Re: filtering /48 is going to be necessary

Hi all, > Hi, > >> What should happen is this "quasi-legitimate" method of >> multi-homing should just be declared illegitimate for IPv6, to >> facilitate stricter filtering. Instead, what should happen is the >> multi-homing should be required to fit into one of 3 scenarios, so >> any announ

Re: BGP MD5 at IXP

On 9 Mar 2012, at 22:24, Jay Hanke wrote: > How critical is BGP MD5 at Internet Exchange Points? Would lack of > support for MD5 authentication on route servers prevent some peers > from multilaterally connecting? Do most exchange operators support it? At LONAP in London, the route-servers do no

Re: Questions about anycasting setup

Steve Gibbard (scg) writes: > I have no idea what Cisco equipment Elmar is using, but I wouldn't jump to > the conclusion that it can't withdraw routes when needed. Wouldn't the dns bit of ip sla do most of what's needed on IOS ? http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/12_4/ip_sla/c

Re: filtering /48 is going to be necessary

On Mar 9, 2012, at 11:01 PM, George Bonser wrote: >> I haven't heard anyone advocate accepting less than a /48. I think /48 >> is a reasonable "You must be this tall to ride" barrier. >> >> Beyond that, YMMV. >> >> Owen > > Apparently AS6939 has at various times :) I remember getting some /64

Re: BGP MD5 at IXP

Andy Davidson writes: > Because TCP MD5 packets touch a router's CPU, using MD5 introduces a > new attack vector - see nanogii passim > (e.g. http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog39/presentations/Scholl.pdf). > Don't do it. :-) Tom's slide deck is often misinterpreted - the salient parts are on p

Re: Concern about gTLD servers in India

Anurag Bhatia writes: > Can someone share if there's huge difference in . root servers Vs gTLD > servers? I understand that root only hold all TLD's - cc and gTLD > delegation that would be few hundred TLDs delegation while gTLDs hold lot > of domain names but if one country has root, what prev

Re: Concern about gTLD servers in India

On Mar 10, 2012, at 7:02 PM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote: > there are four gtlds Aren't there actually seven? --- Roland Dobbins // Luck is the residue of opportunity and design.

Re: Concern about gTLD servers in India

On 10/03/2012 14:54, Dobbins, Roland wrote: On Mar 10, 2012, at 7:02 PM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote: there are four gtlds Aren't there actually seven? According to ICANN[1] there are "roughly two dozen gTLDs" [1] http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about -- Graham Beneke

Re: Concern about gTLD servers in India

In article <95f7df59-052d-43ba-869f-289df915c...@arbor.net> you write: > >On Mar 10, 2012, at 7:02 PM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote: > >> there are four gtlds > >Aren't there actually seven? Including the new IDN TLDs, there are now 60. R's, John aero. 172800 IN NS a0.ae

Re: AT&T home DSL IPv6 configuration?

Op 10 mrt 2012, om 03:40 heeft Chris Adams het volgende geschreven: > > Can anybody tell me how they are configuring their IPv6 setup? They deploy using 6rd. In other words, they get to deploy IPv6 _again_ in about a few years time. Basically any router with 6rd support and the knobs in the u

Re: filtering /48 is going to be necessary

On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 12:52 AM, George Bonser wrote: >> I'm well into my second decade of having a v6 prefix in the dfz and am >> passingly familiar with powers of two... > Point is that expecting people globally to take a /48 from PA space probably > isn't a realistic expectation. Exactly

Re: AS Connectivity Lookup

bgptables.merit.edu On Mar 7, 2012 2:06 PM, "Radke, Justin" wrote: > All great answers! Thank you! > > -=JGR > > On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 10:35 AM, David Walker >wrote: > > > On 08/03/2012, Anurag Bhatia wrote: > > > Hi Radke > > > > > > You can try http://bgp.he.net > > > > Example: > > http://b

Re: Concern about gTLD servers in India

> In article <95f7df59-052d-43ba-869f-289df915c...@arbor.net> you write: >> On Mar 10, 2012, at 7:02 PM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote: >> >>> there are four gtlds >> Aren't there actually seven? > Including the new IDN TLDs, there are now 60. well there are the legacy (pre-2000) set. there are

Re: Concern about gTLD servers in India

On Mar 10, 2012, at 7:24 AM, John Levine wrote: > In article <95f7df59-052d-43ba-869f-289df915c...@arbor.net> you write: >> >> On Mar 10, 2012, at 7:02 PM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote: >>> there are four gtlds >> Aren't there actually seven? > Including the new IDN TLDs, there are now 60. The IDN TL

Re: [apnic-talk] Concern about gTLD servers in India

On Mar 10, 2012, at 1:28 AM, Anurag Bhatia wrote: > Can someone share if there's huge difference in . root servers Vs gTLD > servers? Yes, there is a huge difference. For one thing (and ignoring the quantity of data), the operations of a gTLD's name servers is managed by a single entity (e.g.,

Re: Concern about gTLD servers in India

Sure, if you can find a datacenter that's capable of handling all the traffic, and has staff who are able to provide efficient remote hands for huge racks of extremely powerful servers .. and are possibly also open to cross subsidizing the costs that GTLD operators will incur to host instances of t

Re: Concern about gTLD servers in India

The IDN TLDs (to date, with the exception of the test IDN TLDs) are more properly considered ccTLDs as they are the localized version of country names. Good point. Also, one could make a distinction between sponsored TLDs and generic TLDs, but that's probably splitting hairs. I suppose, bu

Re: Concern about gTLD servers in India

On 3/10/12 08:05 , Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Sure, if you can find a datacenter that's capable of handling all the > traffic, and has staff who are able to provide efficient remote hands for > huge racks of extremely powerful servers .. and are possibly also open to > cross subsidizing the co

Re: Concern about gTLD servers in India

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On Mar 9, 2012, at 11:05 PM, Graham Beneke wrote: > There appear to be no anycast instances of the gTLD servers in Africa either. That's not the case. .ORG, for example, is hosted in Cape Town and Cairo, and we host more than a hundred ccTLDs in

Re: [apnic-talk] Concern about gTLD servers in India

Thanks for info Mr Bill. What about India? Do you see any gTLD instances in India? On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 12:04 AM, Bill Woodcock wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA256 > > > On Mar 9, 2012, at 11:05 PM, Graham Beneke wrote: > > There appear to be no anycast instances of t

Re: Concern about gTLD servers in India

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On Mar 10, 2012, at 8:05 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Sure, if you can find a datacenter that's capable of handling all the > traffic, and has staff who are able to provide efficient remote hands for > huge racks of extremely powerful servers

Re: Concern about gTLD servers in India

Yes of course, if you don't count the multi gbps DDoS attacks and such .. On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 11:30 PM, Joel jaeggli wrote: > > DNS even at scale is not a particularly compute intensive service. > > That said whether it's worth it or not is in the eyes of operator. -- Suresh Ramasubram

Re: Concern about gTLD servers in India

>> Also, one could make a distinction between sponsored TLDs and >> generic TLDs, but that's probably splitting hairs. > > I suppose, but they all have similar registry and registrar agreements > with ICANN, which is what makes them different from ccTLDs. at present there are almost as many subst

Re: Concern about gTLD servers in India

On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Bill Woodcock wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA256 > > > On Mar 10, 2012, at 8:05 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> Sure, if you can find a datacenter that's capable of handling all the >> traffic, and has staff who are able to provide eff

Re: Concern about gTLD servers in India

On 3/10/12 3:23 PM, Jonathan Lassoff wrote: > I would presume that Verisign decided that it just wasn't worth the > effort to deploy into India. operational control of .in passed to a for-profit operator domiciled in one_of{us,ca,ie} other than VGRS. as india is a competitor's property, investment

Re: filtering /48 is going to be necessary

well... we actually intend to just announce /64's and smaller as well. i don't see the problem with that. just get routers with enough memory... i'm rather for a "specification" of a minimum supported route-size (let's say something along the lines of 64GB in each border router, it's 2012 aft

Re: filtering /48 is going to be necessary

we also should have expanded the ASN to minimum 64 bits at the time it was expanded to 32 bit for exactly the same reason btw. there -are- some technical reasons why /64's would be practical as "end-site" stuff, and if we want to be able to make all those end site networks independant, we'd ne

Re: filtering /48 is going to be necessary

and anyway, the average visit to facebook is still more data than the entire ipv6 route table at the moment. we might also want to speed up bgp handling by routers a bit in the future, as some are DAMN SLOW in processing a few hundred thousand sets of data... (no people, it's NOT acceptable wh

Re: filtering /48 is going to be necessary

On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 5:47 PM, Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote: > just get routers with enough memory... > > i'm rather for a "specification" of a minimum supported route-size (let's > say something along the lines of 64GB in each border router, it's 2012 after > all ;) than for putting limits on the p

root zone stats

Since there was a question about this, some numbers: Serial: 2012031001 Statistics == Number of root servers: 13 Roots with IPv6 glue: 9 Number of gTLDs: 22 Number of ccTLDs:249 Number of IDN TLDs: 42 Total number of T

Re: filtering /48 is going to be necessary

On 3/10/12 2:47 PM, Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote: > well... we actually intend to just announce /64's and smaller as well. > > i don't see the problem with that. > > just get routers with enough memory... > > i'm rather for a "specification" of a minimum supported route-size > (let's say something a

Re: filtering /48 is going to be necessary

On 3/10/12 14:47 , Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote: > let's say, there is 6 billion people in the world.. if they all have 1 > route table entry (average ;) i see no technical limitations on anything > produced AFTER 2008 actually. Over in ipv4 land there are ~40k entities that appear in the dfz internet

Re: Concern about gTLD servers in India

On Mar 10, 2012, at 2:05 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote: > On 3/10/12 3:23 PM, Jonathan Lassoff wrote: >> I would presume that Verisign decided that it just wasn't worth the >> effort to deploy into India. > > operational control of .in passed to a for-profit operator domiciled > in one_of{us,c

Re: filtering /48 is going to be necessary

On Mar 10, 2012, at 6:08 AM, Jimmy Hess wrote: > On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 12:52 AM, George Bonser wrote: >>> I'm well into my second decade of having a v6 prefix in the dfz and am >>> passingly familiar with powers of two... >> Point is that expecting people globally to take a /48 from PA space p

Re: filtering /48 is going to be necessary

On Mar 10, 2012, at 4:00 PM, Joel jaeggli wrote: > On 3/10/12 14:47 , Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote: >> let's say, there is 6 billion people in the world.. if they all have 1 >> route table entry (average ;) i see no technical limitations on anything >> produced AFTER 2008 actually. > > Over in ipv4

Re: Concern about gTLD servers in India

On 03/10/2012 04:38 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > On Mar 10, 2012, at 2:05 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote: > >> On 3/10/12 3:23 PM, Jonathan Lassoff wrote: >>> I would presume that Verisign decided that it just wasn't worth >>> the effort to deploy into India. >> >> operational control of .in pass

Re: Concern about gTLD servers in India

> I can tell you with 100% certainty that when I was responsible for > handling ccTLD delegation changes that we took the issue of ccTLDs being > operated for the benefit of the Internet community in that country, and > the global Internet community as a whole, very seriously. I have no > reason to

Re: Concern about gTLD servers in India

On Mar 10, 2012, at 6:38 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > The more telling fallacy here that really speaks to the heart of why I am > dismayed and disappointed by ICANN's management of the whole TLD mess is the > idea that a CCTLD is the property of a TLD operator to begin with. Your dismay and disappoi

BellSouth (att?) with a clue in Raleigh, NC

Hi, I am trying to look into dsl in the RDU area and at&t customer service has been exceedingly unhelpful only telling me "no service available, we have no idea when services will become available, check back periodically". I would atleast like to get an answer that theres no available capacity, i

Re: BellSouth (att?) with a clue in Raleigh, NC

Google for their Uverse site and check if u can get it... They will do Uverse (Internet only). Only if u order online Faisal Sent from my iPhone On Mar 10, 2012, at 9:02 PM, chris wrote: > Hi, > > I am trying to look into dsl in the RDU area and at&t customer service has > been exceeding

Re: BellSouth (att?) with a clue in Raleigh, NC

Looks like no dice on uverse, says its not available. i thought uverse was fios though atleast that was my understanding. now im even more confused, how can att/bellsouth be the ILEC and have zero internet options at all but be offering pots? Only logical thing I can think of is distance from the C

RE: BellSouth (att?) with a clue in Raleigh, NC

Generally speaking these services are available anywhere AT&T has wires: Analog ISDN T1 due to these being the old tariffed services. If you call about ISDN, they will likely say, huh what is that? The easiest way to get T1 in service is to use a reseller. They will be deal with the ILEC for you.

Re: Concern about gTLD servers in India

You mean you haven't then immediately heard the "we are a developing country, please provide it free" story? On 3/11/12, Jonathan Lassoff wrote: > On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Bill Woodcock wrote: >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- >> Hash: SHA256 >> >> >> On Mar 10, 2012, at 8:05 AM, S

Re: BellSouth (att?) with a clue in Raleigh, NC

On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 9:02 PM, chris wrote: > I am trying to look into dsl in the RDU area and at&t customer service has > been exceedingly unhelpful only telling me "no service available, we have > no idea when services will become available, check back periodically". > I would atleast like to

Re: BellSouth (att?) with a clue in Raleigh, NC

On 3/10/12 6:34 PM, chris wrote: > Looks like no dice on uverse, says its not available. i thought uverse was > fios though atleast that was my understanding. now im even more confused, > how can att/bellsouth be the ILEC and have zero internet options at all but > be offering pots? Only logical th