On 01/02/2024 01:45, Tom Beecher wrote:
Seems a bit dramatic. Companies all over the world have been using other
people's public IPs internally for decades. I worked at a place 20 odd
years ago that had an odd numbering scheme internally, and it was
someone else's public space. When I asked why
Snijders via NANOG wrote:
On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 07:28:01PM +0300, Frank Habicht wrote:
I believe that the entry of
route: 0.0.0.0/32
does not serve any good purpose?
I don't think so either, I've created an issue to prevent that in future
releases of IRRd v4: https://github.c
Hi,
I got 2 bounces for the email addresses seen below for an email similar
to the below...
Anyone want to remove this IRR entry before anyone notices...??? ;-)
Frank
I believe that the entry of
route: 0.0.0.0/32
does not serve any good purpose?
I was surprised to see it in a l
Also, you don't want to accept Google prefixes from your customer, even
if they are ROV valid.
i.e. you want to restrict what you accept to customer and customer's
customer prefixes...
Frank
On 17/11/2023 08:38, Pierfrancesco Caci wrote:
If you need to support RTBH you need to check prefix l
On 10/08/2023 16:02, Mark Tinka wrote:
We are seeing some weird routing from them, and the AS2 they are
attached to (University of Delaware) seems odd.
Not sure if any of the American folk on this list can verify AS2 is
really part of the University of Delaware...
Mark.
ouch!
I see in y
Hi Mark,
On 10/08/2023 11:55, Mark Tinka wrote:
Anyone know anything about this AS:
https://bgp.he.net/AS327933
from a 2019 DB snapshot:
aut-num:AS327933
as-name:GROUPE-TELECOM-SPRL
descr: GROUPE TELECOM SPRL
status: ASSIGNED
org:ORG-GTS2-AFRINIC
a
On 21/04/2023 15:37, Chris Adams wrote:
I don't see any benefit to programmatically-generated reverse DNS. I
stopped setting it up a long time ago now. Really, reverse DNS these
days is mostly only useful for:
- mail servers (where it shows a modicum of control and clue)
- infrastructure/route
Hi Elmar,
it seems to be a not completely agreed/standardised question.
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7947#section-2.2.4
The BGP Communities [RFC1997] and Extended Communities [RFC4360]
attributes are intended for labeling information carried in BGP
UPDATE messages. Transitive as
On 26/11/2021 13:52, Mark Tinka wrote:
On 11/3/21 22:13, Max Tulyev wrote:
Implementing IPv6 reduces costs for CGNAT. You will have (twice?) less
traffic flow through CGNAT, so cheaper hardware and less IPv4 address
space. Isn't it?
How to express that in numbers CFO can take to the bank?
"
Hi,
On 30/07/2021 07:58, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:> ...
> Consider this… I discussed this topic at length with JJB (COMCAST at
> the time) and pushed hard on why they don’t give /48s to their
> residential customers. His answer was that if they did so, they would
> need to get a /12 from their
the end of
our measurements campaign
page 34:
Conclusions
• Measured IXPs were congestion-free, which promotes peering in the
region
https://conferences.sigcomm.org/imc/2017/papers/imc17-final182.pdf
my conclusion: s/congestion/congestion or the lack thereof/g
Frank Habicht
PS: yes, i
Hi,
On 01/10/2019 23:24, Warren Kumari wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 3:42 PM K. Scott Helms wrote:
>>
>> They almost have to change the default since there are (comparatively) very
>> few DoH providers compared to DNS providers.
>
> From the link that Damian sent (emphasis mine):
> "More conc
Hi James,
On 20/03/2019 21:05, James Shank wrote:
> I'm not clear on the use cases, though. What are the imagined use cases?
>
> It might make sense to solve 'a method to request hot potato routing'
> as a separate problem. (Along the lines of Damian's point.)
my personal reason/motivation is
Hi,
On 20/03/2019 00:03, Bill Woodcock wrote:
> Ok, so, just trying to flesh out the idea to something that can be
> usefully implemented…
>
> 1) People send an eBGP multi-hop feed of well-known-community routes
> to a collector, or send them over normal peering sessions to
> something that aggre
ber of prefixes (incl anycast)
right now
So, I think a (moderated) BGP feed of prefixes a'la bogon from a trusted
{cymru[1], pch[2], ...} could be good [3].
Frank Habicht
37084 / 33791
if that matters
{1] dealing with anycast?
[2] biased?
[3] speaking as someone not using (subscribing)
On 27/11/2018 01:04, Scott Weeks wrote:
China Telecom's response:
...
http://www.irasia.com/listco/hk/chinatelecom/press/p181122.htm
They forgot to mention that it's technically possible to filter
advertisements from their customer. Which apparently they were/are not
really doing.
So much f
Hi,
On 14/09/2018 16:08, Sander Steffann wrote:
In general an IX only makes sense when there are local resources to
exchange. It doesn’t seem like PR has a lot of, if any, content
providers of its own, so most consumer content is coming from
offshore anyway.
This can also work the other way: o
On 3/29/2018 2:22 AM, Andy Litzinger wrote:
> Hi all,
> I have an enterprise network and do not provide transit. In one of our
> datacenters we have our own prefixes and rely on two ISPs as BGP neighbors
> to provide global reachability for our prefixes. One is a large regional
> provider and th
Hi,
On 3/10/2016 9:23 AM, Tassos Chatzithomaoglou wrote:
> Niels Bakker wrote on 10/3/16 02:44:
>> * nanog@nanog.org (Kurt Kraut via NANOG) [Thu 10 Mar 2016, 00:59 CET]:
>>> I'm pretty confident there is no need for a specific MTU consensus and not
>>> all IXP participants are obligated to raise
On 10/11/2014 8:41 AM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:
> For Router Loopback Address what is wisdom in allocating a /64 vs /128 ?
The number of IPs addresses used on them subnets on them loopbacks is as
far as I can foresee only one [for each loopback]. So a subnet of size "one
address" should do it.
An
On 2/27/2014 8:09 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> I only ran the scan once, but had ~130k devices respond.
>
> is there any modern utility in chargen?
I know of none, maybe I'm too young.
So we could conclude we don't need that service running.
But some folk use ports for services other than the intend
On 2/20/2014 6:08 PM, Nick Cameo wrote:
> According to mtr command we are consistently seeing
> level3_bx4-montrealak.net
> dropping 30-50% of packets. Our ISP is Bell Canada. Any ideas on how to get
> this resolved are greatly appreciated.
It's dropping packets _to_ and/or _from_ it.
Seem it's go
Hi Owen,
On 1/21/2014 12:13 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> On Jan 18, 2014, at 23:19 , Frank Habicht wrote:
>> c) v6 with a few extension headers
> In this case, it will be at 40+o+n octets into the packet where o is the
> number of octets contained in headers prior to the TCP
On 1/19/2014 7:00 AM, Mukom Akong T. wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 4:22 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
>> extension headers are a poor idea because it's troublesome to process them
>> on cheap hardware.
>
> Have you found them to be more troublesome to process than IPv4 options
> are/were?
at what
Hi,
I have a question regarding what's the most common practice [1]
for transit ASs to filter prefixes from their BGP customers
when using IRR data. (which of course everyone does...)
Would many/most/all/none :
a) accept only the prefixes listed in route objects
or
b) accept these and anything "u
On 8/14/2013 5:32 PM, Sean Donelan wrote:
> What are the current estimates about the size of the Internet,
the whole internet...
.. is actually the same size in v4 and v6:
0/0
Frank
PS: sorry. my mistake: one of them is ::/0
etwork "properly" to
> announce the proper aggregate blocks / covering routes with more specifics if
> we have to have them for routing purposes.
>
> A separate /12 for the "island" type networks would immediately make this
> problem disappear.
>
> Am
On 11/14/2012 6:02 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> and send a polite email to the POC to the effect of, "Please beware
> that because you have not offered a covering route matching your
> allocation, your IPv6 network is not reachable from ours. IPv6 is not
> IPv4: end users requiring /48s for multiho
On 7/9/2012 10:45 AM, Joel jaeggli wrote:
> On 7/9/12 00:09 , Aftab Siddiqui wrote:
>>>
>>> As per IPv6 prefixes announced by AS9583 via bgp.he.net -
>>> http://bgp.he.net/AS9583#_prefixes6 we can see multiple /64s.
>
> you likely won't see them in your table though.
as direct customer of 6453 I
Hi,
dnschanger gonna be a mess? that's not news.
Is there anywhere a page where one can type an ASN or a CIDR block and
then the whois contacts get a list of IPs that still contact the
unintended servers?
(I had done ACL with log on borders, and resolvers did show up too.
So maybe some N
On 4/12/2012 2:47 AM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
> We tried running on 9.3 but - surprise - 9.3 won't do 32 bit ASNs.
> That came in 10.1 or something.
Hi,
we are running
Model: j2350
JUNOS Software Release [9.3R4.4]
and
had:
neighbor 41.188.165.50 {
description AfNOG_
On 3/10/2012 10:12 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> This problem is unfortunately not unique to India. There appear to be no
>> anycast instances of the gTLD servers in Africa either.
>
> really!?
There was one in KE but can't find or reach it:
[a-m].gtld-servers.net. seem all to be in 192.0.0.0/8
rou
On 3/1/2012 5:54 PM, Oliver Garraux wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 4:11 AM, Georgios Theodoridis wrote:
>> Has it been known the exact time of the incident?
>> I have found an article reporting that the cut occurred in the mid-day of
>> Saturday 25th but nothing more precise.
>> We would like to
Main cisco page has a link to it...
Frank
On 9/14/2011 2:15 PM, Brian Raaen wrote:
> Looks like some random person registered this one. The domain and ip do not
> look related to cisco even though someone has falsely pasted their logo all
> over the site.
>
>
>
> whois overpromisesunderdeli
I saw 'field' somewhere
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5952#section-2.1
seems to agree.
Frank
On 11/19/2010 10:42 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Since the poll is a straight yes/no option with no preference, I will
> express my preference here. While I find the term quibble fun and
> amusing, I thi
On 6/17/2010 9:07 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> For those that missed the presentation, it was a real eye-opener on just
> how important it is for you to move forward with IPv6 before something like
> this actually starts getting implemented.
>
> Owen
+1
Frank
Owen DeLong wrote:
> As of June, 2008, at least, AfriNIC was not using a distinct range for
> these.
> There was discussion of converting to this due to these problems.
>
afrinic /48 are out of 2001:43f8::/29
http://www.afrinic.net/Registration/resources.htm
grep -w ipv6 delegated-afrinic-20081
37 matches
Mail list logo
