Re: Level 3's IRR Database

Hey Martin, I see your point and I believe it is a concern that should be addressed. tks Carlos On 1/31/11 3:59 AM, Martin Millnert wrote: > Carlos, > > On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 9:22 PM, Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo > wrote: >> Hi, >> >> this is the second mention I see of RPKI and Egypt in the sam

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

> At AMSIX, a Cisco 12000 running IOS will get into trouble with the 170pps of > ND seen there. AMSIX doesn't do MLD snooping so everybody gets everything > and on IOS 12000 ND is punted to RP and when it's busy with calculating BGP, > it'll start dropping BGP sessions. Really? I've tried to dupli

Re: Level 3's IRR Database

On 1/31/2011 1:18 AM, Randy Bush wrote: Based on this draft the recommended preference order is: 1) Validation ok 2) not found 3) Validation nok Suppose an operator would use local-pref to achieve this. This intention (preferring validated routes) will break, when there's a more specific announ

[Fwd: [mat-wg] Visualizing the Egyptian disconnection]

Hi, See below a link to a visualisation of the Egyptian disconnect using the RIPE NCC Resource EXplainer tool (REX). Mirjam Original Message Subject: [mat-wg] Visualizing the Egyptian disconnection Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 18:37:05 -0500 From: Richard L. Barnes To: mat...@ripe.

Re: Level 3's IRR Database

> 666.42.0.0/16 has a roa for as 777 > > you start receiving > > 666.42.0.0/24 and 666.42.1.0/24, both unsigned. Changing preference > isn't enough to stop routing, as it's a more specific route and > automatically wins if it gets into the table. nope when there is no roa for the arriving pre

Re: Level 3's IRR Database

> when there is no roa for the arriving prefix, a roa for the covering > prefix is used. see draft-pmohapat-sidr-pfx-validate-07.txt. which, btw, is why draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-origin-ops-04.txt warns Before issuing a ROA for a block, an operator MUST ensure that any sub-allocations from that

Re: Level 3's IRR Database

On 2011-01-30, at 12:15, Nick Hilliard wrote: > On 30/01/2011 09:08, Jeff Wheeler wrote: >> This brings me to my point, which is that IRR is very good for >> preventing accidents and automating some common tasks. It should be >> "secure" to a point, but just because a route: object exists does n

Re: Level 3's IRR Database

On 1/31/2011 7:59 AM, Randy Bush wrote: when there is no roa for the arriving prefix, a roa for the covering prefix is used. see draft-pmohapat-sidr-pfx-validate-07.txt. Ahh, very good. I think that was the only concern. Presumably that would invalidate the route and it would be discarded

Contact at level 3 RE IRR database?

Hi All, I was wondering if anyone had a direct contact at level 3 who deals with their IRR database, since my queries logged with them on Saturday to both noc@ and abuse@ have gone unanswered. I have just taken a look at the following: whois -h whois.radb.net \!gAS11908 and there is a *HUGE* a

Re: Level 3's IRR Database

>> when there is no roa for the arriving prefix, a roa for the covering >> prefix is used. see draft-pmohapat-sidr-pfx-validate-07.txt. > Ahh, very good. I think that was the only concern. Presumably that > would invalidate the route and it would be discarded vs deprefed. well, i am not sure you

Verizon acquiring Terremark

With Verizon acquiring Terremark does the group fell the NAPs will change from being carrier-neutral environments to pro Verizon? Has Verizon acquired carrier-neutral centers in the past? Cheers Ryan

Re: Level 3's IRR Database

On 31/01/2011 14:16, Joe Abley wrote: On 2011-01-30, at 12:15, Nick Hilliard wrote: Depends on which IRR you use. The IRRDBs run by RIPE, APNIC and AfriNIC implement hierarchical object ownership, which means that if you're registering their address space, you can only do so if that address spa

Re: help needed - state of california needs a benchmark - beware bufferbloat

On 01/29/2011 01:00 PM, Mike wrote: Hello, My company is small clec / broadband provider serving rural communities in northern California, and we are the recipient of a small grant from the state thru our public utilities commission. We went out to 'middle of nowhere' and deployed adsl2+ in fact

Re: Contact at level 3 RE IRR database?

On 1/31/2011 8:35 AM, Andrew Alston wrote: whois -h whois.radb.net \!gAS11908 and there is a *HUGE* amount of IP space registered in the Level3 IRR database that is propagating to the other databases that clearly does not belong to AS11908. (Beyond the initial prefix of ours that noticed).

Re: Level 3's IRR Database

On 1/31/2011 8:35 AM, Randy Bush wrote: when there is no roa for the arriving prefix, a roa for the covering prefix is used. see draft-pmohapat-sidr-pfx-validate-07.txt. Ahh, very good. I think that was the only concern. Presumably that would invalidate the route and it would be discarded vs de

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

On 27/01/11 08:17 -0600, Jack Bates wrote: On 1/27/2011 12:57 AM, Frank Bulk wrote: Have you looked at D-Link's DIR-825? It has most of the things you're looking for. The DIR-655 is a more affordable option. Haven't had the chance to look at that one. Will check it out. In regards to (2)

Comcast IPv6 Native Dual Stack Trials

Comcast Activates First Users With IPv6 Native Dual Stack Over DOCSIS http://blog.comcast.com/2011/01/comcast-activates-first-users-with-ipv6-nat ive-dual-stack-over-docsis.html John = John Jason Brzozowski Comcast Cable e) mailto:john_brzozow...@cable.comc

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

On 1/31/2011 9:23 AM, Chris Conn wrote: As for the DIR-615, it should, but it doesn't...At least, the E3/E4 revisions I had. I contacted D-LINK support and was able to get a beta build that seems promising. But DHCP-PD over PPPoE works relatively well, minus a couple of little "features". I

Re: Comcast IPv6 Native Dual Stack Trials

John, Congratulations on this important step! - Jared On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 03:26:19PM +, Brzozowski, John wrote: > Comcast Activates First Users With IPv6 Native Dual Stack Over DOCSIS > > http://blog.comcast.com/2011/01/comcast-activates-first-users-with-ipv6-nat

Re: Comcast IPv6 Native Dual Stack Trials

On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 10:31 AM, Jared Mauch wrote: >        John, > >        Congratulations on this important step! > >        - Jared > > On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 03:26:19PM +, Brzozowski, John wrote: >> Comcast Activates First Users With IPv6 Native Dual Stack Over DOCSIS >> >> http://blog

Re: Verizon acquiring Terremark

>From all accounts it will remain carrier neutral. http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2011/01/28/verizon-terremark-will-remain-carrier-neutral/ Scott. On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 6:38 AM, Ryan Finnesey < ryan.finne...@harrierinvestments.com> wrote: > With Verizon acquiring Terremark doe

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

On 31/01/11 09:28 -0600, Jack Bates wrote: On 1/31/2011 9:23 AM, Chris Conn wrote: As for the DIR-615, it should, but it doesn't...At least, the E3/E4 revisions I had. I contacted D-LINK support and was able to get a beta build that seems promising. But DHCP-PD over PPPoE works relatively we

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

On 1/31/2011 9:51 AM, Dan White wrote: That rules out 3rd party firmware like dd-wrt, since the customer is unlikely to get support when calling the vendor. At this point, I'd be happy with two good options (two different vendors) to recommend. So far, D-link is looking good. Yeah, don't get

Re: IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links

> All of the (mostly religious) arguments about /64 versus any > smaller subnets aside, I'm curious about why one would choose > /126 over /127 for P-to-P links? Is this some kind of IPv4-think > where the all-zeros and all-ones addresses are not usable > unicast addresses? This isn't true in IPv6

Re: Ipv6 for the content provider

Original Message Subject: Re: Ipv6 for the content provider From: valdis.kletni...@vt.edu To: Charles N Wyble Cc: nanog@nanog.org Date: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 4:09:07 PM > On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 13:56:05 PST, Charles N Wyble said: > >>> The only issue I've faced is RHEL/CentOS

Re: Ipv6 for the content provider

On 2011-01-31 12:38, Blake Hudson wrote: > I was under the impression that the later versions of 5 (e.g. 5.5, 5.6) > had backported stateful connection tracking. Has anyone tested recently? The command # ip6tables -A INPUT -m state --state ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT works on CentOS 5.5. And there's n

Re: Ipv6 for the content provider

Original Message Subject: Re: Ipv6 for the content provider From: Simon Perreault To: nanog@nanog.org Date: Monday, January 31, 2011 11:48:34 AM > On 2011-01-31 12:38, Blake Hudson wrote: >> I was under the impression that the later versions of 5 (e.g. 5.5, 5.6) >> had backporte

Re: Comcast IPv6 Native Dual Stack Trials

Well done John! Here's to a rapid expansion of the native footprint! ~Chris On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 08:26, Brzozowski, John wrote: > Comcast Activates First Users With IPv6 Native Dual Stack Over DOCSIS > > http://blog.comcast.com/2011/01/comcast-activates-first-users-with-ipv6-nat > ive-dual-sta

Re: Ipv6 for the content provider

On 1/31/2011 11:48 AM, Simon Perreault wrote: works on CentOS 5.5. And there's no documentation for it in "man ip6tables". So it fits the backport hypothesis... Not unexpected. The kernel also handles virtio for kvm. It's nowhere near vanilla. Jack

Re: Level 3's IRR Database

Hi Randy, .-- My secret spy satellite informs me that at 11-01-30 11:18 PM Randy Bush wrote: so i am not sure what your point is. please clarify with a concrete example. Adjusting a route's degree of preference in the selection algorithm based on its validation state only works if it's e

Re: Ipv6 for the content provider

On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 11:53:22 -0600, Blake Hudson wrote > > # ip6tables -A INPUT -m state --state ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT > I guess the next question is whether or not it actually works correctly You can open/shut ports but you can't do anything with connection state (RELATED, ESTABLISHED, ect)

Re: Level 3's IRR Database

On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 6:17 PM, Andree Toonk wrote: > > Now AS17557 start to announce a more specific: 208.65.153.0/24. Validators > would classify this as Invalid (2). Would it be classified as invalid or unknown? Or are both possible depending on whether 208.65.153.0/24 is signed? Do these two

2011.01.31 NANOG51 day 1 morning session notes posted

I've posted my notes from the morning session of NANOG51 from Miami up at http://kestrel3.netflight.com/2011.01.31-NANOG51-morning-notes.txt Congratulations, Josh, on the acquisition; wish I'd been able to fly out and join in the celebration. :) As always, apologies to everyone for slaughtering

Re: Ipv6 for the content provider

On Mon, 31 Jan 2011, Simon Perreault wrote: The command # ip6tables -A INPUT -m state --state ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT works on CentOS 5.5. And there's no documentation for it in "man ip6tables". So it fits the backport hypothesis... While it may accept it, you may find it doesn't really work t

Re: Level 3's IRR Database

On 1/31/2011 12:40 PM, Dongting Yu wrote: Would it be classified as invalid or unknown? Or are both possible depending on whether 208.65.153.0/24 is signed? Do these two cases differ in this particular case? Based on the draft it is invalid, as the shorter covering prefix is signed, so the l

Re: Ipv6 for the content provider

On Monday, January 31, 2011 01:29:18 pm Randy McAnally wrote: > The solution is to manually build your own kernel from a vanilla source, along > with all the problems that entails. There's also the RH eMRG rt kernel which is built on substantially newer sources. You'll need to rebuild it yoursel

Re: Level 3's IRR Database

On 31 Jan 2011, at 19:40, Dongting Yu wrote: > On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 6:17 PM, Andree Toonk wrote: >> >> Now AS17557 start to announce a more specific: 208.65.153.0/24. Validators >> would classify this as Invalid (2). > > Would it be classified as invalid or unknown? Or are both possible > d

Re: Level 3's IRR Database

I think the issue is not between valid vs invalid, but that using route-maps and local preference a "more specific not valid" route would be used over another "less specific valid" because of the routing decision process, right? Perhaps this would help? http://www.ietf.org/mai

MS-SMB2

Did anybody know from when or from which Service Pack was introduced SMB2 on Windows XP? The official documentation MS-SMB2 (v20101230) say SMB2 is only supported on Vista, Seven, 2008 and 2008 R2 while it seems (i may be wrong) supported on XP SP3? Thank you

Re: Level 3's IRR Database

On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 1:17 PM, Andree Toonk wrote: > Hi Randy, > > .-- My secret spy satellite informs me that at 11-01-30 11:18 PM  Randy Bush > wrote: > >> so i am not sure what your point is.  please clarify with a concrete >> example. > > Adjusting a route's degree of preference in the selec

Re: Level 3's IRR Database

On Jan 31, 2011, at 3:11 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote: >> I understand this is by design, but I can imagine some operators will be >> reluctant to actually drop routes when they start testing RPKI deployments >> in their networks. > > yes, but what is the way forward? RPKI in my IPv6? :) Someo

Re: Level 3's IRR Database

>> well, i am not sure you want to discard it. this is where the op has to >> make a decision. in a world of partial deployment and ops and customers >> still learning how to deal with this stuff, should it be discarded? > > I agree and definitely understand the turnup viewpoint. However, RPKI i

Re: Level 3's IRR Database

.-- My secret spy satellite informs me that at 11-01-31 12:11 PM Christopher Morrow wrote: I understand this is by design, but I can imagine some operators will be reluctant to actually drop routes when they start testing RPKI deployments in their networks. yes, but what is the way forward?

Re: MS-SMB2

Manu Chao wrote: Did anybody know from when or from which Service Pack was introduced SMB2 on Windows XP? The official documentation MS-SMB2 (v20101230) say SMB2 is only supported on Vista, Seven, 2008 and 2008 R2 while it seems (i may be wrong) supported on XP SP3? Only Windows Vista and hig

Re: Level 3's IRR Database

> Jack already sort of explained what I meant, but here's an example > > Assume that youtube's prefix had a roa like this > Origin ASN: AS36561 > Prefixes: 208.65.152.0/22 > > Now AS17557 start to announce a more specific: 208.65.153.0/24. > Validators would classify this as Invalid (2

Re: Level 3's IRR Database

>> Now AS17557 start to announce a more specific: 208.65.153.0/24. >> Validators would classify this as Invalid (2). > Would it be classified as invalid or unknown? invalid > Or are both possible no. the result is a single value > depending on whether 208.65.153.0/24 is signed? roas, which a

Re: IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links

> I setup a p2p /127 link and found that BGP would not peer over the > link; on whose equipment and image? randy

Re: Level 3's IRR Database

On 1/31/2011 3:06 PM, Randy Bush wrote: some folk will want to drop that, i encourage them to, and have done my best to see that they have the capability to do so. i am in that camp. I definitely recommend it as BCP. others fear rir and black helicopter control of their routing. they may

Re: IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links

Original Message Subject: Re: IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links From: Randy Bush To: Blake Hudson Cc: nanog@nanog.org Date: Monday, January 31, 2011 3:26:26 PM >> I setup a p2p /127 link and found that BGP would not peer over the >> link; > on whose equipment and image?

Re: Verizon acquiring Terremark

One cannot be owned by a carrier and remain carrier neutral. My two cents, Jeff On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 10:50 AM, Scott Howard wrote: > >From all accounts it will remain carrier neutral. > > http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2011/01/28/verizon-terremark-will-remain-carrier-neutral/ > >

Re: Level 3's IRR Database

>> others fear rir and black helicopter control of their routing. they >> may not want to drop the 'bad' announcement. i tried to document how >> they might do so. > > I think this is fine. It will fix a few minor problems (the problem > network will have to be the same length or shorter to be i

Re: [arin-announce] ARIN Resource Certification Update

On 31 Jan 2011, at 04:25, Paul Vixie wrote: > the reasoning you're describing is what we had in mind when we built DLV > as an early deployment aid for DNSSEC. we had to "break stiction" where > if there were no validators there would be incentive to sign, and if > there were no signatures there

Re: Level 3's IRR Database

On 1/31/2011 3:45 PM, Randy Bush wrote: i have another half which fears that we have not completely connected the dots between the egyptian net shut off of their nets and the media interests who own the us government shutting off domain names without a court order. I agree, which is why I ha

Re: IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links

On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 09:13, Blake Hudson wrote: > I setup a p2p /127 link and found that BGP would not peer over the link; > Changing to /126 resolved the problem. I never looked into it further > because I had intended to use /126 from the start. My guess is that > while BGP should be a u

Re: Level 3's IRR Database

On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 3:55 PM, Andree Toonk wrote: > .-- My secret spy satellite informs me that at 11-01-31 12:11 PM Christopher > Morrow wrote: >> yes, but what is the way forward? > > Not sure, that was my original question: > Are there any suggestions or recommendations for how to handle th

Re: Connectivity status for Egypt

As an update, BGP for Noor.net has been withdrawn. Even the Egyptian stock exchange - egyptse.com - now appears to be off the Internet. DNS for egyptse.com also appears to be down, but Noor.net is definitely withdrawn : dig www.noor.net ; <<>> DiG 9.6.0-APPLE-P2 <<>> www.noor.net ;; global opt

2011.01.31 NANOG51 day 1 afternoon session notes

I've posted my notes from the afternoon sessions, including the lighting talks, at http://kestrel3.netflight.com/2011.01.31-NANOG51-afternoon-notes.txt for those are are following along remotely, or catching up after a good round of meetings at the bar. :) Have fun at the beer and gear--sorry I

Re: Connectivity status for Egypt

On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 2:14 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote: > As an update, BGP for Noor.net has been withdrawn. Even the Egyptian stock > exchange - egyptse.com - now appears to be off the Internet. > > Yep, Noor is now down. Those on the ground with Noor DSL in Cairo contacted their front line sup

Re: Connectivity status for Egypt

Hi, Danny. > Does anyone has a list of routes that are still up, and seem to correlate > with Egyptian locations? Andree's last list is here: > http://bgpmon.net/egypt-routes-jan29-2011.txt We see the following ASNs presently: ASN CC AS Name 6762| IT | SEABONE-NET TELECOM ITALI

Re: Connectivity status for Egypt

On Jan 31, 2011, at 5:41 PM, Danny O'Brien wrote: > On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 2:14 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote: > >> As an update, BGP for Noor.net has been withdrawn. Even the Egyptian stock >> exchange - egyptse.com - now appears to be off the Internet. >> >> > Yep, Noor is now down. Collatera

Re: IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links

>>> I setup a p2p /127 link and found that BGP would not peer over the >>> link; >> on whose equipment and image? > This was with a cisco 7200 - IOS 12.4 over a HE tunnel. /me suspects tunnel

Re: Verizon acquiring Terremark

> One cannot be owned by a carrier and remain carrier neutral. i bet you also don't believe in santa claus randy

quietly....

039/8 APNIC 2011-01 whois.apnic.net ALLOCATED 106/8 APNIC 2011-01 whois.apnic.net ALLOCATED ... whimper ...

Re: Connectivity status for Egypt

On Jan 28, 2011, at 8:32 AM, Mirjam Kuehne wrote: > Hi, > > We did some analysis of the situation in Egypt using the RIPEstat toolbox > (please note, this is a prototype and we're not sure how it will handle a big > load): > > http://labs.ripe.net/Members/akvadrako/live_eqyptian_internet_inci

Re: quietly....

> 039/8 APNIC 2011-01 whois.apnic.net ALLOCATED > 106/8 APNIC 2011-01 whois.apnic.net ALLOCATED it's been on most of the lists. sunny will probably post to nanog shortly. the announcement is really well phrased, but i will not steal sunny's thunder. randy

Re: quietly....

On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 3:25 PM, bill manning wrote: > > 039/8 APNIC 2011-01 whois.apnic.net ALLOCATED > 106/8 APNIC 2011-01 whois.apnic.net ALLOCATED > > ...  whimper ... > Almost a sigh, actually; though in a moment of horrid thread convergence and poor taste, there was some question being toss

Re: Level 3's IRR Database

> I think the issue is not between valid vs invalid, but that using > route-maps and local preference a "more specific not valid" route > would be used over another "less specific valid" because of the > routing decision process, right? in a word, no please read draft-pmohapat-sidr-pfx-validate

Re: quietly....

That was it :-) so long IPv4! It's been a great ride! As good old Frank said, "And now, the end is near, we face the final curtain..." cheers! Carlos On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 9:28 PM, Randy Bush wrote: >> 039/8 APNIC 2011-01 whois.apnic.net ALLOCATED >> 106/8 APNIC 2011-01 whois.apnic.net ALLOC

Re: Connectivity status for Egypt

Hi Danny, .-- My secret spy satellite informs me that at 11-01-31 2:41 PM Danny O'Brien wrote: Does anyone has a list of routes that are still up, and seem to correlate with Egyptian locations? Andree's last list is here: http://bgpmon.net/egypt-routes-jan29-2011.txt Here's an updated list

RE: Connectivity status for Egypt

> Here's an updated list: > http://www.bgpmon.net/egypt-routes-jan31-2011.txt Some decent opportunities for route aggregation in that list...

39/8 and 106/8 allocated to APNIC

Hi, The IANA IPv4 registry has been updated to reflect the allocation of two IPv4 /8 blocks to APNIC in January 2011: 39/8 and 106/8. 39/8 APNIC 2011-01 whois.apnic.net ALLOCATED 106/8 APNIC 2011-01 whois.apnic.net ALLOCATED You can find the IANA IPv4 registry at: http://www.ian

Re: Collos in Memphis, TN and Louisville, KY?

I don't of any specifically in both locations, however Peak10 is in Louisville as well as Nashville (if that is close enough). And I've been very happy with them. -- Brian Smith On 01/27/2011 10:08 PM, Graham Wooden wrote: Hi folks, Can anyone recommend any collo's in both Memphis TN and Lo

RE: quietly....

I thought there are still 5 /8's left in IANA. -Original Message- From: Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo [mailto:carlosm3...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 4:36 PM To: NANOG Subject: Re: quietly That was it :-) so long IPv4! It's been a great ride! As good old Frank said, "And no

Re: quietly....

I seem to recall there is an automatic endgame for those...? On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 7:20 PM, Patrick Greene wrote: > I thought there are still 5 /8's left in IANA. > > -Original Message- > From: Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo [mailto:carlosm3...@gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 4:36

Re: quietly....

On 1/31/2011 6:20 PM, Patrick Greene wrote: I thought there are still 5 /8's left in IANA. I thought there was an agreement that when there was only 5 /8's, each RIR would be allocated 1 /8, and IANA would be done. :) Jack

Re: quietly....

One each of the remaining /8′s will be allocated to each RIR. Once the RIR’s are out of space in their current supply and they only have this 1 /8 left, it will trigger policies relating to how that /8 will be allocated. ...Skeeve -- Skeeve Stevens, CEO eintellego Pty Ltd - The Networking Spec

Re: quietly....

The last 5 are, by existing agreement, to be allocated 1 per Regional registry immediately after the other /8s are exhausted. This was agreed to some time ago to ensure that no regional was disadvantaged by timing concerns on applications for space as the IANA exhaustion approached. As that has n

Re: quietly....

> Almost a sigh, actually; though in a moment of horrid thread convergence > and poor taste, there was some question being tossed around as to whether > Egypt's space could  be reused, if they're not going to use it after all...   > :/ That's sounds like those bad jokes that some jerks tell at a f

Re: quietly....

On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 4:22 PM, Jack Bates wrote: > On 1/31/2011 6:20 PM, Patrick Greene wrote: >> >> I thought there are still 5 /8's left in IANA. >> > I thought there was an agreement that when there was only 5 /8's, each RIR > would be allocated 1 /8, and IANA would be done. :) > > Jack It'

Re: quietly....

They are effectively gone, will be allocated in coming days or weeks, 1 per RIR. This is per global IANA policy. regards Carlos On 1/31/11 10:20 PM, Patrick Greene wrote: > I thought there are still 5 /8's left in IANA. > > -Original Message- > From: Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo [mailto:carl

APNIC description: "unknown"

Hello, sorry for possibly trite question, but what does this ">>UNKNOWN<<" mean? e.g.: > NetworkOrigin AS Description > 41.222.79.0/24 36938 >>UNKNOWN<< quote from: http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-add-IANA Cheers, Vladimir

Re: Collos in Memphis, TN and Louisville, KY?

If you're looking in Memphis, I would at least try WorldSpice, it is an independent based out of Memphis that I have had a good bit of experience with, know the owner, etc. I say try because I have not personally seen their new data facility, so I cannot affirm what the new space looks like. -Blak

Re: APNIC description: "unknown"

On Jan 31, 2011, at 6:32 PM, Vovan wrote: > Hello, > > sorry for possibly trite question, but what does this ">>UNKNOWN<<" mean? > e.g.: > > > NetworkOrigin AS Description > > 41.222.79.0/24 36938 >>UNKNOWN<< > > quote from: http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-add-

Re: Verizon acquiring Terremark

On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote: > One cannot be owned by a carrier and remain carrier neutral. > My two cents, Agreed. An organization being a fully owned subsidiary of one carrier, and claiming to be completely carrier neutral, is an indelible conflict of interest; a highl

Re: Collos in Memphis, TN and Louisville, KY?

Thanks Blake and Brian. WorldSpice has come up as a potential location in Memphis; can you forward me off-list your contact¹s info? Much appreciated. -graham On 1/31/11 9:00 PM, "Blake Dunlap" wrote: > If you're looking in Memphis, I would at least try WorldSpice, it is an > independent base

Re: IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links

On 1/31/11 9:13 AM, Blake Hudson wrote: > > I setup a p2p /127 link and found that BGP would not peer over the link; > Changing to /126 resolved the problem. I never looked into it further > because I had intended to use /126 from the start. My guess is that > while BGP should be a unicast IP, Cis

Re: Verizon acquiring Terremark

On Mon, 31 Jan 2011, Jimmy Hess wrote: On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote: One cannot be owned by a carrier and remain carrier neutral. My two cents, Agreed. An organization being a fully owned subsidiary of one carrier, and claiming to be completely carrier neutral, is an

Re: quietly....

On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 5:36 PM, Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo wrote: > That was it :-) so long IPv4! It's been a great ride! IPv4's not dead yet; even the first RIR exhaustion probable in 3 - 6 months doesn't end the IPv4 ride. There is some hope more IPv4 organizations will start thinking about

Re: APNIC description: "unknown"

Some times they're not so anonymous :) 122.200.40.0/21 38272 >>UNKNOWN<< "Sonargaon Online Limited(SOL) is the leading Internet Service Provider in Dhaka" " 40/1, Rahman Plaza Shahid Faruk Road (4th Floor) Jatrabari,

Re: Verizon acquiring Terremark

Don't take this the wrong way but vote with your feet if you don't like it. Taken to its logical conclusion this is the "no one person or corporate entity is 'neutral'" rationale/argument - so what? For-profit business organizations (both VZ and TMRK are publicly traded for-profit with sharehol

Re: quietly....

On 1/31/2011 9:55 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote: There is some hope more IPv4 organizations will start thinking about their plans for establishing connectivity with IPv6; so they can commmunicate with IPv6-only hosts that will begin to emerge later. Until the core networks fix their peering relationshi

Re: quietly....

On Jan 31, 2011, at 7:55 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote: > On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 5:36 PM, Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo > wrote: >> That was it :-) so long IPv4! It's been a great ride! > > IPv4's not dead yet; even the first RIR exhaustion probable in 3 - > 6 months doesn't end the IPv4 ride. > > Ther

Re: quietly....

On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 9:55 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote: > > IPv4's not dead yet; even the first RIR exhaustion probable in 3 - > 6 months doesn't end the IPv4 ride. > > There is some hope more IPv4 organizations will start thinking about > their plans for establishing connectivity with IPv6; so t

Re: APNIC description: "unknown"

Interesting... "The Leadig Provider in Dhaka" is using hijacked addresses. Owen On Jan 31, 2011, at 8:00 PM, Richard Barnes wrote: > Some times they're not so anonymous :) > > 122.200.40.0/21 38272 >>UNKNOWN<< > > > > "Sonargaon Online Limited(SOL) is the lead

Re: Verizon acquiring Terremark

On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 10:00 PM, Ernie Rubi wrote: [snip] > shareholders and dividends to pay out) engage in competition and cannot be > 'neutral' in at least one definition of the word. There is nothing wrong with a non-neutral facility, being a non-neutral operator of a facility, or locating

Re: APNIC description: "unknown"

On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 11:14 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > Interesting... "The Leadig Provider in Dhaka" is using hijacked addresses. botswana (not the same direct area. but one I happened to notice this same thing happening with this weekend) ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;bw.

Re: quietly....

Has there been any discussion about allocating the Class E blocks? If this doesn't count as "future use" what does? (Yes, I realize this doesn't *fix* the problem here) -Jeremy On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 10:15 PM, Jack Carrozzo wrote: > On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 9:55 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote: > > > > >

Re: APNIC description: "unknown"

and who is the upstream ISP that allows the AS to propagate? http://bgp.he.net/AS36938#_graph4 aut-num:AS37004 as-name:SUBURBAN-AS descr: Sub-Urban Telecom organisation: ORG-ST1-AFRINIC org-name: Suburban Telecom org-type: LIR descr: LIR Xtra Small

Re: APNIC description: "unknown"

On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 23:14:10 -0500, Owen DeLong wrote: Interesting... "The Leadig Provider in Dhaka" is using hijacked addresses. Not according to APNIC... % [whois.apnic.net node-5] % Whois data copyright termshttp://www.apnic.net/db/dbcopyright.html inetnum:122.200.40.0 - 122.

Re: APNIC description: "unknown"

curses arin-restful-output! $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net 168.167.168.34 % This is the AfriNIC Whois server. % Note: this output has been filtered. % Information related to '168.167.0.0 - 168.167.255.255' inetnum:168.167.0.0 - 168.167.255.255 netname:BOTSNET descr: Botsw

  1   2   >