Re: IPv4 Anycast?

2009-04-22 Thread Nathan Ward
On 22/04/2009, at 6:53 PM, Zhenkai Zhu wrote: Hello NANOG, I noticed that more than 3K prefixes are with 2 Origin ASes. Are they the simplest cases of anycast? Or they are mainly due to misconfiguration? The third (and probably more likely) option is that the prefixes are advertised

Re: IPv4 Anycast?

2009-04-22 Thread bmanning
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 11:53:02PM -0700, Zhenkai Zhu wrote: > Hello NANOG, > > I noticed that more than 3K prefixes are with 2 Origin ASes. > Are they the simplest cases of anycast? Or they are mainly due to > misconfiguration? > > --- > --Zhenkai i honestly don't remember the req

Re: IPv4 Anycast?

2009-04-22 Thread Zhenkai Zhu
Ah, that's very possible. So I suppose the 90 prefixes with 3 origin ASes are due to the same reason.. Then there is basically no inter-As anycast besides the anycast prefix for DNS root, since I only noticed like 8 prefixes that are announced by more than 3 ASes.. --Zhenkai Nathan Wa

Re: IPv4 Anycast?

2009-04-22 Thread kris foster
On Apr 22, 2009, at 12:12 AM, Zhenkai Zhu wrote: Ah, that's very possible. So I suppose the 90 prefixes with 3 origin ASes are due to the same reason.. Then there is basically no inter-As anycast besides the anycast prefix for DNS root, since I only noticed like 8 prefixes that are annou

Re: IPv4 Anycast?

2009-04-22 Thread Nathan Ward
On 22/04/2009, at 7:12 PM, Zhenkai Zhu wrote: Ah, that's very possible. So I suppose the 90 prefixes with 3 origin ASes are due to the same reason.. Then there is basically no inter-As anycast besides the anycast prefix for DNS root, since I only noticed like 8 prefixes that are announced

Re: IPv4 Anycast?

2009-04-22 Thread Jack Bates
Zhenkai Zhu wrote: Then there is basically no inter-As anycast besides the anycast prefix for DNS root, since I only noticed like 8 prefixes that are announced by more than 3 ASes.. I presume you are using route-views or some such to get a larger picture of the BGP geography? I believe that

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests

2009-04-22 Thread Ken A
Ricky Beam wrote: On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 19:22:08 -0400, Ken A wrote: Also, monthly bandwidth monitoring/shaping/capping are more easily done using one ip per hosted domain... That's why the infrastructure is "virtualized" and you monitor at or behind the firewall(s) and/or load balancer(s) --

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests

2009-04-22 Thread Joe Abley
On 21-Apr-2009, at 21:50, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote: On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 08:24:38PM -0400, Ricky Beam wrote: FTP? Who uses FTP these days? Certainly not consumers. Even Cisco pushes almost everything via a webserver. (they still have ftp servers, they just don't put muc

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests

2009-04-22 Thread bmanning
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 10:17:38AM -0400, Joe Abley wrote: > > On 21-Apr-2009, at 21:50, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote: > > >On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 08:24:38PM -0400, Ricky Beam wrote: > >> > > > >>FTP? Who uses FTP these days? Certainly not consumers. Even Cisco > >>pushes almost everyt

Broadband Subscriber Management

2009-04-22 Thread Sherwin Ang
Hello Nanog! i just would like to see how other operators are handling broadband/DSL subscribers in their BRAS. Currently, we are implementing PPPoE with AAA on our Redback SE's and Cisco boxes. As our subscriber base grows and grows, management of user logins, passwords, password resets, passwo

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests

2009-04-22 Thread bmanning
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 02:27:14PM +, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote: > On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 10:17:38AM -0400, Joe Abley wrote: > > > > On 21-Apr-2009, at 21:50, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote: > > > > >On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 08:24:38PM -0400, Ricky Beam wrote: > > >> > > > > >

DSL Subscriber management

2009-04-22 Thread Sherwin Ang
Hello Nanog! i just would like to see how other operators are handling broadband/DSL subscribers in their BRAS. Currently, we are implementing PPPoE with AAA on our Redback SE's and Cisco boxes. As our subscriber base grows and grows, management of user logins, passwords, password resets, passwo

RE: IPv4 Anycast?

2009-04-22 Thread Fouant, Stefan
> -Original Message- > From: Jack Bates [mailto:jba...@brightok.net] > > Given that the networks are duplicates, there's no requirement that > one part of the AS needs to receive routes from the other part of the > AS. For management and such of the devices, I presume there are > separat

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests

2009-04-22 Thread Joe Greco
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 10:17:38AM -0400, Joe Abley wrote: > > > > On 21-Apr-2009, at 21:50, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote: > > > > >On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 08:24:38PM -0400, Ricky Beam wrote: > > >> > > > > > >>FTP? Who uses FTP these days? Certainly not consumers. Even Cisco > > >>pu

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests

2009-04-22 Thread Karl Auer
On Wed, 2009-04-22 at 09:42 -0500, Joe Greco wrote: > FTP is the file transfer protocol of choice for basic file transfer, > [...] > Does anyone know what "FTP" stands for, anyways? I've always > wondered... File Transfer Protocol. I know - it's a tricky one that, don't feel bad :-) Regards, K.

NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"]

2009-04-22 Thread Iljitsch van Beijnum
On 22 apr 2009, at 0:19, Owen DeLong wrote: B) Again, while it might be the IETF's "job", shouldn't the group trusted with the management of the IP space at least have a public opinion about these solutions are designed. Ensuring that they are designed is such a way to guarantee maximum ado

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests

2009-04-22 Thread Joe Abley
On 22 Apr 2009, at 10:42, Joe Greco wrote: While HTTP remains popular as a way to interact with humans, especially if you want to try to do redirects, acknowledge license agreements, etc., FTP is the file transfer protocol of choice for basic file transfer, and can be trivially automated,

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests

2009-04-22 Thread Edward Lewis
At 18:39 -0500 4/20/09, Joe Greco wrote: Knowing that blatant lying about IP space justifications has been an ongoing game in the community, ARIN has decided to "do something" about it. I don't draw that direct conclusion. Although it may sound like "we know you've been lying so we want to h

Re: Broadband Subscriber Management

2009-04-22 Thread Curtis Maurand
I don't understand why DSL providers don't just administratively down the port the customer is hooked to rather than using PPPoE which costs bandwidth and has huge management overhead when you have to disconnect a customer. I made the same recommendation to the St. Maarten (Dutch) phone comp

Re: Broadband Subscriber Management

2009-04-22 Thread Larry Smith
On Wed April 22 2009 11:01, Curtis Maurand wrote: > I don't understand why DSL providers don't just administratively down > the port the customer is hooked to rather than using PPPoE which costs > bandwidth and has huge management overhead when you have to disconnect a > customer.  I made the same

RE: IXP

2009-04-22 Thread Holmes,David A
But I recollect that FORE ATM equipment using LAN Emulation (LANE) used a broadcast and unknown server (BUS) to establish a point-to-point ATM PVC for each broadcast and multicast receiver on a LAN segment. As well as being inherently unscalable (I think the BUS ran on an ASX1000 cpu), this scheme

Re: IPv4 Anycast?

2009-04-22 Thread Rob Evans
> Then there is basically no inter-As anycast besides the anycast prefix for > DNS root, since I only noticed like 8 prefixes that are announced by more > than 3 ASes.. ...but inter-domain anycast is often achieved by using a single origin AS, which is then transited through the 'provider' autonom

Re: Broadband Subscriber Management

2009-04-22 Thread Charles Wyble
Quite a bit of overhead. Good article here: http://blog.ioshints.info/2009/03/adsl-overhead.html Curtis Maurand wrote: I don't understand why DSL providers don't just administratively down the port the customer is hooked to rather than using PPPoE which costs bandwidth and has huge manageme

Re: Broadband Subscriber Management

2009-04-22 Thread Larry Smith
Not disagreeing with you, just that SNMP "write" access is generally something that admins keep either turned off or very, very tightly controlled. In that context, how many "devices" (dslams, redbacks, etc) would have to be "touched" via SNMP to turn off a customer (or customers) versus simply

Re: Broadband Subscriber Management

2009-04-22 Thread Curtis Maurand
As opposed to SNMP and a script that would shut the port down via SNMP when the customer is disabled? Larry Smith wrote: On Wed April 22 2009 11:01, Curtis Maurand wrote: I don't understand why DSL providers don't just administratively down the port the customer is hooked to rather than u

Re: IPv4 Anycast?

2009-04-22 Thread Zhenkai Zhu
Rob Evans wrote: Then there is basically no inter-As anycast besides the anycast prefix for DNS root, since I only noticed like 8 prefixes that are announced by more than 3 ASes.. ...but inter-domain anycast is often achieved by using a single origin AS, which is then transited through the

Re: IPv4 Anycast?

2009-04-22 Thread Zhenkai Zhu
Jack Bates wrote: Zhenkai Zhu wrote: Then there is basically no inter-As anycast besides the anycast prefix for DNS root, since I only noticed like 8 prefixes that are announced by more than 3 ASes.. I presume you are using route-views or some such to get a larger picture of the BGP geogra

Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"]

2009-04-22 Thread Jack Bates
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: In v6ops CPE requirements are being discussed so in the future, it should be possible to buy a $50 home router and hook it up to your broadband service or get a cable/DSL modem from your provider and the IPv6 will be routed without requiring backflips from the user.

Re: IPv4 Anycast?

2009-04-22 Thread Jack Bates
Zhenkai Zhu wrote: I just want to make sure if I understand correctly. You mean that the anycasted address space can be announced in different places yet with the same origin AS? Yes, and it is commonly done. Jack

L.A Area network Issues the past few days?

2009-04-22 Thread Ray Sanders
Has anyone seen any network issues the past few days? Yesterday we had some content delivery issues in the l.a area. Not getting any sort of response from our CDN, Limelight. Thanks in advance -- "Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future." Niels Bohr -- Ray Sanders Linux Adm

Re: IPv4 Anycast?

2009-04-22 Thread Patrick W. Gilmore
On Apr 22, 2009, at 4:35 PM, Jack Bates wrote: Zhenkai Zhu wrote: I just want to make sure if I understand correctly. You mean that the anycasted address space can be announced in different places yet with the same origin AS? Yes, and it is commonly done. I was under the impression anycas

Re: L.A Area network Issues the past few days?

2009-04-22 Thread Wayne E. Bouchard
I can't speak to specific upper level issues but I can confirm that there was a slightly insane piece of network equipment yesterday AM. We sat it down and had a good conversation about manners and behavior in public and it shaped up. -Wayne On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 01:52:35PM -0700, Ray Sanders w

Re: L.A Area network Issues the past few days?

2009-04-22 Thread Ray Sanders
Could you elaborate on that a bit, please? off list is fine On Wed, 2009-04-22 at 14:07 -0700, Wayne E. Bouchard wrote: > I can't speak to specific upper level issues but I can confirm that > there was a slightly insane piece of network equipment yesterday > AM. We sat it down and had a good con

Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"]

2009-04-22 Thread Iljitsch van Beijnum
On 22 apr 2009, at 22:12, Jack Bates wrote: I think this annoys people more than anything. We're how many years into the development and deployment cycle of IPv6? What development cycle is expected out of these CPE devices after a spec is FINALLY published? That's certainly one way to loo

Re: IPv4 Anycast?

2009-04-22 Thread Kevin Loch
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: On Apr 22, 2009, at 4:35 PM, Jack Bates wrote: Zhenkai Zhu wrote: I just want to make sure if I understand correctly. You mean that the anycasted address space can be announced in different places yet with the same origin AS? Yes, and it is commonly done. I was un

Re: IPv4 Anycast?

2009-04-22 Thread Jeroen Massar
Kevin Loch wrote: > Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: >> On Apr 22, 2009, at 4:35 PM, Jack Bates wrote: >>> Zhenkai Zhu wrote: I just want to make sure if I understand correctly. You mean that the anycasted address space can be announced in different places yet with the same origin AS? >>> >

Re: IPv4 Anycast?

2009-04-22 Thread Jack Bates
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: I was under the impression anycast services with homogeneous origin AS was far more common than the heterogeneous. Almost all the instances I know of use homogeneous origin AS. I'd be interested in statistics either way. The original question provides a good stati

Re: IPv4 Anycast?

2009-04-22 Thread Patrick W. Gilmore
On Apr 22, 2009, at 5:23 PM, Kevin Loch wrote: Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: On Apr 22, 2009, at 4:35 PM, Jack Bates wrote: Zhenkai Zhu wrote: I just want to make sure if I understand correctly. You mean that the anycasted address space can be announced in different places yet with the same ori

Re: IPv4 Anycast?

2009-04-22 Thread Joe Provo
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 04:13:38PM -0500, Jack Bates wrote: [snip] > The original question provides a good statistic, I think. Only 8 > prefixes that were announced by more than 3 origin AS. And the overall message is that only the (prefix holder|originating ASn[s]) can tell you if it is intende

Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"]

2009-04-22 Thread Ren Provo
Ron Bonica is leading a BOF during NANOG46 in Philly which may be of interest - BOF: IETF OPS & MGMT Area, Ron Bonica, Juniper Networks Presentation Date: June 14, 2009, 2:00 PM - 3:30 PM Abstract: The IETF OPS & MGMT Area documents management technologies and operational best common practices. T

Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"]

2009-04-22 Thread Jack Bates
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: What would have helped here is more push in this direction. What really would help is more people who are not on NANOG pushing vendors to support IPv6. Even my Juniper SE has mentioned that I'm one of 2 people he's had seriously pushing for IPv6 features. Other ve

Re: IPv4 Anycast?

2009-04-22 Thread Jack Bates
Joe Provo wrote: And the overall message is that only the (prefix holder|originating ASn[s]) can tell you if it is intended or not. Sadly, this is not a useful metric for a third-party to use to determine prefix annoucnement legitimacy. Perhaps an update to RPSL to allow for intentional multi

Re: IPv4 Anycast?

2009-04-22 Thread Patrick W. Gilmore
On Apr 22, 2009, at 5:48 PM, Jack Bates wrote: Joe Provo wrote: And the overall message is that only the (prefix holder|originating ASn[s]) can tell you if it is intended or not. Sadly, this is not a useful metric for a third-party to use to determine prefix annoucnement legitimacy. Perha

Bruce Perens: A Cyber-Attack on an American City

2009-04-22 Thread Joe Greco
http://perens.com/works/articles/MorganHill/ Cyber-Attack on an American City Bruce Perens Just after midnight on Thursday, April 9, unidentified attackers climbed down four manholes serving the Northern California city of Morgan Hill and cut eight fiber cables in what appears to have been

Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"]

2009-04-22 Thread Nathan Ward
On 23/04/2009, at 8:12 AM, Jack Bates wrote: Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: In v6ops CPE requirements are being discussed so in the future, it should be possible to buy a $50 home router and hook it up to your broadband service or get a cable/DSL modem from your provider and the IPv6 will be

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests

2009-04-22 Thread Nathan Ward
On 23/04/2009, at 3:33 AM, Joe Abley wrote: However, I take some small issue with the assertion that FTP is easier to script than HTTP. The only way I have ever found it easy to script FTP (outside of writing dedicated expect scripts to drive clients, which really seems like cheating) is to

Two blocks of AS Numbers allocated

2009-04-22 Thread Leo Vegoda
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, The IANA AS Numbers registry has been updated to reflect the allocation of two blocks of AS Numbers recently. 53248-54271Assigned by ARIN whois.arin.net 2009-04-21 54272-55295Assigned by ARIN whois.arin.net 2009-04

Re: IXP

2009-04-22 Thread Adrian Chadd
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009, Holmes,David A wrote: > But I recollect that FORE ATM equipment using LAN Emulation (LANE) used > a broadcast and unknown server (BUS) to establish a point-to-point ATM > PVC for each broadcast and multicast receiver on a LAN segment. As well > as being inherently unscalable (

Re: IPv4 Anycast?

2009-04-22 Thread Shin SHIRAHATA
> > 192.88.99.0/24, 2002::/16, and 2001::/32 are some > > notable examples of heterogeneous origin AS. > > And those prefixes (6to4 & Teredo) all come with annoying problems as > one never knows which relay is really being used and it is hard to debug > how the packets really flow. I agree entir

IPv6 Operators List (which also covers 6to4 operation ;) (Was: IPv4 Anycast?)

2009-04-22 Thread Jeroen Massar
Shin SHIRAHATA wrote: >>> 192.88.99.0/24, 2002::/16, and 2001::/32 are some >>> notable examples of heterogeneous origin AS. >> And those prefixes (6to4 & Teredo) all come with annoying problems as >> one never knows which relay is really being used and it is hard to debug >> how the packets really

Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"]

2009-04-22 Thread Joel Jaeggli
Jack Bates wrote: > Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: >> In v6ops CPE requirements are being discussed so in the future, it >> should be possible to buy a $50 home router and hook it up to your >> broadband service or get a cable/DSL modem from your provider and the >> IPv6 will be routed without requi