Re: quietly....

On 02/02/2011, at 1:11 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > On Feb 1, 2011, at 3:54 PM, Lee Howard wrote: > >>> "People won't be able to access our site" >>> sure helps but being unable to put a date on it still reduces incentive >>> (especially when Management get involved, and especially if there is a >

DHCP server fail-over and accounting

hi, we plan to implement DHCP server farm in our network. Currently , there are there problems burning my head. could anybody do some help? 1. How to set up DHCP server farm with high availability? It's required to set up DHCP server with 99.999% available.

Re: Verizon acquiring Terremark

Jeffrey Lyon writes: > One cannot be owned by a carrier and remain carrier neutral. > > My two cents, my experience running PAIX when it was owned by MFN was not like you're saying. -- Paul Vixie KI6YSY

Re: ipv4's last graph

> the prboability distribution with the error bars is a pretty useful > tool to throw over the wall to management so that they know how long > they have to get their affairs in order. i suspect it's more like most folk should save a gif so they can say "i warned you," when they need a bunch of mon

Re: ipv4's last graph

On 2/1/11 1:08 PM, Randy Bush wrote: >> FWIW: the Jan. 2011 global burn rate (outbound from the RIRs) for >> /24-equivlents was 18.97 seconds. At the Jan. rate, APnic won't last >> to June and Ripe might make to the end of August, then chaos ensues. > > this is not the murdoch press or fox news.

Re: Last of ipv4 /8's allocated

On Feb 1, 2011, at 12:44 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > My suspicion is that IANA is playing a game of battleship with the RIRs and > thursday we'll see who's won. Colored in for your convenience: IANA instituted a variation of RFC 2777 some time ago to do /8 allocations to the RIRs. I'd be

Re: Connectivity to Brazil

We saw similar issues with IKE through Global Crossing (as odd as that sounds) out of the NYC market at the same time. We routed around them and problem solved. Still scratching our heads on that one... In my experiences, GLBX has numerous odd issues to the point where it's become a bad joke any

Re: quietly....

> Somebody should probably get a blog instead of sending, *39 and > counting*, emails to this list in one day. procmail is your friend

Re: quietly....

On 2/1/2011 10:19 PM, John Curran wrote: I don't believe we've had an IPv6 "additional" request yet (but I look forward to it happening at some point:-). I will check and get back to the list with the definitive answer. I believe that the changing of IPv6 policy leads to "redo's", and I expe

Re: Future of the IPv6 CPE survey on RIPE Labs - Your Input Needed

On 2/1/2011 10:10 PM, Frank Bulk wrote: We've sold routers for years, but make it clear to our customer that we are doing this as a convenience to the customer and that we are not responsible for it. I agree with you, but I also know my telco's. It would go horribly wrong. :) Jack

Re: quietly....

On 2/1/2011 9:51 PM, Dave Israel wrote: They were features dreamed up by academics, theoreticians, and purists, and opposed by operators. You mean like the lack of Default Router in DHCPv6? Don't get me wrong. I love RA. However, it is NOT a universal tool, and there are cases where Default R

Re: quietly....

On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 11:32 PM, Skeeve Stevens wrote: > Not necessarily. > > There was a proposal passed at ARIN and I have a similar one proposed for (I think you mean, or the one dave farmer's been working on for a time now

Re: quietly....

Not necessarily. There was a proposal passed at ARIN and I have a similar one proposed for APNIC where you can request a second allocation should you need it for a variety of justification. For example: disparate non-connected networks under a different AS's. This is the one that is bothering me

Bovespa

1. Does anyone know where the Bovespa is located and if colocation is a possibility at that datacenter/s. 2. What is a good Internet (DS3? or ethernet) carrier in Sao Paolo thank you Philip

Re: quietly....

On Feb 1, 2011, at 11:05 PM, George Herbert wrote: > > More interesting would be re-requests - organizations exhausting an > initial allocation and requiring more. People asking for the first > one just indicates initial adoption rates. > > Other than experimental blocks, I am generally under th

Re: quietly....

On Feb 1, 2011, at 10:46 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: > On Wed, 02 Feb 2011 03:09:50 GMT, John Curran said: >> We had a small ramp up in December (about 25% increase) but that is within >> reasonable variation. Today was a little different, though, with 4 times >> the normal request rate...

Re: quietly....

On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 7:46 PM, wrote: > On Wed, 02 Feb 2011 03:09:50 GMT, John Curran said: >> We had a small ramp up in December (about 25% increase) but that is within >> reasonable variation. Today was a little different, though, with 4 times >> the normal request rate... that would be a "rus

RE: Future of the IPv6 CPE survey on RIPE Labs - Your Input Needed

We've sold routers for years, but make it clear to our customer that we are doing this as a convenience to the customer and that we are not responsible for it. It's worked for hardware failure, and since we end up providing initial support for home wireless routers, having a model we're familiar w

Re: quietly....

On 2/1/2011 9:33 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: On Feb 1, 2011, at 6:24 PM, Chris Adams wrote: Once upon a time, Owen DeLong said: On Feb 1, 2011, at 3:41 PM, Karl Auer wrote: Devil's advocate hat on: NAT (in its most common form) also permits internal addressing to be independent of external addres

Re: quietly....

On Wed, 02 Feb 2011 03:09:50 GMT, John Curran said: > We had a small ramp up in December (about 25% increase) but that is within > reasonable variation. Today was a little different, though, with 4 times > the normal request rate... that would be a "rush". Any trending on the rate of requests for

Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN

On Tue, 01 Feb 2011 17:37:55 PST, Bill Stewart said: > A typical home user will have a /56 of GUA, or maybe a /48 with some > ISPs. Anybody who knows enough to figure out how to set a ULA can > figure out a /64 from their GUA space that's not being auto-assigned > by one of their various home rout

Re: netflow analysis for jitter and packet loss?

On Feb 2, 2011, at 7:19 AM, Shacolby Jackson wrote: > Any suggestions? Flow telemetry is extremely useful, but it isn't really suited for looking at things like jitter and delay, and out-of-order packets. It can be used to identify loss in many instances, as well as communications relationshi

Re: quietly....

On Feb 1, 2011, at 9:39 PM, Kevin Stange wrote: > On 02/01/2011 08:27 PM, Paul Graydon wrote: >> Are there any expectations of a Gold Rush for the remaining addresses? >> I would expect to see at least see some kind of escalation. > > I've heard that it's already started at ARIN. We had a small

Re: quietly....

On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 6:24 PM, Chris Adams wrote: > Once upon a time, Owen DeLong said: >> On Feb 1, 2011, at 3:41 PM, Karl Auer wrote: >> > Devil's advocate hat on: NAT (in its most common form) also permits >> > internal addressing to be independent of external addressing. >> > >> Which is a b

Re: quietly....

On 02/01/2011 08:27 PM, Paul Graydon wrote: > Are there any expectations of a Gold Rush for the remaining addresses? > I would expect to see at least see some kind of escalation. I've heard that it's already started at ARIN. -- Kevin Stange Chief Technology Officer Steadfast Networks http://ste

Re: quietly....

On Feb 1, 2011, at 6:24 PM, Chris Adams wrote: > Once upon a time, Owen DeLong said: >> On Feb 1, 2011, at 3:41 PM, Karl Auer wrote: >>> Devil's advocate hat on: NAT (in its most common form) also permits >>> internal addressing to be independent of external addressing. >>> >> Which is a bug, n

Re: Last of ipv4 /8's allocated

On Feb 1, 2011, at 6:10 PM, Jeroen van Aart wrote: > Randy Carpenter wrote: >> Touché! That could theoretically happen. I think Apple should buy HPQDEC >> just so they can announce 16/7 :-) > > Nah, one should buy the other just so they can hand over a /7 to APNIC. > Neither of them could do

Re: Last of ipv4 /8's allocated

Benson Schliesser wrote: On Feb 1, 2011, at 8:10 PM, Jeroen van Aart wrote: Nah, one should buy the other just so they can hand over a /7 to APNIC. How would they justify that to their shareholders? Free advertising, increased goodwill? ;-) -- http://goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/ htt

Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN

On Feb 1, 2011, at 5:37 PM, Bill Stewart wrote: > On 2/1/11, Chuck Anderson wrote: >> What would your recommended solution be then for disconnected >> networks? Every home user and enterprise user requests GUA directly >> from their RIR/NIR/LIR at a cost of hunderds of dollars per year or >> mo

Re: quietly....

On 02/01/2011 04:11 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: On Feb 1, 2011, at 3:54 PM, Lee Howard wrote: "People won't be able to access our site" sure helps but being unable to put a date on it still reduces incentive (especially when Management get involved, and especially if there is a financial outlay invo

Re: quietly....

Once upon a time, Owen DeLong said: > On Feb 1, 2011, at 3:41 PM, Karl Auer wrote: > > Devil's advocate hat on: NAT (in its most common form) also permits > > internal addressing to be independent of external addressing. > > > Which is a bug, not a feature. That is an opinion (and not a unversal

Re: Last of ipv4 /8's allocated

On Feb 1, 2011, at 5:06 PM, Leen Besselink wrote: > >> Doesn't really matter who gets what, because no one is going to route >> anything larger than a /8 anyway, particularly the RIR allocations. Just >> kinda fun to think about :-) >> >> -Randy >> >> > How about when HP/Compay/DEC buys Ap

Re: A top-down RPKI model a threat to human freedom? (was Re: Level 3's IRR Database)

On Feb 1, 2011, at 3:58 PM, Martin Millnert wrote: > On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 5:15 PM, Carlos M. Martinez > wrote: >> Although I support Rpki as a technology, there are legitimate concerns that >> it could be abused. I now believe that Rpki needs work in this area at IETF >> level so the concern

Re: Last of ipv4 /8's allocated

On Feb 1, 2011, at 8:10 PM, Jeroen van Aart wrote: > Randy Carpenter wrote: >> Touché! That could theoretically happen. I think Apple should buy HPQDEC >> just so they can announce 16/7 :-) > > Nah, one should buy the other just so they can hand over a /7 to APNIC. How would they justify tha

Re: quietly....

On Feb 1, 2011, at 3:54 PM, Lee Howard wrote: >> "People won't be able to access our site" >> sure helps but being unable to put a date on it still reduces incentive >> (especially when Management get involved, and especially if there is a >> financial outlay involving firewalls etc.). > > Geo

Re: Last of ipv4 /8's allocated

Randy Carpenter wrote: Touché! That could theoretically happen. I think Apple should buy HPQDEC just so they can announce 16/7 :-) Nah, one should buy the other just so they can hand over a /7 to APNIC. -- http://goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/ http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/faq/plural-of

Re: A top-down RPKI model a threat to human freedom? (was Re: Level 3's IRR Database)

On Feb 1, 2011, at 3:53 PM, Karl Auer wrote: > On Tue, 2011-02-01 at 14:51 -0800, Owen DeLong wrote: >> If the RIR is signing the "invalid" ROA, how does one distinguish the >> invalid from the valid? > > In systems where the outputs from a computer system are very, very > critical, a sort of "c

Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN

On Feb 1, 2011, at 3:38 PM, Chuck Anderson wrote: > On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 03:14:57PM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote: >> On Feb 1, 2011, at 2:58 PM, Jack Bates wrote: >>> There are many cases where ULA is a perfect fit, and to work >>> around it seems silly and reduces the full capabilities of IPv6.

Re: quietly....

On Feb 1, 2011, at 3:41 PM, Karl Auer wrote: > On Tue, 2011-02-01 at 13:38 -0800, Owen DeLong wrote: >> NAT solves exactly one problem. It provides a way to reduce address >> consumption to work around a shortage of addresses. > > Devil's advocate hat on: NAT (in its most common form) also permi

Re: A top-down RPKI model a threat to human freedom? (was Re: Level 3's IRR Database)

On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 6:13 PM, Dongting Yu wrote: > Since we are already talking about RIRs, I am curious, who will sign > the legacy blocks in RPKI? my recollection is that IANA COULD do that... (presuming a single root of the tree not 5 roots) -chris

Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN

On Feb 1, 2011, at 3:25 PM, Jack Bates wrote: > On 2/1/2011 5:14 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> I guess we can agree to disagree about this. I haven't seen one yet. > > If my coffee maker did have an IP address, I expect it to get all it's > updates from a central house store, not directly from the

Re: Last of ipv4 /8's allocated

- Original Message - > > Doesn't really matter who gets what, because no one is going to > > route anything larger than a /8 anyway, particularly the RIR > > allocations. Just kinda fun to think about :-) > > > > -Randy > > > > > How about when HP/Compay/DEC buys Apple or the other way arou

Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN

On 2/1/11, Chuck Anderson wrote: > What would your recommended solution be then for disconnected > networks? Every home user and enterprise user requests GUA directly > from their RIR/NIR/LIR at a cost of hunderds of dollars per year or > more? A typical home user will have a /56 of GUA, or mayb

Re: netflow analysis for jitter and packet loss?

has it to be netflow? if you are using cisco gear have you tried ip sla? http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps6602/products_ios_protocol_group_home.html regards, javier On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 6:19 PM, Shacolby Jackson wrote: > What tools are people most happy with? Specifically I'm hoping to

Re: Last of ipv4 /8's allocated

> Doesn't really matter who gets what, because no one is going to route > anything larger than a /8 anyway, particularly the RIR allocations. Just > kinda fun to think about :-) > > -Randy > > How about when HP/Compay/DEC buys Apple or the other way around ? ;-) They could do so in theory anyw

Re: AS numbers and multiple site best practices

I would say that the specifics you provide in your email are sufficient for ARIN to issue you a second ASN. There is really no other feasible way to deal with 2 separate multi-home sites that I can think of. -Randy -- | Randy Carpenter | Vice President - IT Services | Red Hat Certified Enginee

Re: ipv4's last graph

On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 6:11 PM, Geoff Huston wrote: > > On 01/02/2011, at 7:02 PM, Randy Bush wrote: > >> with the iana free pool run-out, i guess we won't be getting those nice >> graphs any more.  might we have one last one for the turnstiles?  :-)/2 >> >> and would you mind doing the curves now

RE: AS numbers and multiple site best practices

> I've had trouble finding any technical reason not to use it. What is important to you about having QA and Corporate use separate AS numbers? Does using the same AS number result in a reduction of separation? Nathan

AS numbers and multiple site best practices

Are there any best practices or guidelines surrounding whether or not one should use the same or unique AS numbers when advertising via BGP from 2 or more physically separate locations? Each location would be advertising at least their own unique /24. My specific scenario is that we are moving

netflow analysis for jitter and packet loss?

What tools are people most happy with? Specifically I'm hoping to mirror a port and later see if I can detect any inbound jitter or possibly even out of order udp datagrams. At first glance it doesn't look like ntop or plixer can provide that level of detail. Any suggestions? -shac

Re: quietly....

> Pick your RIR and plot its runout date. If it's ARIN, then the first > ISP is out of IPv4 addresses at most three months later no. arin is out, not an isp > Will users be unable to reach your content on $RIR_runout_date + 3? yes, of course randy

Re: A top-down RPKI model a threat to human freedom? (was Re: Level 3's IRR Database)

Alex, On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 4:57 PM, Alex Band wrote: > On 1 Feb 2011, at 22:20, Owen DeLong wrote: >> RPKI is a big knob governments might be tempted to turn. > > Of course we looked into this, cause we're running our service from > Amsterdam, the Netherlands. The possibilities for law enforce

Re: Last of ipv4 /8's allocated

- Original Message - > > Doesn't really matter who gets what > > but conjecturebation is a key role of this mailing list I literally LOLed at that. That single word more succinctly describes a concept than most I have seen. > > because no one is going to route anything larger than a /8

Re: ipv4's last graph

--- towns...@cisco.com wrote: From: Mark Townsley On Feb 1, 2011, at 9:11 PM, Geoff Huston wrote: > On 01/02/2011, at 7:02 PM, Randy Bush wrote: >> graphs any more. might we have one last one for the turnstiles? :-)/2 >> >> and would you mind doing the curves now for each of the five rirs? >

Re: A top-down RPKI model a threat to human freedom? (was Re: Level 3's IRR Database)

On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 5:15 PM, Carlos M. Martinez wrote: > Although I support Rpki as a technology, there are legitimate concerns that > it could be abused. I now believe that Rpki needs work in this area at IETF > level so the concerns are adressed. > > I imagine some form of secret sharing am

Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN

On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 3:38 PM, Chuck Anderson wrote: > On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 03:14:57PM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote: >> On Feb 1, 2011, at 2:58 PM, Jack Bates wrote: >> > There are many cases where ULA is a perfect fit, and to work >> > around it seems silly and reduces the full capabilities of IP

Re: Last of ipv4 /8's allocated

> Doesn't really matter who gets what but conjecturebation is a key role of this mailing list > because no one is going to route anything larger than a /8 anyway, i have seen /7s routed. some folk on this list will remember an exciting day back in about 2000. randy

RE: quietly....

> "People won't be able to access our site" > sure helps but being unable to put a date on it still reduces incentive > (especially when Management get involved, and especially if there is a > financial outlay involving firewalls etc.). Geoff generously provided a probabilistic sense for RIR ru

Re: A top-down RPKI model a threat to human freedom? (was Re: Level 3's IRR Database)

Le mardi 01 février 2011 à 18:01 -0500, Christopher Morrow a écrit : > On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 4:33 PM, Michael Hallgren wrote: > > Le mardi 01 février 2011 à 12:14 -0500, Christopher Morrow a écrit : > > >> countries do not have RIR's, countries have NIR's... regions have RIR's. > > > > In this c

Re: A top-down RPKI model a threat to human freedom? (was Re: Level 3's IRR Database)

On Tue, 2011-02-01 at 14:51 -0800, Owen DeLong wrote: > If the RIR is signing the "invalid" ROA, how does one distinguish the > invalid from the valid? In systems where the outputs from a computer system are very, very critical, a sort of "consensus" takes place (I think they did this in some spac

Re: A top-down RPKI model a threat to human freedom? (was Re: Level 3's IRR Database)

>>> In this context, at least, perhaps the NIR should be considered >>> superfluous or redundant? What is the operational rationale behind the >>> NIR level? Wouldn't a flatter RIR-LIR structure do just fine? >> >> and then, by inference, what is the use of the RIR level? > > A meeting point for

Re: A top-down RPKI model a threat to human freedom? (was Re: Level 3's IRR Database)

Le mercredi 02 février 2011 à 07:04 +0900, Randy Bush a écrit : > > In this context, at least, perhaps the NIR should be considered > > superfluous or redundant? What is the operational rationale behind the > > NIR level? Wouldn't a flatter RIR-LIR structure do just fine? > > and then, by inferenc

Re: Last of ipv4 /8's allocated

- Original Message - > On 1 feb 2011, at 23:33, Randy Carpenter wrote: > > > That's how I would do it. With the exception of LACNIC, each one > > neighbors a block that is already allocated to that RIR. > > But if they wanted to do that, why give 106/8 to APNIC? I assume you mean 102/8,

Re: quietly....

On Tue, 2011-02-01 at 13:38 -0800, Owen DeLong wrote: > NAT solves exactly one problem. It provides a way to reduce address > consumption to work around a shortage of addresses. Devil's advocate hat on: NAT (in its most common form) also permits internal addressing to be independent of external ad

Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN

On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 03:14:57PM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote: > On Feb 1, 2011, at 2:58 PM, Jack Bates wrote: > > There are many cases where ULA is a perfect fit, and to work > > around it seems silly and reduces the full capabilities of IPv6. I > > fully expect to see protocols and networks withi

Re: A top-down RPKI model a threat to human freedom? (was Re: Level 3's IRR Database)

So a possible road to ruin I was thinking of when I mentioned my unease is, to state the obvious, - Some large ISPs do RPKI as it's secure and their government contract says they have to be secure, keep the terrists out, so all directly attached ISP have to do it too kicking off a domino Other la

Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN

On 2/1/2011 5:14 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: I guess we can agree to disagree about this. I haven't seen one yet. If my coffee maker did have an IP address, I expect it to get all it's updates from a central house store, not directly from the manufacturer over the net. I see no reason my appliance

Re: A top-down RPKI model a threat to human freedom? (was Re: Level 3's IRR Database)

On Feb 1, 2011, at 3:13 PM, Dongting Yu wrote: > Since we are already talking about RIRs, I am curious, who will sign > the legacy blocks in RPKI? > > Dongting I suspect that if you want RPKI, you'll need to sign an agreement with the RIR. In ARIN region, this would be the LRSA or the RSA. Ow

Re: A top-down RPKI model a threat to human freedom? (was Re: Level 3's IRR Database)

On Feb 1, 2011, at 5:13 PM, Dongting Yu wrote: > Since we are already talking about RIRs, I am curious, who will sign > the legacy blocks in RPKI? Since they pre-exist the RIR, it's not clear that any one RIR has authority until asked. (For a discussion of rights, authority, etc, see http://c

Re: A top-down RPKI model a threat to human freedom? (was Re: Level 3's IRR Database)

On Feb 1, 2011, at 3:01 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote: > On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 4:33 PM, Michael Hallgren wrote: >> Le mardi 01 février 2011 à 12:14 -0500, Christopher Morrow a écrit : > >>> countries do not have RIR's, countries have NIR's... regions have RIR's. >> >> In this context, at least

Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN

On Feb 1, 2011, at 2:58 PM, Jack Bates wrote: > On 2/1/2011 3:23 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> Given the vast probability for abuse of ULA becoming de facto GUA later, I >> don't support ULA existing as the benefits are vastly overwhelmed by the >> potential for abouse. > If the world wants ULA to

Re: quietly....

On Feb 1, 2011, at 2:09 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote: > > On Feb 1, 2011, at 3:38 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> NAT solves exactly one problem. It provides a way to reduce address >> consumption to work around a shortage of addresses. >> >> It does not solve any other problem(s). > > In all fai

Re: quietly....

On Feb 1, 2011, at 2:56 PM, John Payne wrote: > > > On Feb 1, 2011, at 4:38 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> NAT solves exactly one problem. It provides a way to reduce address >> consumption to work around a shortage of addresses. >> >> It does not solve any other problem(s). > > > That's a b

Re: quietly....

On Feb 1, 2011, at 2:43 PM, David Barak wrote: > > > > From: Owen DeLong > > > David Barak > Need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise: > http://www.listentothefranchise.com > >> If you're determined to destroy IPv6 by bringing the problems of NAT forward >> with

Re: quietly....

On 2/1/2011 3:38 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: As such, taking it away when giving you a large enough address space that there is no longer a shortage doesn't strike me as taking away a tool that solves a problem. It strikes me as giving you a vastly superior tool that solves rather than working aroun

Re: A top-down RPKI model a threat to human freedom? (was Re: Level 3's IRR Database)

Since we are already talking about RIRs, I am curious, who will sign the legacy blocks in RPKI? Dongting

Re: quietly....

On 2/1/2011 2:32 PM, Majdi S. Abbas wrote: It's not as if we haven't had 15 years to get it together... And failed to do so properly. jack

Re: A top-down RPKI model a threat to human freedom? (was Re: Level 3's IRR Database)

On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 4:33 PM, Michael Hallgren wrote: > Le mardi 01 février 2011 à 12:14 -0500, Christopher Morrow a écrit : >> countries do not have RIR's, countries have NIR's... regions have RIR's. > > In this context, at least, perhaps the NIR should be considered > superfluous or redundant

Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN

On 2/1/2011 3:23 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: Given the vast probability for abuse of ULA becoming de facto GUA later, I don't support ULA existing as the benefits are vastly overwhelmed by the potential for abouse. If the world wants ULA to become the de facto GUA, no amount of arm twisting and bul

Re: quietly....

On Feb 1, 2011, at 4:38 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > NAT solves exactly one problem. It provides a way to reduce address > consumption to work around a shortage of addresses. > > It does not solve any other problem(s). That's a bold statement. Especially as you said NAT and not PAT.

Re: A top-down RPKI model a threat to human freedom? (was Re: Level 3's IRR Database)

On Feb 1, 2011, at 1:57 PM, Alex Band wrote: > > On 1 Feb 2011, at 22:20, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> >> On Feb 1, 2011, at 9:14 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote: >> >>> On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Martin Millnert wrote: Here be dragons, >>> It should be fairly obvious, by most recen

Re: A top-down RPKI model a threat to human freedom? (was Re: Level 3's IRR Database)

On Feb 1, 2011, at 2:40 PM, Rubens Kuhl wrote: >> There is not a single RIR that is not physically located in a country. > > >> You can hope they are more stable from a policy point of view, but, the >> reality is that if someone shows up at the front door with tanks and >> mortars, my money is

Re: Last of ipv4 /8's allocated

On 1 feb 2011, at 23:33, Randy Carpenter wrote: > That's how I would do it. With the exception of LACNIC, each one neighbors a > block that is already allocated to that RIR. But if they wanted to do that, why give 106/8 to APNIC? My suspicion is that IANA is playing a game of battleship with th

Re: quietly....

From: Owen DeLong David Barak Need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise: http://www.listentothefranchise.com >If you're determined to destroy IPv6 by bringing the problems of NAT forward >with you, then, I'm fine with you remaining in your >IPv4 island. I'm willing

Re: A top-down RPKI model a threat to human freedom? (was Re: Level 3's IRR Database)

> There is not a single RIR that is not physically located in a country. > You can hope they are more stable from a policy point of view, but, the > reality is that if someone shows up at the front door with tanks and > mortars, my money is not on the RIR. But they might choose a country in that

Re: Last of ipv4 /8's allocated

My guesses as to who gets what: 102/8 - APNIC 103/8 - LACNIC 104/8 - AfriNIC 179/8 - RIPE NCC 185/8 - ARIN That's how I would do it. With the exception of LACNIC, each one neighbors a block that is already allocated to that RIR. And in the case of AfriNIC, RIPC, and ARIN, they would make an agg

Re: quietly....

On 1 feb 2011, at 23:03, david raistrick wrote: > It obfuscates internal addressing. > This wasn't the original goal, but it's a "feature" that some groups of users > have come to require. Creating a new random address every 24 hours (or more often if needed, I assume) goes a long way towards

Re: A top-down RPKI model a threat to human freedom? (was Re: Level 3's IRR Database)

Although I support Rpki as a technology, there are legitimate concerns that it could be abused. I now believe that Rpki needs work in this area at IETF level so the concerns are adressed. I imagine some form of secret sharing among different parties or sme form of key escrow. I am sure that it

Re: quietly....

On Feb 1, 2011, at 3:38 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > NAT solves exactly one problem. It provides a way to reduce address > consumption to work around a shortage of addresses. > > It does not solve any other problem(s). In all fairness, that's not really true. It just doesn't solve other problems

Re: quietly....

On Tue, 1 Feb 2011, Owen DeLong wrote: NAT solves exactly one problem. It provides a way to reduce address consumption to work around a shortage of addresses. It does not solve any other problem(s). Sure it does. It obfuscates internal addressing. This wasn't the original goal, but it's

Re: A top-down RPKI model a threat to human freedom? (was Re: Level 3's IRR Database)

On Feb 1, 2011, at 3:43 PM, Arturo Servin wrote: > Is it really a better alternative? Do we want to pay the cost of a > fully distributed RPKI architecture? > > Or do we just abandon the idea of protecting the routing infrastructure? > > There is no free-lunch, we just need t

Re: A top-down RPKI model a threat to human freedom? (was Re: Level 3's IRR Database)

> In this context, at least, perhaps the NIR should be considered > superfluous or redundant? What is the operational rationale behind the > NIR level? Wouldn't a flatter RIR-LIR structure do just fine? and then, by inference, what is the use of the RIR level? randy

Re: quietly....

On 02/01/2011 11:38 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: On Feb 1, 2011, at 12:36 PM, david raistrick wrote: On Tue, 1 Feb 2011, Dave Israel wrote: responsibility. If they want to use DHCPv6, or NAT, or Packet over Avian Carrier to achieve that, let them. If using them causes them problems, then they s

Re: A top-down RPKI model a threat to human freedom? (was Re: Level 3's IRR Database)

Le mardi 01 février 2011 à 16:54 -0500, Martin Millnert a écrit : > On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 4:36 PM, Michael Hallgren wrote: > > But RIR is (at least supposed to be) regional, so > > (hopefully) more stable from a policy point of view (since the number of > > national "stake holders" need to agree

Re: Last of ipv4 /8's allocated

On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > On Feb 1, 2011, at 10:49 AM, Brian Christopher Raaen wrote: > >> On Tuesday, February 01, 2011 01:41:21 pm Rodrick Brown wrote: >>> http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.xml >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone 4. >> >>

Re: A top-down RPKI model a threat to human freedom? (was Re: Level 3's IRR Database)

On 1 Feb 2011, at 22:20, Owen DeLong wrote: > > On Feb 1, 2011, at 9:14 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote: > >> On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Martin Millnert wrote: >>> Here be dragons, >> >>> It should be fairly obvious, by most recently what's going on in >>> Egypt, why allowing a government

Re: A top-down RPKI model a threat to human freedom? (was Re: Level 3's IRR Database)

On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 4:36 PM, Michael Hallgren wrote: > But RIR is (at least supposed to be) regional, so > (hopefully) more stable from a policy point of view (since the number of > national "stake holders" need to agree on a common policy). In theory, > at least... For Europe and RIPE, the EU

Re: A top-down RPKI model a threat to human freedom? (was Re: Level 3's IRR Database)

On Feb 1, 2011, at 1:36 PM, Michael Hallgren wrote: > Le mardi 01 février 2011 à 13:20 -0800, Owen DeLong a écrit : >> On Feb 1, 2011, at 9:14 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote: >> >>> On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Martin Millnert wrote: Here be dragons, >>> It should be fairly obvious

Re: quietly....

On Feb 1, 2011, at 12:36 PM, david raistrick wrote: > On Tue, 1 Feb 2011, Dave Israel wrote: > >> responsibility. If they want to use DHCPv6, or NAT, or Packet over Avian >> Carrier to achieve that, let them. If using them causes them problems, then >> they should not use them. It really is

Re: A top-down RPKI model a threat to human freedom? (was Re: Level 3's IRR Database)

Is it really a better alternative? Do we want to pay the cost of a fully distributed RPKI architecture? Or do we just abandon the idea of protecting the routing infrastructure? There is no free-lunch, we just need to select the price that we want to pay. -as O

  1   2   >