Re: Remember "Internet-In-A-Box"?

So, if i get this right. The problem is not quite as bad to fix. It just needs a dnscache/dnsproxy process bound to the ipv4 localhost that uses the ipv6 dns server. Basically what dnsmasq does. Biggest problem is that it wouldn't follow autoconfigure and thus require manual intervention. That is

Re: Remember "Internet-In-A-Box"?

> On Jul 16, 2015, at 00:34 , Seth Mos wrote: > > So, if i get this right. The problem is not quite as bad to fix. > > It just needs a dnscache/dnsproxy process bound to the ipv4 localhost that > uses the ipv6 dns server. > > Basically what dnsmasq does. Biggest problem is that it wouldn't fo

Re: Remember "Internet-In-A-Box"?

In message <20150716060336.ga4...@bamboo.slabnet.com>, Hugo Slabbert writes: > --snip-- > > >You can blame the religious zealots that insisted that everything > >DHCP does has to also be done via RA's. This means that everyone > >has to implement everything twice. Something Google should have >

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 15/Jul/15 17:49, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: > > There isn't any technical reason that an organization can't fix its edge > so it doesn't urinate bad IPv6 traffic all over the Internet. Some hardware does not support uRPF, for example. ACL

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 08:13:52PM -0400, Joe Maimon wrote: > Because by doing so, you guarantee failure. I'll take personal responsibility for the class E space not working if that makes you feel better. I suspect it would be easier to get 0.1.0.0-0.255.255.255 to work than 240-2

ISP in NYC

Hi, We are looking to peer with another ISP in NY. My options are: Telia Tata Cogent We currently have (and will keep): HE NTT TELX (They use NTT and HE and we are looking to replace them). We need an ISP that has a good peering/connectivity in Europe and Asia (Israel specific). Any advice on w

Re: Remember "Internet-In-A-Box"?

On Thu 2015-Jul-16 21:19:54 +1000, Mark Andrews wrote: In message <20150716060336.ga4...@bamboo.slabnet.com>, Hugo Slabbert writes: --snip-- >You can blame the religious zealots that insisted that everything >DHCP does has to also be done via RA's. This means that everyone >has to implemen

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

Doug Barton wrote: Joe, In this post, and in your many other posts today, you seem to be asserting that this would work if "$THEY" would just get out of the way, and let it work. You've also said explicitly that you believe that this is an example of top-down dictates. I know you may find th

SEC webpages inaccessible due to Firefox blocking servers with weak DH ciphers

Just ran into this issue this morning. The SEC requires companies to file EDGAR reports on https://edgarfiling.sec.gov. The newer versions of Firefox won't let you access the webpages without manually going into about:config and re-enabling the weak ciphers. Given the recent issue with the OPM,

Re: Speaking of NTP...

Depending on how exactly you have these servers configured with relation to one another, small variations from one single source can be augmented down the line. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propagation_of_uncertainty On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 8:17 AM, Matthew Huff wrote: > We have 5 NTP server

RE: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

Hi, Dual stack is where we need to go 'now', but we need to think about the future where we run an IPv6 only stack and stop thinking how to leverage, extend, expand and create ugly IPv4 solutions. IPv4 is done; it served its purpose well, thank you. We need a date where IPv4 is no longer routed

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

Yeah wow 127/8, that one always amazed me, 16M addrs because it was computationally cheap to test for ((0x7f & addr) == 0x7f). I wonder what are the most 127.* addrs ever used by one site? I know there are some schemes which blackhole to 127.0.0.n incrementing n so the number of hits on each blac

Re: 'gray' market IPv4

On 7/15/15 9:59 AM, Lee Howard wrote: > Price varies significantly by prefix length, and somewhat by region. > Regional variance may not be as much as it used to be. Does legacy space command a premium in this? What's the going rate to lease space (say a /20 or /19 for discussion)? -- Bryan Fie

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

On 7/16/15, 11:24 AM, "NANOG on behalf of Joe Maimon" wrote: > > >To clarify, my criticism of top down is specifically in response to the >rationale presented that it is a valid objective to prevent, hinder and >refuse to enable efforts that "compete" with ipv6 world-takeover >resources. I don

Re: 'gray' market IPv4

On 7/16/15, 12:47 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Bryan Fields" wrote: >On 7/15/15 9:59 AM, Lee Howard wrote: >> Price varies significantly by prefix length, and somewhat by region. >> Regional variance may not be as much as it used to be. > >Does legacy space command a premium in this? >From what I u

RE: Speaking of NTP...

I have had a consistent 10ms offset on a set of servers for the last 5 years. After extensive one-way tracing, it turns out there is a 20ms asymmetry "within" the Seattle Westin colo between HE & Comcast, causing all the IPv6 peers appearing over the HE tunnel to be 10ms offset from everything e

Re: Speaking of NTP...

Thanks. We have always had a few outliers, but we have never had a large number of external NTP have a consistent offset, and not one as big as 10ms. Something changed last Friday, probably at some peering point that caused the issue. Maybe a symmetric path got created to route around some outag

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

Jacques Latour wrote: Hi, Dual stack is where we need to go 'now', but we need to think about the future where we run an IPv6 only stack and stop thinking how to leverage, extend, expand and create ugly IPv4 solutions. IPv4 is done; it served its purpose well, thank you. We need a date wher

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

Lee Howard wrote: I don¹t see anybody hindering any efforts; I don¹t see any efforts. There were efforts in the past. I am highlighting our malfeasance as a community in our past behavior. I have little hope of it changing in the future, but I can vent about it every couple years or so.

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

In message <55a812a1.6020...@ttec.com>, Joe Maimon writes: > > > Jacques Latour wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Dual stack is where we need to go 'now', but we need to think about the fut > ure where we run an IPv6 only stack and stop thinking how to leverage, extend > , expand and create ugly IPv4 solut

IPv6 CPE best practices

So, I've been following this IPv6 discussion for a while now. Putting much more thought into it than ever before. What I've gathered so far: We need both SLAAC and DHPCv6 on CPE router to support all end clients. Android and some other platforms still have some issues with a v6-addressed DNS

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

>Just as nobody is preventing you from going ipv6 only right now, I >advocate against hindering anybody going ipv4 only for as long as they >want/can. Nobody's hindering you. You can get NAT boxes of all shapes and sizes. If you want to mess around with class E addresses on your own network, g

Re: IPv6 CPE best practices

In message <02d301d0c012$b4f39130$1edab390$@gmail.com>, "Chuck Church" writes: > So, I've been following this IPv6 discussion for a while now. Putting much > more thought into it than ever before. What I've gathered so far: > > > > We need both SLAAC and DHPCv6 on CPE router to support all e

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

John Levine wrote: Just as nobody is preventing you from going ipv6 only right now, I advocate against hindering anybody going ipv4 only for as long as they want/can. But you're asking other people to spend their own time and money to change their equipment to handle class E. For reasons

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

On 17 July 2015 at 00:29, Joe Maimon wrote: > All I am advocating is that if ever another draft standard comes along to > enable people to try and make something of it, lead follow or get out of > the way. > If I understand correctly you want someone (not you) to write a RFC that changes the wor

RE: Remember "Internet-In-A-Box"?

Internet in a box. Wasn't that the Japanese thing with the Woody Woodpecker logo and the (translated) English text: "Touch Woody, the Internet pecker"? Didn't go over to well in English speaking parts as I recall ...

Re: Remember "Internet-In-A-Box"?

On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 22:32:19 -0400, Mark Andrews wrote: You can blame the religious zealots that insisted that everything DHCP does has to also be done via RA's. I blame the anti-DHCP crowd for a lot of things. RAs are just dumb. There's a reason IPv4 can do *everything* through DHCP -- hell

Re: Remember "Internet-In-A-Box"?

>Internet in a box. > >Wasn't that the Japanese thing with the Woody Woodpecker logo and the >(translated) English text: "Touch Woody, the Internet pecker"? > >Didn't go over to well in English speaking parts as I recall ... But it eventually evolved into ChatRoulette. -- Dave Pooser Cat-Herder-

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

On Thu, 16 Jul 2015 18:29:48 -0400, Joe Maimon said: > All I am advocating is that if ever another draft standard comes along > to enable people to try and make something of it, lead follow or get out > of the way. The problem is that if everybody gets out of the way and doesn't follow, your clas

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

On 7/16/15, 4:32 PM, "Joe Maimon" wrote: > > >Lee Howard wrote: >> >> So, you would like to update RFC 1112, which defines and reserves Class >>E? >> That¹s easy enough. If somebody had a use in mind for the space, anybody >> can write such a draft assigning space, which is, I believe, how to >

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

> On Jul 16, 2015, at 15:29 , Joe Maimon wrote: > > > > John Levine wrote: >>> Just as nobody is preventing you from going ipv6 only right now, I >>> advocate against hindering anybody going ipv4 only for as long as they >>> want/can. > > > >> >> But you're asking other people to spend the

Prefix-Hijack by AS7514

Hi, does anyone else see some prefix hijacks from AS7514? They started to announce some of our /24 Thanks & best regards Jürgen Jaritsch Head of Network & Infrastructure ANEXIA Internetdienstleistungs GmbH Telefon: +43-5-0556-300 Telefax: +43-5-0556-500 E-Mail: j...@anexia.at

Re: Prefix-Hijack by AS7514

Seeing the same; a /19. BGPMon reports an alert at 2015-07-17 05:29 (UTC) and that it's being accepted by 2497. -- Hugo Slabbert Stargate Connections - AS19171 -Original Message- Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 06:15:36 + From: Jürgen Jaritsch To: "'nanog@nanog.org'" Subject: Prefix-Hij

AW: Prefix-Hijack by AS7514

We already informed AS2497 but I have no idea if they we'll cooperate. Best regards Jürgen Jaritsch Head of Network & Infrastructure ANEXIA Internetdienstleistungs GmbH Telefon: +43-5-0556-300 Telefax: +43-5-0556-500 E-Mail: j...@anexia.at Web: http://www.anexia.at Anschrift Hauptsitz Klag

Re: Prefix-Hijack by AS7514

At 06:15 17/07/2015 +, Jürgen Jaritsch wrote: Hi, does anyone else see some prefix hijacks from AS7514? They started to announce some of our /24 Worldwide. -Hank Thanks & best regards Jürgen Jaritsch Head of Network & Infrastructure ANEXIA Internetdienstleistungs GmbH Telefon

Re: AW: Prefix-Hijack by AS7514

I contacted 7514. They are aware. -Seiichi On 2015/07/17 15:23, Jürgen Jaritsch wrote: > We already informed AS2497 but I have no idea if they we'll cooperate. > > > Best regards > > > Jürgen Jaritsch > Head of Network & Infrastructure > > ANEXIA Internetdienstleistungs GmbH > > Telefon: +4

AW: AW: Prefix-Hijack by AS7514

Hi, we also sent them an mail, but their MX is not reachable for us :( best regards Jürgen Jaritsch Head of Network & Infrastructure ANEXIA Internetdienstleistungs GmbH Telefon: +43-5-0556-300 Telefax: +43-5-0556-500 E-Mail: j...@anexia.at Web: http://www.anexia.at Anschrift Hauptsitz Klag

Re: AW: Prefix-Hijack by AS7514

At 06:23 17/07/2015 +, Jürgen Jaritsch wrote: We already informed AS2497 but I have no idea if they we'll cooperate. All prefixes I see have the first octet as being 2 digits rather than 3. That is common among about 30 different alerts I have received. Curious if this is common worldwi

AW: AW: Prefix-Hijack by AS7514

Hi, all affected prefixes starts with 37... no other prefixes from AS42473 are affected. Best regards Jürgen Jaritsch Head of Network & Infrastructure ANEXIA Internetdienstleistungs GmbH Telefon: +43-5-0556-300 Telefax: +43-5-0556-500 E-Mail: j...@anexia.at Web: http://www.anexia.at Ansch

Re: AW: AW: Prefix-Hijack by AS7514

I let IIJ know too, hopefully they'll filter it soon. On 7/17/2015 午後 03:30, Jürgen Jaritsch wrote: Hi, we also sent them an mail, but their MX is not reachable for us :( best regards Jürgen Jaritsch Head of Network & Infrastructure ANEXIA Internetdienstleistungs GmbH Telefon: +43-5-0556-3

Re: ISP in NYC

HE uses Telia for Transit. So you won't gain much redundancy there. I would go with Cogent if you have lots of European customers and North American business customers. One not on your list is Level3. They would be strong in that blend too. You might also try joining a peering point. You'll gain a