitch but I did not find which one yet. Or if
the fault is on my side or not.
I don't think so:
; <<>> DiG 9.4.2-P2 <<>> @192.36.133.107 se ns +nore
On 12/10/2009 21:38, Ben White wrote:
Does anyone else also see trouble reaching .se domains at the moment?
it would appear that someone may have left out the trailing dot on ".se.".
Dig is returning:
se. 172800 IN NS h.ns.se.se.
se. 172800
Le lundi 12 octobre 2009 à 21:38 +0100, Ben White a écrit :
> Does anyone else also see trouble reaching .se domains at the moment?
No, at least not all (from a French viewpoint). Which ones?
mh
>
--
michael hallgren, mh2198-ripe
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message numé
Ben White skrev:
Does anyone else also see trouble reaching .se domains at the moment?
Trailing dot misstake in dns as it looks like. People are working on it
as we speak.
-- amar
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 09:38:10PM +0100,
Ben White wrote
a message of 4 lines which said:
> Does anyone else also see trouble reaching .se domains at the moment?
It fails for me through an Unbound resolver but works with a BIND
one. Certainly a DNSSEC glitch but I did not find which one yet.
Yes.
On Oct 12, 2009, at 1:38 PM, Ben White wrote:
Does anyone else also see trouble reaching .se domains at the moment?
--
Ben
Does anyone else also see trouble reaching .se domains at the moment?
--
Ben
Marco Hogewoning wrote:
>
> On Oct 12, 2009, at 9:40 PM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
>
>> Marco Hogewoning wrote:
>> [..]
>>> As this thread has drifted off topic any way, would it for instance be a
>>> good idea to simply not accept mail from hosts that clearly use
>>> autoconfig ie reject all smtp fro
On Oct 12, 2009, at 9:40 PM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
Marco Hogewoning wrote:
[..]
As this thread has drifted off topic any way, would it for instance
be a
good idea to simply not accept mail from hosts that clearly use
autoconfig ie reject all smtp from EUI-64 addresses
Can you please *NOT* s
On October 12, 2009, Dan White wrote:
> Reputation lists will just be on the /64, /56 and /48 boundaries, rather
> than IPv4 /32.
>
IF Network Operators started advertising and routing /64 addresses, and
assuming there were email servers our there running MX records on IPv6,
http://eng.genius.
Igor Ybema wrote:
I recently noticed that there seems a peering issue on the ipv6 internet.
As we all know hurricane is currently the largest ipv6 carrier. Other large
carriers are now implementing ipv6 on their networks, like Cogent and Telia.
However, due to some politics it seems that they a
Marco Hogewoning wrote:
[..]
> As this thread has drifted off topic any way, would it for instance be a
> good idea to simply not accept mail from hosts that clearly use
> autoconfig ie reject all smtp from EUI-64 addresses
Can you please *NOT* suggest people *STUPID* ideas like filtering on
arbit
Seth Mattinen wrote:
If you are interested, I don't want to spam the list with my Verizon
horror story, but you can read it here:
http://www.rollernet.us/wordpress/category/ipv6/
At the risk of sounding like I'm piling on, I'm in the same basically
the same boat that Seth is, except that I do
On Oct 12, 2009, at 9:14 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
Dan White wrote:
Reputation lists will just be on the /64, /56 and /48 boundaries,
rather
than IPv4 /32.
And then people will scream because someone setup a layout that
hands out /128 addresses within a /64 pool.
There is that chance yes
Dan White wrote:
Reputation lists will just be on the /64, /56 and /48 boundaries, rather
than IPv4 /32.
And then people will scream because someone setup a layout that hands
out /128 addresses within a /64 pool.
Jack
On 12/10/09 10:25 -0700, Michael Peddemors wrote:
On October 12, 2009, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
In summary: HE has worked tirelessly and mostly thanklessly to promote
v6. They have done more to bring v6 to the forefront than any other
network. But at the end of day, despite HE's valiant ef
Michael Peddemors wrote:
> On October 12, 2009, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>> In summary: HE has worked tirelessly and mostly thanklessly to promote
>> v6. They have done more to bring v6 to the forefront than any other
>> network. But at the end of day, despite HE's valiant effort on v6, v6
On Mon, 2009-10-12 at 10:47 -0700, Seth Mattinen wrote:
> Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> > On Oct 12, 2009, at 12:52 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
> >
> >> sure would be nice if there was a diagnosis before the lynching
> >
> > If this happened in v4, would customers care 'why' it happened?
> > Obviously n
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> On Oct 12, 2009, at 12:52 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>
>> sure would be nice if there was a diagnosis before the lynching
>
> If this happened in v4, would customers care 'why' it happened?
> Obviously not.
I suspect more NAT will become a better solution than migrating t
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 07:06:37PM +0200, Igor Ybema wrote:
> Just saw that telia <-> HE AND telia <-> Cogent got fixed. They are now
> connected through C&W. Maybe someone got woken up by these messages :)
>
> Cogent and HE is still broken but then again, i...@cogent is still beta.
Cogent has ne
On October 12, 2009, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> In summary: HE has worked tirelessly and mostly thanklessly to promote
> v6. They have done more to bring v6 to the forefront than any other
> network. But at the end of day, despite HE's valiant effort on v6, v6
> has all the problems of v4
On Oct 12, 2009, at 12:52 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
sure would be nice if there was a diagnosis before the lynching
If this happened in v4, would customers care 'why' it happened?
Obviously not.
Why should v6 be any different? It either is or is not production
ready. I'm interested in HE'
Just saw that telia <-> HE AND telia <-> Cogent got fixed. They are now
connected through C&W. Maybe someone got woken up by these messages :)
Cogent and HE is still broken but then again, i...@cogent is still beta.
regards, Igor
sure would be nice if there was a diagnosis before the lynching
On Oct 12, 2009, at 12:23 PM, Deepak Jain wrote:
Perhaps someone from HE can re-confirm their open peering policy for
us?
If they aren't (open) anymore, I'm impressed by the bravado...
To be clear, I was not trying to imply that HE has a closed policy.
But I can see how people might thin
Perhaps someone from HE can re-confirm their open peering policy for us?
If they aren't (open) anymore, I'm impressed by the bravado...
Deepak
- Original Message -
From: Marco Hogewoning
To: Patrick W. Gilmore
Cc: NANOG list
Sent: Mon Oct 12 12:15:34 2009
Subject: Re: IPv6 internet b
Igor Ybema wrote:
> Hi,
> I recently noticed that there seems a peering issue on the ipv6 internet.
> As we all know hurricane is currently the largest ipv6 carrier. Other large
> carriers are now implementing ipv6 on their networks, like Cogent and Telia.
>
> However, due to some politics it seem
On Oct 12, 2009, at 6:09 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
It is sad to see that networks which used to care about
connectivity, peering, latency, etc., when they are small change
their mind when they are "big". The most recent example is Cogent,
an open peer who decided to turn down peers wh
On Oct 12, 2009, at 7:41 AM, Igor Ybema wrote:
I recently noticed that there seems a peering issue on the ipv6
internet.
As we all know hurricane is currently the largest ipv6 carrier.
Other large
carriers are now implementing ipv6 on their networks, like Cogent
and Telia.
However, due to
> On 2009-10-11, at 19:22 , Joe Greco wrote:
> > (*) In the late 1990's, I heard the most astonishing claims made by
> > a new
> > entrant into the Milwaukee ISP market, about how some of the "other"
> > ISP's
> > "shared" lines between customers and this decreased your speeds.
> > They had
Hi,
I recently noticed that there seems a peering issue on the ipv6 internet.
As we all know hurricane is currently the largest ipv6 carrier. Other large
carriers are now implementing ipv6 on their networks, like Cogent and Telia.
However, due to some politics it seems that they are not peering wi
On 2009-10-11, at 19:22 , Joe Greco wrote:
(*) In the late 1990's, I heard the most astonishing claims made by
a new
entrant into the Milwaukee ISP market, about how some of the "other"
ISP's
"shared" lines between customers and this decreased your speeds.
They had
no clue who I was, so I e
78 matches
Mail list logo
