Re: Traffic Flow Analyzer

Akvorado is a good flow collector and visualiser, and best of all it’s open-source and free. https://github.com/akvorado/akvorado Regards, Christopher Hawker Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef> From: NANOG on behalf of KARIM MEKKAOUI Sent: Frid

Re: TA Malfunction??

preventing routing. Regards, Christopher Hawker From: NANOG on behalf of Paul Rolland Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2025 10:38 PM To: Randy Bush Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: TA Malfunction?? Hello, On Thu, 30 Jan 2025 02:47:02 -0800 Randy Bush wrote: > Pack

ARIN RPKI Trust Anchor Issue

Hello folks, Has anyone received any similar event notifications (from PacketVis or other)? Trying to work out if it's a false-positive. Regards, Christopher Hawker From: PacketVis Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2025 9:40 PM To: Christopher Hawker Subject: b

Re: Edgio Bankruptcy - Services cut-off

I would expect so if the entity that filed for Ch 11 is Limelight Networks Inc. Their IP space alone would be worth a pretty penny that their creditors would want to get their hands on. *CH Get Outlook for iOS From: NANOG on behalf

Re: Free pass NANOG

ost to a public mailing list advertising that I was a sponsor and looking for people to give away tickets to. To be transparent, everyone is entitled to do with their tickets as they wish, and spend their money in whatever way they wish as is their right. This is simply what I would do. Regards, Chr

Re: Free pass NANOG

ot have the capacity to purchase a ticket. Regards, Christopher Hawker From: NANOG on behalf of Tom Beecher Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2025 1:57 AM To: Lu Heng Cc: NANOG Subject: Re: Free pass NANOG If NANOG has given you meeting passes that you aren't

Re: Best way to have redundancy announcing on separate routers

want full tables for greater traffic control. Regards, Christopher Hawker From: NANOG on behalf of Jean Franco Sent: Tuesday, December 24, 2024 10:33 AM To: North American Network Operators' Group Subject: Best way to have redundancy announcing on separa

Re: Best way to have redundancy announcing on separate routers

rvice providers." - NANOG Usage Guidelines<https://nanog.org/legal/usage-guidelines/> I disagree with your remark that "this is not an appropriate channel for this query". I would believe that Jean's query falls under the "open exchange of technical information&quo

Re: CAIDA AS Rank

Appears to be broken from Sydney AU. * CH Get Outlook for iOS From: NANOG on behalf of Mike Hammett Sent: Monday, December 16, 2024 12:33:36 PM To: NANOG list Subject: CAIDA AS Rank Is it broken for anyone else? https://asrank.caida.

Re: Can an IXP sell IP transit?

There is one well-known IXP that sells transit as well. You'd be silly to buy both from the same provider. CH Get Outlook for Android From: NANOG on behalf of William Herrin Sent: Tuesday, November 5, 2024 11:57:13 am To: Douglas Fisch

Re: Hurricane Electric ISP custom routing via BGP communities

Nope, for that exact reason. AS6939 is the only transit provider that charges to use BGP communities AFAIK. It's just another way for them to make $$$ and the only way it'll change is to vote with your feet. - CH Get Outlook for Android F

RE: Microsoft NOC Contact - ASN Association Request

It was an “ASN Association” request (to associate an AS with an Azure tenancy), not a “Peering” request. Regards, Christopher Hawker From: Nathan Stratton Sent: Monday, 4 November 2024 10:18 PM To: Christopher Hawker Cc: Nanog Subject: Re: Microsoft NOC Contact - ASN Association Request I

Microsoft NOC Contact - ASN Association Request

ny traffic for ASN". Regards, Christopher Hawker

Re: Server rental inside of One Wilshire in Los Angeles

While it may be a plausible scenario, it IMO is highly unlikely (< 0.0001%) that this is the case in this situation, given the person that is asking... Regards, Christopher Hawker From: NANOG on behalf of Saku Ytti Sent: Thursday, August 8, 2024 3

RE: Contact mail for Weekly Global Routing Table Report has ended up on Spamhaus HBL

it on a website somewhere that people can access it if they have a need for it? Regards, Christopher Hawker -Original Message- From: NANOG On Behalf Of Philip Smith Sent: Monday, 5 August 2024 12:38 PM To: Nanog Subject: Re: Contact mail for Weekly Global Routing Table Report has

A single place for information relating to the deployment and usage of RPKI

ve any other recommendations as to how it can be improved or if you feel there is anything missing, do let me know. Regards, Christopher Hawker

Re: Geolocation IP - www.firstinterstatebank.com

As trivial as this sounds, do you have a geofeed for your ranges set-up? https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8805 Regards, Christopher Hawker Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg> From: NANOG on behalf of Jarek Kasjaniuk Sent: Monday,

Re: charging for config changess

AS7545 charge fees for changes. Even for trivial things such as updating RDNS records. CH Get Outlook for Android From: NANOG on behalf of Tim Burke Sent: Monday, July 1, 2024 11:33:46 AM To: Randy Bush Cc: NANOG Subject: Re: charging

Re: Small Internet border router options?

+1 on the CCR2216 routers, rock-solid stuff... Regards, Christopher Hawker From: NANOG on behalf of Tony Wicks Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2024 5:08 AM To: 'Tom Samplonius' Cc: 'NANOG' Subject: RE: Small Internet border router options? Juni

Re: Why are paper LOAs still used?

he routes received from their peers, be they upstream or downstream. Regards, Christopher Hawker Sent from my iPhone On 27 Feb 2024, at 1:57 am, Seth Mattinen via NANOG wrote: Why do companies still insist on, or deploy new systems that rely on paper LOA for IP and ASN resources? How c

Re: The Reg does 240/4

rce adoption through prevention of access to IPv4. Regards, Christopher Hawker From: Owen DeLong Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2024 4:23 AM To: Christopher Hawker Cc: Tom Beecher ; North American Operators' Group Subject: Re: The Reg does 240/4 This gi

Re: The Reg does 240/4

of being publicly used, than to allocate an additional 16 x /8 to RFC1918 space. The same argument could be had about using larger than a /8 for private networking. Why not use IPv6? Regards, Christopher Hawker From: Christian de Larrinaga Sent: Wednesday

Re: The Reg does 240/4

etely. Otherwise v6 connectivity is going to dawdle at the current rate it is. Regards, Christopher Hawker From: NANOG on behalf of John Levine Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2024 10:11 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: The Reg does 240/4 It appears that William H

Re: The Reg does 240/4

commodity, and it's a shame that it is being treated as such with a price tag put on it. Regards, Christopher Hawker From: David Conrad Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 1:03 PM To: Christopher Hawker Cc: North American Operators' Group Subject: Re: Th

Re: The Reg does 240/4

ouldn't be worth it. However, as long as we don't get greedy, change the maximum allowed delegation to large delegations, and every Tom/Dick/Harry applying for a /16 allocation then 240/4 will last us a lengthy amount of time, at least a few decades. Regards

Re: The Reg does 240/4

discussion is to get feedback/input and talk about this. If there is such a strong push away from this from all stakeholders (and not just the top 1% of network operators) then it may not be the way to go. Everyone needs to be afforded a say. Regards, Christopher Hawker

Re: The Reg does 240/4

e sake of being able to get a quick /20 and for space to disappear in a few years (again) which I don't really think is the right way to go. This is a second chance to purposefully ration out a finite resource. Regards, Christopher Hawker From: David Con

Re: The Reg does 240/4

Hello John, It'll only take "98 years" if we drag our feet. In practicality, I'm of the belief that the first prefix from 240/4 can be delegated in as little as optimistically 2 years, and conservatively 5 years. Regards, Christopher Hawker

Re: The Reg does 240/4

wider v6 adoption and deployment. Regards, Christopher Hawker From: NANOG on behalf of Lyndon Nerenberg (VE7TFX/VE6BBM) Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 7:42 AM To: North American Operators' Group Subject: Re: The Reg does 240/4 And what are they going

Re: The Reg does 240/4

that only addresses this change in routability which is exempt from support contract requirements (resulting in less equipment from being scrapped). Regards, Christopher Hawker From: William Herrin Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 3:43 AM To: Christopher Hawker

Re: The Reg does 240/4

bout the potential positive impact that this could bring. Regards, Christopher Hawker From: Tom Beecher Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 1:23 AM To: Christopher Hawker Cc: North American Operators' Group ; aus...@lists.ausnog.net ; Christopher Hawker via

Re: The Reg does 240/4

ue allow those who may not be able to deploy IPv6 to connect to the internet. Regards, Christopher Hawker From: NANOG on behalf of Jay R. Ashworth Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2024 5:19 PM To: North American Operators' Group Subject: The Reg does 240/4 I

Re: The Reg does 240/4

Hey there Jay, It's certainly going to make for a good discussion at APRICOT in a few weeks :-) Regards, Christopher Hawker From: NANOG on behalf of Jay R. Ashworth Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2024 5:19 PM To: North American Operators' Group Subjec

Re: If I announce 192.0.2.0/24, do I need a discard route? (Looking for a reference…)

/32). The route needs to exist in the routing table in order for it to be advertised. In all the prefixes I've configured and further broken up, I've always configured blackhole routes for the /24 with a distance of 254, never worked for me without it. Same deal for IPv6. Regards

RE: Mail to Microsoft being falsely marked as spam/bulk

on the Axigen Mail Server software. It's all about who you get on the day at the time you open the ticket and who replies. Regards, Christopher Hawker -Original Message- From: NANOG On Behalf Of Bjoern Franke via NANOG Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2024 11:51 PM To: nanog@nano

Re: Mail to Microsoft being falsely marked as spam/bulk

d it a few hours later after submission. Regards, Christopher Hawker On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 at 22:19, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > On Sat, Jan 20, 2024 at 10:07:39PM +1100, > Christopher Hawker wrote > a message of 132 lines which said: > > > If there is anyone from Microsoft ar

Mail to Microsoft being falsely marked as spam/bulk

to resolve this, I'd be thankful to hear from you. Thanks, Christopher Hawker

Re: Stealthy Overlay Network Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block

tion is a waste of time and resources. A carrier would not have a need for more than ~4.1m devices on a single regional access network and some may run more than one in a single region, so as not to put all of their proverbial eggs into the same basket. Regards, Christopher Hawker On Fri, 19 Ja

Re: Any clue as to when bgp.he.net will be back?

It'd be interesting to know how Mimecast made the determination that bgp.tools is compromised. Regards, Christopher Hawker On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 at 09:47, Rubens Kuhl wrote: > It might be due to usage of a new gTLD like .tools. A number of new > gTLDs use heavy discounting and this

Re: One Can't Have It Both Ways Re: Streamline the CG-NAT Re: EzIP Re: IPv4 address block

It was always about using 240/4 as shared service provider space, just a roundabout way of doing it. You can call a horse a horse, or you can call it "an animal that pulls a wagon which carries people and items from A to B". At the end of the day, it's still a horse. Regards, Chr

Re: One Can't Have It Both Ways Re: Streamline the CG-NAT Re: EzIP Re: IPv4 address block

at is already available and in use today. It's a solid NO from me, in case it's not already clear. Regards, Christopher Hawker On Tue, 16 Jan 2024 at 11:16, wrote: > The reality is your whole concept for EzIP is so impractical and so > unlikely to be implemented by any service provider

Re: Stealthy Overlay Network Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block

wards proper IPv6 deployment. It certainly appears to be the case that the community does not support your proposed "EzIP" solution. If you are recommending that 240/4 space be used for CGNAT space under RFC6598, then call it as it is instead of inventing new terminology. Regards, Chri

Re: One Can't Have It Both Ways Re: Streamline the CG-NAT Re: EzIP Re: IPv4 address block

You most certainly can, it's called a VPN. One side initiates a connection to the other. ;) Regards, Christopher Hawker On Tue, 16 Jan 2024 at 07:21, Abraham Y. Chen wrote: > Hi, Forrest: > > 1)I have a question: > > If I subscribe to IPv6, can I contact another s

Re: IPv6 Traffic Re: IPv6? Re: Where to Use 240/4 Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block

rate of 36.49% IPv6 capable and 35.61% IPv6 preferred, we still have a long way to go however our current achievements to-date should be commended. Regards, Christopher Hawker Links: https://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/2020-February/043869.html https://www.internetsociety.org/deploy360/2014

Re: Backward Compatibility Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block

To my knowledge IPv6 is designed to replace IPv4. Anyone, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. There are just short of 4.3 billion IPv4 addresses, where the number of IPv6 addresses is 39 digits long. Regards, Christopher Hawker On Mon, 15 Jan 2024 at 15:18, Abraham Y. Chen wrote: > H

Re: Stealthy Overlay Network Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block

; to residential gateways not supporting the use of 240/4 space being upgraded to OpenWRT won't work, because not all CPE supports OpenWRT. Instead of attempting to use a larger prefix for CGNAT, IPv6 is definitely the easier solution to implement as the vast majority of vendors already support

Re: How threading works (was Re: Root Cause Re: 202401102221.AYC Re: Streamline The CG-NAT Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block)

that I didn't understand, I would: 1. Listen to and understand what they are saying. 2. Contact them off-list and ask for clarification. 3. Heed their advice. Regards, Christopher Hawker On Mon, 15 Jan 2024 at 00:12, Abraham Y. Chen wrote: > Hi, Bryan: > > 1)" ... Gmail is th

Re: IPv4 address block

y it to those who could only apply for a /23? Still gives us just under 22 years. A substantial amount of time. Regards, Christopher Hawker P.S. All the figures above are based on the 5 RIRs getting an equal distribution of 3 x /8 prefixes. LACNIC and AFRINIC may (as an example) only receive

Re: Vint Cerf Re: Backward Compatibility Re: IPv4 address block

you please stop changing it because every time you do, it starts a new thread and makes it rather difficult to keep track of the discussion. I also don't believe I'm the first one to raise this either. https://i.imgur.com/7WIzwEP.png Regards, Christopher Hawker On Sat, 13 Jan 2024 at 23:3

Re: Backward Compatibility Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block

Wow... There is some serious learning about the internet to be done here! When Randy was deploying IPv6 across the IIJ backbone, I was running around in kindergarten. I didn't even know what the internet was back then. Amazing what can happen in 26 years... Regards, Christopher Hawker O

Re: Streamline the CG-NAT Re: 202401101433.AYC Re: EzIP Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block

com/questions/119365/what-is-the-difference-between-a-source-nat-destination-nat-and-masquerading Regards, Christopher Hawker On Fri, 12 Jan 2024 at 23:17, Abraham Y. Chen wrote: > Hi, Christopher: > > 1) " destination/source NAT ": > > I am not sure about this term

Re: Reusable 240/4 Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block

technical involvement for global networks to renumber makes this impossible. It's akin to recalling 192.168/16 RFC1918 space. Regards, Christopher Hawker On Fri, 12 Jan 2024 at 15:40, Abraham Y. Chen wrote: > Hi, Christopher: > > 1)" ... I would like to see 240/4

Re: Streamline the CG-NAT Re: 202401101433.AYC Re: EzIP Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block

Not going to lie, EzIP just seems to be some version of destination/source NAT on steroids. Regards, Christopher Hawker On Fri, 12 Jan 2024 at 14:36, Abraham Y. Chen wrote: > Hi, Forrest: > > 0)Thanks for your in-depth analysis. > > 1) However, my apologies for not pres

Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block

. Regards, Christopher Hawker On Fri, 12 Jan 2024 at 04:26, Tom Beecher wrote: > Christopher- > > Reclassifying this space, would add 10+ years onto the free pool for each >> RIR. Looking at the APNIC free pool, I would estimate there is about 1/6th >> of a /8 pool available for del

Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block

n/ In the IETF draft that was co-authored by Dave as part of the IPv4 Unicast Extensions Project, a very strong case was presented to convert this space. https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-schoen-intarea-unicast-240-00.html Regards, Christopher Hawker On Thu, 11 Jan 2024 at 20:40, Dave Taht w

Re: IPv4 address block

Hello, I would suggest looking at IPv4.Global, they have quite a few blocks in a number of sizes, available for purchase. For pricing, take a look at https://auctions.ipv4.global/. Regards, Christopher Hawker On Mon, 8 Jan 2024 at 14:48, KARIM MEKKAOUI wrote: > Hi Nanog Community > >

Re: Issue with Geolocation in Lasvegas

tal US & we also reported this issue to at > n...@google.com. > > > > Any further info to be provided to resolve this issue. > > > > Regards, > > Raja > > > > > > *From:* Christopher Hawker > *Sent:* Thursday, January 4, 2024 12:54 PM > *To:*

Re: Issue with Geolocation in Lasvegas

Looks like (according to RDNS) it's a "global NAT" address. Is it only being used in the continental US, or other countries? If the former, check that geofeeds are correctly configured and registered with Google in their ISP Portal. If the latter, you're going to encounter issues. Regards, Chris

Re: Interesting Ali Express web server behavior...

Starting to digress here for a minute... How big would a network need to get, in order to come close to exhausing RFC1918 address space? There are a total of 17,891,328 IP addresses between the 10/8 prefix, 172.16/12 space and 192.168/16 space. If one was to allocate 10 addresses to each host, tha

Re: CPE/NID options

e are at or below $249.00 so are priced quite reasonably. If you only need SFP+ cages I'd opt for the CRS305-1G-4S+IN. Regards, Christopher Hawker From: NANOG on behalf of Ross Tajvar Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2023 3:41 PM To: North American Network

Re: Outside plant - prewire customer demarc preference

t/dam/nbn/documents/developers/newdevs/NBN-DES-STD-0011-Residential-Preparation-and-Installation-Single-Dwelling-Units-and-Multi-Dwelling-Units-13.0.pdf.coredownload.pdf. Regards, Christopher Hawker From: NANOG on behalf of Sean Donelan Sent: Thursday, Novemb

Re: ipv6 address management - documentation

One of the first things that comes to mind, is that if you were to breakout a /64 v6 subnet (a standard-issue subnet to a residential customer) in an Excel spreadsheet, the number of columns you would need is 14 digits long. You could breakout the equivalent of a /12 v4 in just one column. Under

Re: Your Input Needed: Can ROA Replace LOA? – Short Survey (7 mins)

cross and completed. Regards, Christopher Hawker From: Christopher Morrow Sent: Friday, November 17, 2023 3:18 AM To: Tom Beecher Cc: Christopher Hawker ; nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Your Input Needed: Can ROA Replace LOA? – Short Survey (7 mins) On Thu, Nov 16,

Your Input Needed: Can ROA Replace LOA? – Short Survey (7 mins)

Autonomous Systems (ASes) are permitted to announce specific IP address prefixes. Could you please take a moment to fill out our brief survey? Your feedback will play a crucial role in our understanding of this topic. Survey Link: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/JCHLWBB Thanks, Christopher Hawker